Rev Donald MacLean
It is generally agreed that this subject is much neglected in theological writings. This does seem strange when we consider the precious nature of adoption as described in the words of Scripture: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God” (1 Jn 3:1). Among the Reformers, this neglect arose because they concentrated on a proper definition of justification in their contest with the Roman Church. They were also inclined to treat adoption as part of justification. This was true, not only of individual Reformers such as John Calvin, and some of their successors such as Francis Turretin, but was also reflected in many of the creeds of the Reformed Churches. The Westminster Confession displays its superiority in many ways to other creeds, but is distinguished by devoting a chapter to adoption.
“The precious nature of the paternal relation of God to His people and their corresponding filial relation to Him creates a very high claim for adoption”, says R A Webb in his useful book entitled, The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption. “The conception of God as Father is the most charming and transporting thought which can ever enter into the bosom of man, and the correlative conception of himself as a son of God is the most soothing and satisfying which a sinner ever finds to be true concerning himself.” Philip said to the Lord, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us” (Jn 14:8). It would satisfy Philip, and it would satisfy anyone, if he could grasp in his consciousness, and realise in his experience, that God is his Father.
In approaching this subject, it is essential to understand that the adoption of members of the human race into God’s family does not mean that this was necessary to supply some defect in Him. Those who hold the doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God think along these lines; they maintain that the Fatherhood of God means that He needed sons and daughters to satisfy His fatherly nature, and that His fatherly love consequently embraced the whole human family. They completely lose sight of the fact that God has an eternally begotten Son, who is the Son of His love, and He needs no one else to satisfy the love of His fatherly heart.
1The first section of a Theological Conference paper.
The effect of believing in the universal fatherhood of God.
This doctrine of God being the universal Father of the whole human race teaches that God’s administration of the world is not strictly a moral government but a paternal discipline. This doctrine has serious effects. For instance, if God is only a Father, and men are only His sons, sins against God are filial disobediences and are to be dealt with as such. The teaching of Scripture that sin is a breach of the moral law, and is consequently to be punished by death, is lost sight of. No father is compelled to exact penal satisfaction before he can fold his disobedient son to his bosom. A father can forgive without atonement.
The doctrines of sin and atonement are completely altered by this idea of the universal fatherhood of God. Christ’s death, according to this view, was intended to reveal God’s fatherly love to men, and thereby melt them into reconciliation with their heavenly Father. It also affects one’s view of the nature of conversion, as this is represented as the return of a prodigal son to the bosom of his father, with no need for regeneration – God is seen as not so strict as to mark iniquity, but as a kind, indulgent father eager to overlook the besetting sins of His human family. The tremendous damage to souls caused by this doctrine is to be seen on every hand.
A son and a servant – on the human level.
In order to appreciate the grace of adoption, in a proper sense, a clear distinction must be made between a son and a servant. Sonship has been defined as “the communication of the essence of the begetter to him that is begotten”. On the other hand, a master does not originate the nature and existence of the person who is his servant. The first view is one of derivation; the second consists mainly of subordination. It may be firmly maintained that the child is derived from his parents, and the very essence of sonship consists in the communication of life from the father to the son. Sonship must therefore be received in one of two ways: (1) by creation or generation, or (2) by adoption.
A person may become a servant in many ways – by purchase, by theft, by war, for instance. These many ways may bring a servant into a family, but a son can only be in the family by generation or adoption. The son is therefore different from a servant due to the mode of their respective origins. It follows accordingly that the son and the servant differ from each other in their respective natures.
We usually describe the distinction as filial in respect of the son, and servile in respect of the servant. The filial spirit feels liberty and affection in the presence of the father. The servile feels servitude and subordination in the presence of the master.
The difference between how sons and servants are ruled.
This leads us to consider the question of the different rules of life under which the two parties live. There are two principal forms under which law and authority are administered. The first is government as illustrated in the case of the state, the second is discipline as seen in the case of the family. The first is usually described as rectoral government, and the second as paternal government. In the case of the first, the master is the head and he rules over those who should obey him as his servants. In the case of the second, the father is the head of a family of whom he is the father.
The principle which reigns in rectoral government is justice. It consequently deals with its subjects in righteousness and applies its authority to them all fairly. The father, on the other hand, deals with his children on the principle of love and affection. It is true, of course, that while paternal rule arises from love, it must be controlled by justice. It should further be noted that the particular end of rectoral government is the maintenance of law and order while, on the other hand, paternal discipline has in view the well-being and happiness of the son.
In any form of government, there must be penalties when the commands of authority are broken. In rectoral government, transgressions are crimes to be punished, but in paternal government, offences are faults to be corrected. As far as the state is concerned, there is no room for repentance, but repentance is always possible in the home. These distinctions are well summed up in the following words: “Here then is a great and radical distinction between a son and a servant. The one is under parental discipline and the other is under rectoral government. The son is dealt with in his father’s house, the servant in the magistrates’ court. To the one, the head of the administration is a father. To the other he is a sovereign.”
The servant expects to be rewarded on the ground of his work. The son is content with the enjoyment of his father’s favour. The servant may be quite intimate with his master but does not enjoy the same form of communion and the same nearness of approach as a son. This is, of course, pre-eminently true in the house of God. The angels as servants have a high place around the throne of God, but the privilege of adopted sons is much higher, for it is fellowship with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.