Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?

[Hobie]

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall so He was born with all the damage done to mans nature during that time. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam, that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations.

Physically, Christ was like us, feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we dont take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging and the inherent traits of genetics. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations. Jesus' mental human nature (tendency toward sin) was that of the unfallen Adam and his physical human nature (physical body) was that after the fall of Adam." and at the same time why it makes it hard to understand. What makes Jesus equal (having no advantage over other human beings), is that he had all the damage done by sin (Adam’s human nature after the fall), but he had what Peter calls 'the Mind of Christ' which was what Adam was given to begin with and Paul speaks of, that man can have and become dead to sin. Thus Christ has no advantage in overcoming sin as through the power of the Holy Spirit we also can have the 'Mind of Christ'.

Philippians 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

 

[Arial]

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall so He was born with all the damage done to mans nature during that time

That would make him born a sinner and a slave to sin. You cannot undo that implication by adding this:

But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam, that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin

Fallen humans do not just have a tendency to sin, they are sinners at their core.

 

[Whatever]

I wrote somewhere before that I wonder if Jesus' virgin birth has something to do with this.
Men have XY Chromosomes and Women have XX Chromosomes.

Does the sin nature pass down through the Y Chromosome? Only men pass the Y Chromosome along.
The Holy Spirit supernaturally fertilized Mary's egg.

Hebrews 7:9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

 

[Arial]

I wrote somewhere before that I wonder if Jesus' virgin birth has something to do with this.
Men have XY Chromosomes and Women have XX Chromosomes.

Does the sin nature pass down through the Y Chromosome? Only men pass the Y Chromosome along.
The Holy Spirit supernaturally fertilized Mary's egg.

Hebrews 7:9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

It is impossible to say if the sin nature is in the Y Chromosome of course. So for me---I surmise that it comes through the male, Adam being our federal head, and even though all women are equally sinners as men, being also in Adam, Jesus was not in Adam in the sense of being a sinner by nature. And yet could be born of a woman, and must be. The plan was established before creation, everything connected and perfectly in place. He also had the two unmixed nature. That of his Father, God, and that of his mother, human.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Luke 1:32 . .The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Not just any Jew can take David's throne. God requires that the man must first of
all be one of David's paternal descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne.

The New Testament verifies Christ is the fruit of David's body spoken of in that
oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:3 . . . His son; descended from David according to the flesh

FAQ: Jesus was virgin-conceived. From when did he obtain a Y chromosome for his
male gender?

REPLY: In the beginning, Eve's entire body-- inside and out, front to back, top to
bottom, and side to side --was constructed with material taken from Adam's body.
(Gen 2:21-22) So if God could construct an entire woman from some material
taken from a man's body, then it shouldn't be too difficult for Him to construct a
teensy little chromosome from a woman's body.

Now the advantage of constructing a Y chromosome from Mary's body is that it
would come of a natural source instead of created ex nihilo: and if perchance Mary
was one of David's paternal granddaughters, then any chromosomes constructed
from her body would be David's chromosomes.
_

 

[Josheb]

Did Jesus inherit sinful flesh nature?

No.

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall so He was born with all the damage done to mans nature during that time.

Completely incorrect. Scripture states he knew no sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21
He made him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

1 John 3:5
You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things just as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 7:26-27
For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

1 Peter 1:17-19
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

This op is Christologically correct in regard to whether or not Jesus inherited any sinful flesh nature. Jesus did not inherit any sinful flesh nature.

 

[fastfredy0]

I wrote somewhere before that I wonder if Jesus' virgin birth has something to do with this.
Men have XY Chromosomes and Women have XX Chromosomes.

Does the sin nature pass down through the Y Chromosome? Only men pass the Y Chromosome along.
The Holy Spirit supernaturally fertilized Mary's egg.

Hebrews 7:9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

I've had similar thoughts. God is under no restrictions. He could make a woman or man birth a toad. But, assuming God wanted to be consistent with our science of genetics I've speculated that both the egg and sperm were created from nothing by God and Mary was a surrogate.

Maybe, if I had written a doctoral thesis for seminary I might have posed this as my thesis to my professors ... *giggle* .... this assumes I get my qualifying junior Sunday school certificate someday first.

 

[Josheb]

I wrote somewhere before that I wonder if Jesus' virgin birth has something to do with this.
Men have XY Chromosomes and Women have XX Chromosomes.

Does the sin nature pass down through the Y Chromosome? Only men pass the Y Chromosome along.
The Holy Spirit supernaturally fertilized Mary's egg.

Hebrews 7:9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

I've had similar thoughts. God is under no restrictions. He could make a woman or man birth a toad. But, assuming God wanted to be consistent with our science of genetics I've speculated that both the egg and sperm were created from nothing by God and Mary was a surrogate.

Maybe, if I had written a doctoral thesis for seminary I might have posed this as my thesis to my professors ... *giggle* .... this assumes I get my qualifying junior Sunday school certificate someday first.

Where does scripture state God used an egg (ovum) of Mary's?

 

[fastfredy0]

Where does scripture state God used an egg (ovum) of Mary's?

No where. The posts are wild speculation. I would speculate that 90-100% of Christians believe God used one of Mary's eggs and that is the basis of subsequent fantasies.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
I've encountered quite a few Christians online who sincerely believe Jesus' mom was
his surrogate mother rather than his natural mother. But of course that's a bad idea
because Jesus was on track to take David's throne. (Luke 1:32)

The thing is: God requires that the man must first of all be one of David's paternal
descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne.

The New Testament verifies Christ is the fruit of David's body spoken of in that
oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:3 . . His son; descended from David according to the flesh

● 2Tim 2:8 . . Remember Jesus Christ . . . descended from David.

FAQ: Was the blood in Jesus' body human blood or God's blood?

REPLY: The thing is: according to Lev 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. So
if the life in Jesus flesh had been due to God's blood instead of David's blood, then
Jesus' flesh would not have been David's flesh; and Jesus would've failed to satisfy
the oath per Ps 132:11 & Acts 2:29-30.

* When the Word of John 1:1-3 came into the world as the flesh of John 1:14, he
didn't come as divine flesh, rather, he came as Jewish flesh (Rom 8:3) In point of
fact, had the Word come into the world as divine flesh instead of Jewish flesh, he
not only would've failed to satisfy the oath, but his body would've been unsuitable
for atonement purposes. (Heb 2:14-17)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
The angel predicted Mary would conceive in her womb (Luke 1:31). Well, obviously
he meant her own womb rather than somebody else's womb. So, in order for Mary
to conceive a child in her own womb, Mary's ovum had to be involved.

Her cousin Elizabeth, while filled with the Holy Spirit; exclaimed: blessed is the fruit
of your womb! (Luke 1:42) Well, had Mary been Jesus' surrogate mother instead of
his natural mother then the baby she carried would've been somebody else's fruit.
_

 

[Hazelelponi]

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall so He was born with all the damage done to mans nature during that tim.

When you begin with heresy it cancels out anything further. Scripture teaches Christ knew no sin.

For the whole law to have been followed the entity fulfilling the whole law then had to stand every day of their life in accordance with God's moral law in thought, action, and nature.

Jesus' humanity, being a product of God's Holy Spirit and Mary, did not inherit the sin nature of Adam. The sin nature is inherited from Adam's federal headship and Jesus Christ did not have "Adam" as His father, God was His Father.

Jesus Christ in his humanity wasn't born under the federal headship of Adam, but under the Federal Headship within the Godhead itself.

Think being judged according to the sin of our fathers and the promise of a day we would not be (Jeremiah 31:29-30) Man is the federal head of woman. Not the other way around.

In other words, our sin nature since the fall comes from our actual father's, not our mother's, though our mother's have a sin nature themselves from their father.

 

[Whatever]

I've speculated that both the egg and sperm were created from nothing by God

I read a long time ago about theologians arguing where the soul comes from. Some said God just creates each one at the time when a conception takes place. They were countered by those who used Genesis 2 to say that God stopped creating after the 6th day. After that He doesn't make anything ex nihilo anymore, He just modifies what is already there.

An example is that Noah probably took only one Canine kind on the ark, and since them all the wolfs, dogs, foxes and so forth that have come about are just a mixture of genes that were already there.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."

He didn't say what kind of work He or the Father is doing. Strongs puts it as: effect, be engaged in or with, etc.: - commit, do, labor for, minister about, trade (by), work.. To me that would just be providential work, not creating new things.

 

[Hobie]

That would make him born a sinner and a slave to sin. You cannot undo that implication by adding this:

Fallen humans do not just have a tendency to sin, they are sinners at their core.

I am sorry my friend, but you are making a mistake that many have done. They assume His heart and mind was corrupted, as this is what people see in themselves as they struggle with sin, and what they assume had to be in Christ. They say well Christ had to be like me, so He had to have sin and yet the Bible says He knew no sin and was our example.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1 Peter 2:21-23
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

And yet He was tempted just as we are, He was not impeccable as some claim in the manner of being not capable of sinning or could not be tempted.

Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Christ had inherited all the weakness of man that had come since the fall of man and was predisposed to sin just as we are, and yet did not sin or allow sin to dwell in Him or know sin.

1 John 3:5
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

1 Peter 1:19
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

So its hard for many to accept that Christ came fully man with all his weaknesses and the temptations and was able to overcome and be perfect before the Father as we must do. And yet we see the following...

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

His heart and mind had no sinful desires or corruption, is not an easy thing to understand.......

 

[Josheb]

.
The angel predicted Mary would conceive in her womb (Luke 1:31). Well, obviously
he meant her own womb rather than somebody else's womb. So, in order for Mary
to conceive a child in her own womb, Mary's ovum had to be involved.

That is incorrect.

God made Adam without the use of a female ovum. At least twice in the Bible God is said to be able to make people from rocks! God does not need a human ovum in order to make a human. In point of fact, God can make a human from nothing. He speaks the word, and it happens.

Her cousin Elizabeth, while filled with the Holy Spirit; exclaimed: blessed is the fruit
of your womb! (Luke 1:42) Well, had Mary been Jesus' surrogate mother instead of
his natural mother then the baby she carried would've been somebody else's fruit.
_

Logically speaking, Mary can be nothing more than a vessel for Jesus' conception and all of the messianic prophecies remain true and correct. Not a single prophetic verse about the incarnation requires the use of a female human's ovum. That has always been an assumption and the only reason anyone in modernity ever maintained that assumption is because of an allegiance to the tradition of Roman Catholic Marianism .

Theologically speaking, numerous problems result if the use of a human ovum is asserted. Mary was a sinner. She was a sinful sinner. If one of her eggs was used, then Jesus was made of sinful flesh (an ovum is flesh and blood). That instantly precludes ALL the many scriptural statements regarding Jesus' sinlessness from being true and correct. ALL of them. Jesus cannot be said to be sinless if a sinful ovum from a sinful woman was used to make Jesus. It is irrational because all have sinned and fall short of God's glory! This is why the Roman Catholic Church invented a doctrine of Mary's sinlessness by grace. According to RC theology, Mary was conceived without original sin and, therefore, free from the stain of sin when the Holy Spirit entered her and conceived the Son inside of her. That doctrine contradicts the "all" of Romans 3:23. Mary was a sinful person who sinned and was in need of salvation and the only way anyone is ever saved is by grace through faith in the Son of God who scripture states was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit and the egg of a sinner. God does not use sin to save from sin. Jesus is stated to be the monogenes sarx egenetos, the single-sourced Son of God made flesh. Our English translations translate "monogenes" as "only begotten," or "one and only," but the actual transliteration of monogenes is one-source or single origin (mono = one, or single; genes = source or origin).

The fruit of Mary's womb was a baby that had been conceived by God without using anything of sinful humanity. Jesus is made in the form of sinless Man, not sinful men. Jesus is conceived in the form of the pre-disobedient Adam (Adam prior to Genesis 3:6-7) and NOT the form of post-disobedient Adam. Jesus is both fully God (sinless) and fully human (sinless).


Therefore, everyone should stop assuming inferences that are never stated and never implied in scripture. They should stop holding an unwitting allegiance to Roman Catholic Marianism. They should stop over-anthropomorphizing scripture when it speaks of the incarnation. They should stop subscribing to a position that creates problems scripturally, logically, and theologically because it pits a man-made viewpoint against scripture. Everyone should accept, believe, and trust scripture when it states Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and never mentions a female egg.

Mary was blessed to be a vessel for the birth of God's Son made flesh. The seed of a woman was implanted in her. It was not her own seed of sinful flesh.

 

[Josheb]

No where. The posts are wild speculation. I would speculate that 90-100% of Christians believe God used one of Mary's eggs and that is the basis of subsequent fantasies.

Yep (see Post 15 above).

Although, to be fair, what we're dealing with here is centuries of doctrinal indoctrination. All of us Protestants come from the predecessor of Roman Catholicism and, although RC Marianism has been rejected, elements of it linger. The solution is a little critical thinking that considers the whole of scripture beginning with the fact Jesus is sinless, and Mary is not....... and we no longer burn people at the stake for believing whole scripture exactly as written.

I encourage everyone and anyone who finds my position provocative to do a simple exercise. First, just write down ALL the verses about the incarnation. Just make the list. Then, after having made the list, read each individual verse and ask five questions:

1. Does this verse actually, explicitly, state a female ovum was used?
2. Can this verse be read and understood without my having to assume or infer the use of a human egg?
3. Since the verse does not explicitly state a human ovum was used, why am I reading that into the text?
4. Given the fact of Mary's inherent sinfulness, does reading this verse to imply the use of one of her eggs conflict with other scripture?
5. Does reading this verse with an understanding no human egg was used conflict with other scripture?

If and when that is done the results will be the discarding of Mary as a contributing factor in Jesus' incarnation.

 

[Josheb]

I read a long time ago about theologians arguing where the soul comes from. Some said God just creates each one at the time when a conception takes place. They were countered by those who used Genesis 2 to say that God stopped creating after the 6th day. After that He doesn't make anything ex nihilo anymore, He just modifies what is already there.

An example is that Noah probably took only one Canine kind on the ark, and since them all the wolfs, dogs, foxes and so forth that have come about are just a mixture of genes that were already there.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."

He didn't say what kind of work He or the Father is doing. Strongs puts it as: effect, be engaged in or with, etc.: - commit, do, labor for, minister about, trade (by), work.. To me that would just be providential work, not creating new things.

Interesting, but let's stay on topic. This op is about Jesus and the supposition Jesus inherited the sinful nature of Adam. From the historical, orthodox position of Trinitarianism, Jesus is eternal, pre-existent, divine and, as such, is immutable. There's never a point in which one moment he has no soul and the next he has one (or vice versa). There's no "Jesus did not have a soul until God created one for him in Mary's womb." Furthermore, while the tripartite view of humanity is a useful model, it is not reflective of whole scripture, and I would gladly explain how and why that is necessarily the case were it not for the fact my doing so would be further off-topic. If you PM me or start an op specifically on that subject, I'll gladly explain how and why tripartitism is lacking and another alternative proves more veracious.

 

[Arial]

I am sorry my friend, but you are making a mistake that many have done. They assume His heart and mind was corrupted, as this is what people see in themselves as they struggle with sin, and what they assume had to be in Christ. They say well Christ had to be like me, so He had to have sin and yet the Bible says He knew no sin and was our example.

That is what your statement said. I said the opposite.

His heart and mind had no sinful desires or corruption, is not an easy thing to understand.......

It is not the least bit difficult to understand. He did not have Adam's sinful nature because he was not born in Adam. The Holy Spirit is the Father of the man Jesus.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

he was not born in Adam.

According to Luke 1:32, Jesus was on track to take David's throne.

The thing is: God requires that the man must first of all be one of David's paternal
descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne.

The New Testament verifies Christ is the fruit of David's body spoken of in that
oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:3 . . His son; descended from David according to the flesh

● 2Tim 2:8 . . Remember Jesus Christ . . . descended from David.

Now if true that Jesus was David's paternal descendant-- i.e. the fruit of David's
loins --then it's reasonable to conclude that Jesus was also the fruit of Adam's
loins because it's not all that difficult to trace David's human origin all the way back
to the first couple in Genesis.

● Acts 17:26 . . From one man he made every nation of men
_

 

[Josheb]

According to Luke 1:32, Jesus was on track to take David's throne.

According to Acts 3 the throne pormise Daivd was the resurrection, not a chair.

Acts 2:29-36
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and, having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."' Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

And Jesus being on track to take David's throne is off topic. This op is about the supposition Jesus inherited sinful flesh nature.

The thing is: God requires that the man must first of all be one of David's paternal
descendants; and that's on oath.

No, it does not. There are at least two descendants in Jesus' lineage who were adopted from outside the Abrahamic and the Davidic bloodline. One of them is Rahab (a Gentile Canaanite and mother of Boaz), the other is Ruth (a Moabite and great-grandmother of Jesus). Furthermore, the New Testament gospel texts make it clear Joseph had not had sex with Mary prior to her pregnancy with Jesus so there's no human male paternity for Jesus. The implication is Joseph adopted* Jesus as his own; he did not biologically sire Jesus. Both Matthew's and Luke's genealogies traces the lineage from David to Joseph (through Rahab's and Ruth's Boaz), but Joseph did not biologically sire Jesus.

Matthew 1:20
But when he had thought this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

In Lukes gospel Joseph is betrothed to Mary, not yet married to her, while she is pregnant.

Luke 2:4-5
Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.

...and that would mean Jesus is a product of fornication, an out-of-wedlock pregnancy that would make Jesus a bastard child, and since Matthew makes it implicitly clear Jesus was conceived by the Spirt and not Joseph, Jesus would be the product of a stoning offense.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne.

The New Testament verifies Christ is the fruit of David's body spoken of in that
oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:3 . . His son; descended from David according to the flesh

● 2Tim 2:8 . . Remember Jesus Christ . . . descended from David.

Now if true that Jesus was David's paternal descendant, i.e. a descendant of David's
flesh, then it's reasonable to conclude that he was also a descendant of Adam's
flesh because it's not all that difficult to trace David's human origin all the way back
to the first couple in Genesis.

● Acts 17:26 . . From one man he made every nation of men
_

None of which changes a word I have posted or proves your position. Romans 1:3 cannot contradict Matthew 1:25 or Luke 1:27. All of those verses would mean Jesus had sinful flesh in his biological makeup if read as you've asserted them. If Jesus is made of sinful flesh, then he is not the perfect blemish-free sacrifice that takes away sin. If Jesus is sinful in any way, shape, or form then we are all still dead in sin. As I said in Post 15, there are many substantive theological problems with the premise human gametes were used to incarnate Jesus.




* Adoption is a fundamental and critical aspect of salvation because those God saves are adopted sons and daughters.