The Meaning of Being “Sons of God” (Rewritten)

To think clearly about Christian faith — and to stay true to what Scripture actually teaches — we need to be careful with phrases like “sons of God,” “children of God,” and “the Fatherhood of God.” These terms are often used loosely today, but the Bible uses them with precision.

Strictly speaking, there is only one being who is truly and literally the Son of God: Jesus Christ. He alone is Son by nature. His relationship to God is eternal, grounded in the divine nature itself, not created in time. That is why Scripture calls Him “the only begotten Son.” God is never described as the Creator of Jesus, but always as His Father. Christ’s sonship is unique and completely unshared.

Every other being — angels and humans alike — exists not by God’s nature, but by His will. We are creatures, not divine by nature. So when Scripture refers to others as “sons of God,” it is speaking figuratively, not literally. The same is true when it speaks of God as our Father.

So what does this metaphor actually mean?

Sonship Is About Likeness, Not Biology

When we talk about a human son and father, several ideas might come to mind: physical descent, shared nature, resemblance, imitation, obedience, love. But since we’ve already ruled out any literal, biological connection between God and His creatures, the only idea that truly fits is likeness.

That likeness has two dimensions:

• Natural likeness: Humans resemble God in that we are personal beings. We think, reason, choose, and possess moral awareness. We are spiritual beings with freedom and responsibility.
• Moral likeness: This is far more important. Moral likeness means sharing God’s character—love, holiness, justice, wisdom, and truth.

Scripture reserves the title “sons of God” for those who possess this moral likeness. This is why Satan, though still intelligent and powerful, is never called a son of God. He retains natural abilities, but he has lost moral resemblance.

The same is true of unregenerate humanity. Jesus Himself told certain religious leaders that they were children of the devil — not because of who created them, but because they had taken on the devil’s moral character. Sonship, in the biblical sense, is about who you resemble, not who made you.

Where Modern Errors Begin

One of the central errors of 19th century liberal theology — especially the idea of universal salvation — is the claim that everyone is saved simply because God is everyone’s Father. The argument usually goes like this: No loving human parent would ever banish their child forever, so surely God wouldn’t either.

But this reasoning rests on a false assumption — that every human being is already a child of God.

Scripture says otherwise. Moral likeness, not natural existence, determines sonship. A person who lives in opposition to God’s character is not His child in the biblical sense, regardless of sentimentality. The author of Hebrews even says bluntly that some are “not sons, but illegitimate.”

When we turn God’s Fatherhood into something merely natural — like human parenthood — we end up with a soft, sentimental religion that ignores holiness altogether. Love without righteousness is not biblical love.

A similar mistake lies behind the slogan “Once in grace, always in grace.” It assumes that spiritual sonship works like physical birth: once a child, always a child. But Scripture doesn’t say, “Once a child, always a child.” It says, in effect, “Once like God, always like God” — and that clearly isn’t true. Satan himself once bore God’s moral image.

If someone argues that sonship to God makes falling away impossible, why couldn’t the same argument be used to say that sonship to the devil makes salvation impossible? The logic collapses under its own weight.

What the New Testament Actually Teaches

In the New Testament, sonship is not universal — it is distinctive. John says plainly that only those who receive Christ by faith are given the right to become children of God. Paul adds that this sonship consists in being conformed to the image of God’s Son.

The language is consistent throughout the New Testament: sons, children, adoption, and Father always point to spiritual likeness, not natural origin. That likeness begins at the new birth and is brought to fullness through sanctification.

There is only one place where Paul refers to all humanity as God’s offspring — his sermon on Mars Hill. Even there, he is quoting a Greek poet and carefully limits the comparison to humanity’s moral awareness and freedom, contrasting it with lifeless idols. He is not teaching universal sonship, but establishing common ground with pagan listeners.

Salvation based on the idea of God’s natural fatherhood is completely foreign to the Gospels, the Epistles, and the preaching recorded in Acts. If that doctrine were true, the cross of Christ would be unnecessary.

The Old Testament Perspective

The Old Testament supports this same view. As theologian Gustav Oehler explains, God’s fatherhood is ethical, not physical. God is called Father because of a relationship of love and moral communion — not because He gives natural life.

Even then, this relationship is limited. God is called the Father of Israel — not of all nations. “Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” Individual sonship, as experienced by New Testament believers, was not yet fully realized under the old covenant. Jesus Himself said that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than the greatest Old Testament prophet.

This explains why the Jews were so outraged when Jesus called God His Father. They understood exactly what He was claiming.

Sharing in the Divine Nature

This brings us to 2 Peter 1:4: “[That you] may become participants of the divine nature.” (NRSV.) Peter does not mean that believers become divine. As Dean Alford explains, this means sharing in God’s holiness, love, truth, and moral perfection.

Only Christ, the God-man, literally partakes of the divine nature. Believers partake in God’s moral attributes according to their finite capacity — and this is what makes them sons.

Interestingly, the Greek verb translated “become”  (γένησθε) is in the aorist tense, which points not to an ongoing process, but to a completed act. Alford admits this is difficult to translate, but concludes that the focus is on completion, not gradual development.

If the work is completed in this life, then there must be a definite moment when it is finished. That is exactly what those who teach entire sanctification have always claimed.

Peter uses the same grammatical construction when Jesus says, “Believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” In that case, the completion is the new birth. But in 2 Peter, he is writing to believers — people who already have faith — and pointing them toward the fullness of salvation.

Growing Into Mature Sonship

John also recognizes stages of spiritual sonship. He speaks of:

• Little children, who know the Father and cry, “Abba!”
• Young men, who are strong, in whom God’s word abides, and who have overcome evil.

So the question naturally follows:

Where do you stand?

If you are not yet God’s child, seek the new birth. If you are a child, don’t settle for spiritual infancy. Grow into the strength, maturity, and victory that mark full sonship.

That is the calling of the sons of God.

 

 

 

---

[This is a revision of Part 1 Chapter 1 of Mile-stone Papers (1878), with the assistance of Microslop CoPilot. I have made some small additional revisions. The original essay can be found here. Again, Steele is replying the particular form of 19th century theological liberalism that emphasized "The Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God', very much like the previous essay. So the masculine imagery and pronouns are inherent in the themes he is arguing against.]