How many sons does God have?

Lots!Romans 8:14 (NASB):

quote:

---

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God

---

Galatians 3:26 (NASB):

quote:

---

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

---

Where does it indicate this?

The word translated as "only begotten" in the KJV, is the Greek "monogenes", better translated as "unique". It means that Jesus is the "unique" son of God.The same word is used in Heb 11:17 of Isaac, the "unique" son of Abraham. Abraham also had another son, Ishmael; Isaac wasn't his "only" son.

quote:

---

But who is a child of God and how do you become one?

Everyone is a child of God and you don't become one, you ARE one.

---

Not according to John 1:12:

quote:

---

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

---

In the sense that He is our creator, yes. I believe the Bible uses "children" in this sense in a few places.But John 1:12 (and many other passages) has a different meaning of "children" in mind. In the context of John 1-3, it seems to be speaking of a relationship, including the benefits of such a relationship (e.g. inheritance). As John says, this is not true of all, but only of those who have entered into this relationship by faith (or been "born again", to use the imagery of John 3). This is a much more restrictive usage of the word "children" than just "He made us".

You are assuming that everyone starts life as a child of God. Again, this is true in one sense, but not in the sense that John uses the term "child of God" in John 1-3.

The subtitle of this "Bible Study" forum is "What does the Bible REALLY mean". I thought that was what we were trying to understand. It's not "quotemining"--it's pretty clear from the grammar and context that John teaches BOTH of these points. According to you, but not according to John. Are we trying to understand what the Bible really means, or only what jar WANTS it to mean?

Yes. The point is simply that in John's usage (at least in ch 1-3) being "created by God" and being a "child of God" are NOT synonymous. He is using "child" in a much more restrictive, relational sense. Otherwise he could not say that we need to BECOME children of God by faith in Him.

quote:

---

quote:

---

To be a son of God you must be born again.

---

Being born again is not some onetime thing. It is something you do, that you do daily, minute by minute, action by action.

---

This minute by minute view is not supported by the text in question (Jn 3). Consider:
1) the verb "born again" (gennao) in vv. 3, 7 is in the aorist tense, not the present. This means that the author views it as an event, not a continuous occurrance.
2) in v. 4 Nicodemus understood this to be an event, a second birth from his mother's womb.
3) in v. 5 Jesus again used "gennao" in the aorist tense.If this were something that should be done minute by minute, it would be in the present tense rather than the aorist. John clearly did not mean it to be understood this way. His grammar and context rule out this interpretation. The text presents the new birth as an event which is necessary for entry into God's kingdom.Edited by kbertsche, : clarification

Probably true in Mt 25, but this is far from any context of "sonship" or "children". The focus and emphasis in Jn 3, which IS in the context of "new birth" (i.e. becoming a child), is very different than Mt 25. That's true in the parable. But Jn 1:12 could not be clearer that people need to BECOME sons of God by faith. In John's usage, not everyone is a son of God. Not true. The word for "born" in the "born again" of Jn 3 is "gennao". This verb is generally used of the MALE role in birth (cf. Mt. 1:2; "Abraham was the father of Isaac"). In the passive voice (as in Jn 3) it would be more literally translated "fathered" or "begotten". (It is occassionally used of the female role in birth, e.g. Lk 1:13, but the verb "tikto" is more common for this.)So being "born again" in Jn 3 is more relevant than it might appear. John seems to be using it pretty much synonymously with "becoming a son of God" in Jn 1:12.Edited by kbertsche, : changed subtitle

AdminPD wrote: OK, let's look back at the questions from the OP: A better question would be "What does 'sons of God' MEAN in Gen 6:4?"Note that there are only 5 occurrances of the phrase "sons of God" (bene-ha'elohim) in the Hebrew OT text. Two are here in Gen 6 (vv. 2, 4). The other three are in Job (1:6; 2:1; 38:7).

quote:

---

Job 1:6 (NASB)
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

---

Job 2:1 is very similar."Satan also" implies that these "sons of God" were angels. This supports the idea that they are also angels in Gen 6, which others have already suggested in this thread. (This is apparently one of three major interpretations for "sons of God" in Gen 6.)FYI, there are two other related phrases in the OT:
Deut. 14:1 "sons of the LORD your God". This is used of Israel in contrast with the Gentiles, implying that the Gentiles were not "sons of the LORD your God".
Hos 1:10 "sons of the living God". This phrase was to be used of Gentiles in the future, reversing their then-current position as "not God's people".

I thought the moderator requested to stop discussing these "figurative" uses of "son"?? (Though we could argue that Gen 6 is also figurative.) So I'll only make two very brief points.First, note that there's a difference between "son" and "child". In the Hebrew culture, a "son" was accorded much more privelege than just a "child". The only verse you mention which says "son" is 1 Tim. But here Timothy is PAUL'S figurative son, not God's.Second, the verses you quote were written to specific people at a specific time. 1 Thess and Galatians were written to churches. Mt 6 was spoken to the disciples. These are all "saved" ("born again" in the figure of John 3). The fact that these are God's children doesn't mean that everyone is, also.

Of course God is not sexist. But the Ancient Near Eastern and Hebrew cultures were. God was communicating to them in a way that they would understand, so he accomodated his communication to their cultural mileau.What is the alternative? Would you rather He work with these cultures for hundreds or thousands of years to break them of their sexism, and only THEN try to explain about being His children? He's not allowed to communicate spiritual truths to cultures which have social problems?

Yes, you have said this several times, and Ringo has made similar comments. But repeating it hundreds of times will not make it true. Note that the words "creator" and "father" are two different words with two different meanings. He is Creator of all, but not Father of all.Your Deut passage shows that he is father of Israel in a figurative sense. But as I pointed out earlier, the OT does not view Gentiles the same way:

quote:

---

Deut. 14:1 "sons of the LORD your God". This is used of Israel in contrast with the Gentiles, implying that the Gentiles were not "sons of the LORD your God".
Hos 1:10 "sons of the living God". This phrase was to be used of Gentiles in the future, reversing their then-current position as "not God's people".

---

Look at these verses in context; they clearly imply that the Gentiles are/were not sons of God.You and Ringo seem to share a very strange, unusual hermeneutic. It's almost as if you are approaching the Bible as a codebook rather than as literature. You establish a correlation in one place, then carry it to every occurrance of the same word. E.g. you want to use the prodigal son parable as a "lens" in which to view father-son relations everywhere else in Scripture (maybe even the OT, which is blatantly anachronistic). You want to set up equations, such as "child" = "son", "creator" = "father", "created"="son of God" and to substitute these terms willy-nilly throughout Scripture without first establishing that each individual author uses these terms as equivalents (hint: they don't).This would be an irresponsible hermeneutic for any type of literary interpretation, but is especially so for an anthology written by multiple authors over hundreds of years (i.e. the Bible). Each passage needs to first be understood in light of the grammar, context, and historical-cultural mileau of its individual author.Are we really interested in discovering "What does the Bible really mean?" (the subtitle of this Bible Study forum)? Or are we trying to make it mean what we like?

Yes, and I and others have provided passages where "son of God" is used more restrictively. Good idea. So you declare what is true, and it remains true until someone can convince you otherwise? It sounds like you have become God. (Truth is not contingent on what someone can or cannot show, and truth doesn't change when someone can convince you of it.)A few of us have already pointed out how these things are relevant to the number of sons God has. John wrote (Jn 1:12-13):

quote:

---

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

---

He clearly implies that only those who recieve Jesus (believe on His name) become God's sons. He then says that these people are sons of God because they have received a new birth from God (note: not merely because they have been created by God). Two chapters later (Jn 3) he will elaborate on this "new birth" idea and use it as a figure for salvation, as you have noted. These concepts are all tied together in Jn 1-3.You keep trying to put words in John's mouth and to change his meaning, instead of understanding what he's saying. I agree with you that there is a sense in which all people are "children of God". But there is another sense in which only Israel (in contrast to the Gentiles) and only saved, born-again individuals (in contrast to the unsaved) are "sons of God". There is another sense in which angels are "sons of God" (Job, and maybe Gen 6). And there is yet another sense in which Jesus is the only unique "Son of God".So there are at least five different ways that the phrase "child of God" or "son of God" is used in the Bible. (The OP noted two of these different uses.) It doesn't always mean the same thing in every passage. We've got to study each passage and figure out what the author means in that instance, letting him tell us through context, setting, grammar, etc.Back to the question "How many sons does God have?" There are different biblical definitions and different answers; it depends on how one understands and uses the word "son".

I'm replying to my own post here to clarify. I had said: I should have said that there are POTENTIALLY five ways that this phrase is used in Scripture. I am not yet convinced that the Bible ever uses this imagery of "all people" as jar and ringo claim. It may, but I haven't found it yet and haven't read it yet in any of your replies.So here's my challenge for jar, ringo, and others: show us a biblical passage which clearly uses the imagery of God as father of ALL, or of ALL people as his children. What I'm looking for is a passage where the grammar and context clearly indicate ALL people, even those who do not follow God or Jesus.The passages you've presented so far do not show this for the following reasons:
1) some imply "us all" or "we all". But in context these were written to either the nation of Israel, individual NT churches, or were spoken to followers of Jesus. These statements say nothing one way or the other regarding those who are outside these particular groups.
2) the Prodigal Son parable shows that some children can be wayward. But it is a logical fallacy to conclude from this that every person who is wayward is also a son. (If you are an earthly parent with one wayward child, that doesn't mean that all wayward children in the world are yours as well.) I think you guys start by assuming your conclusion with this argument.
3) you have used chains of logic with questionable links, such as equating "creator" and "father".I'm asking for something simple: a passage which says (grammatically and in context0 that God is the father of ALL, or that ALL are his children, including those who do not and have never followed Him. I know that many want to assume this and that many talk this way, even in churches. But I'm not convinced yet that this idea is biblical.