"We're all God's children"?

[japhy]

I don’t mean to make this thread sound too polemical, but I’m curious if the tendency in the past few decades to refer to every human being as a “child of God” is untraditional, unscriptural, and antichrist.

(I’m probably not doing a good job of avoiding polemics…)

The Catholic Church teaches that baptism makes us an adopted son or daughter of God, right? It says it right there in the first paragraph of the Catechism: “In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.” Scripture confirms this, of course:
“to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.” (John 1:12)
“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ…” (Rom. 8:14-17)
As to what we are before this “adoption”, St. Paul speaks of “sons of disobedience” and that “we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” (Eph. 2:2-3)

So then, is it reasonable to say that we are all God’s creations, His creatures, and He does indeed love us all very much… but that we are not properly called His “children” until we are joined through Baptism to the Mystical Body of His Son, Jesus Christ?

Doesn’t ignoring the importance of our need for adoption end up flying in the face of our Lord’s Incarnation, Passion, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension? If we are all God’s children from the moment of our birth… what need is there of the Church? If Christ’s death and resurrection instantly made all people “children of God”, what’s left?

 

[peary]

Doesn’t ignoring the importance of our need for adoption end up flying in the face of our Lord’s Incarnation, Passion, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension? If we are all God’s children from the moment of our birth… what need is there of the Church? If Christ’s death and resurrection instantly made all people “children of God”, what’s left?

We are a fallen people…fallen out of God’s grace. Because of that, He sent Jesus to establish a NEW COVENANT, a NEW TESTAMENT to His love so that we may establish a proper relationship to our Creator. But, we have free will to accept or reject this. We may all be God’s children but we are not ‘adopted’ until we freely accept God’s love, forgiveness and healing, be baptized and start our way to sanctification. The Church is here because God desires it. It protects the truth of Faith for our salvation. Does this mean that people who follow other nonChristian religions are considered ‘children’ of God? Of course they are. I do not know how God deals with them but He has His own way of doing so. All I know is that, as a Catholic Christian, the Church is there to help me to heaven.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The expressions “son of God” and “sons of God” are used in several different senses in the Bible.

Only the Second Person of the Trinity is properly the Son of God. Humans are called ‘sons of God’ because their relationship to God resembles, in at least three different degrees, the relationship of the Son of God to the Father.

In the first (lowest) degree of resemblance, all humans are sons of God because they are all created in the image and likeness of God.

In the second (higher) degree of resemblance, the Jews are sons of God because they are God’s chosen people.

In the third (highest) degree of resemblance, Christians are sons of God because the Spirit of the Son dwells in their souls.

 

[japhy]

We may all be God’s children but we are not ‘adopted’ until we freely accept God’s love, forgiveness and healing, be baptized and start our way to sanctification.

What “type” of children are we before we are adopted? “Estranged” children? But being adopted is not about being un-estranged. Adoption is not about being reconciled to your adoptive parents, it’s about being considered part of their family, it’s about being loved with the same love as a “natural” child.

Does this mean that people who follow other nonChristian religions are considered ‘children’ of God? Of course they are. I do not know how God deals with them but He has His own way of doing so.

“Of course they are.” I don’t see logically how that follows. As for how God deals with non-Christians (or non-Catholics), the Church is a part of His plan – what the status of those who never know of the Church (or reject her) is a different matter.

 

[japhy]

The expressions “son of God” and “sons of God” are used in several different senses in the Bible.

In the RSV, I can only find these instances of “son(s)/daughter(s)/child(ren) of God/the Lord” in the O.T.:

• Genesis 6:2,4, where the “sons of God” are juxtaposed with the “daughters of men”, which are understood to mean the men of Seth’s line and the women of Cain’s line.
• Deuteronomy 14:1, referring to the people of God (Israel).
• Deuteronomy 32:8, where it is also rendered (in the RSV-2CE, for example) as “sons of Israel”.
• Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7, which seem to refer to the angels.
• Wisdom 2:13 and 5:5, where it means one beloved by God, generally speaking.

Used in the New Testament in the singular (44 times), it is used almost exclusively of Jesus Christ, except for Luke 3:38 (Adam) and 1 John 5:1 (whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ).

Used in the New Testament in the plural (14 times):

• “peacemakers … shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9)
• “they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36)
• “to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (John 1:12)
• “… Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52)
• “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. … it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, … For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; … because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Romans 8:14,16,19,21)
• “it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.” (Romans 9:8)
• “in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” (Galatians 3:26)
• “be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation…” (Philippians 2:15)
• “See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are… By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil…” (1 John 3:1,10)
• “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments…” (1 John 5:2)

Only the Second Person of the Trinity is properly the Son of God. Humans are called ‘sons of God’ because their relationship to God resembles, in at least three different degrees, the relationship of the Son of God to the Father.

I’m with you there… Christ, the Word, is the “Only Son of the Father”, meaning the only Son by substance and nature, the only-begotten Son. But I’m not sure about these degrees of sonship.

In the first (lowest) degree of resemblance, all humans are sons of God because they are all created in the image and likeness of God.

I’m not disagreeing that all men are created by God and in His image and likeness (some theologians would argue that the “likeness” is lacking due to original sin), but does that make all men “sons of God”? Adam is named explicitly by Luke as being the “son of God”, and Genesis refers to the “sons of God” (even after the Fall) in contradistinction to the children “of men”.

In the second (higher) degree of resemblance, the Jews are sons of God because they are God’s chosen people.

The more frequent term used in the Bible is “sons of Israel”; Deut. 14:1 is the only explicit reference I’ve found to calling the people of Israel the “sons of God”.

In the third (highest) degree of resemblance, Christians are sons of God because the Spirit of the Son dwells in their souls.

Right, our adoptive sonship is due to the Holy Spirit.

 

[peary]

What “type” of children are we before we are adopted? “Estranged” children? But being adopted is not about being un-estranged. Adoption is not about being reconciled to your adoptive parents, it’s about being considered part of their family, it’s about being loved with the same love as a “natural” child.

**We are born “estranged” from God because we have the stain of original sin on our souls. Baptism brings us into the “family of God” and we are thus reconciled to the Lord and are an integral part of that family. **

“Of course they are.” I don’t see logically how that follows. As for how God deals with non-Christians (or non-Catholics), the Church is a part of His plan – what the status of those who never know of the Church (or reject her) is a different matter.

The Church is the supernatural means by which the Lord desires our entrance into Heaven. It really isn’t a “different matter” for non-Catholics or non-Christians. No one comes to the Father except through Christ. Think about that for a moment. As for the extent of God’s mercy and compassion may be for the above, we don’t know, but I’m sure we might be surprised.