@sonship saidWhen you say 'many' you actually mean 'many' within your movement.
"Sonship" is the preferred better translation to many in both Eph. 1:5 AND Gal. 4:5 Or something that brings out the organic nature of the saved with God in life not just legality.
The New Testament itself always interprets the spiritual birth which makes believers sons, not as a conversion of men into gods, but as a renewal in the moral likeness of God, produced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
@divegeester
You do not understand the "Firstborn from the dead."
What you do not understand you lash out at with bitter contempt.
There is a clear differentiation between the NT and the stuff put out here by sonship:
The NT repeatedly interprets the spiritual birth which makes believers sons, not as a conversion of men into gods, but as a renewal in the moral likeness of God, produced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
In contrast, sonship maintains that as 'sons of God' man is literally a god, in the same way that a son of a horse is a horse. He has even coined a word for it, 'We-Ized,' something he maintains we have caused to happen.
Let there be no confusing the two.
If you stopped lifting other people’s ideas and presenting them here as your own, you would probably find your intellectual underwear would get far less knotted.
I suspect that you will not answer this question probably either.
Paul wrote this "Be imitators together of me, brothers, and observe those who thus walk even as you have us as a pattern." (Phil. 3:17)
Would you say that since the first century there will never be another time when some servant of God and others might be a pattern worthy of imitation?
Are you saying anyone since the first century exhorting others to be "imitators" of him or her and follow the "pattern" or "example" of such, is by definition a leader of a cult?
Paul wrote this "Be imitators together of me, brothers, and observe those who thus walk even as you have us as a pattern." (Phil. 3:17)
Are you saying anyone since the first century exhorting others to be "imitators" of him or her and follow the "pattern" or "example" of such, is by definition a leader of a cult?
Such a situation could never happen any other time in church history?
Folks, I think Divegeester is superstitious.
He is afraid that there could conceivably be a genuine normal local church today since the books of Acts.
And I think he feels since the first century no one else could POSSIBLY be worthy of being a "pattern, example," and benefitial to God's purpose on earth to have imitators.
He has a superstitious attitude about church history. It is not cult wary. It is superstitious.