Is The RCC, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Etc... Teaching That We Are/Will Be gods?

[Iollain]

Or maybe better words would be 'listening to apparitions' is what has changed that he would not agree with, as the Bible says:


" When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?" (Isaiah 8:19).




1Ch 10:13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, [even] against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking [counsel] of [one that had] a familiar spirit, to enquire [of it];


1Ch 10:14 And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.


1Ch 16:11 Seek the LORD and his strength, seek his face continually.

Psa 5:2 Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.





Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.


Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.


Mat 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.


Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.


Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.


Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.


Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.


Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.



Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jhn 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

The problem is that the RCC and EO Churches have a theology of divinization based in the words of Paul and Peter. We partake of the divine at the Lord's Table, and we are thus partakers of the divine nature. We also grow in grace to the eschatalogical point of being partakers of the divine. It is seeking to become transformed into the likeness of Christ:

It has nothing to do with "power"; it has everything to do with submission. And it is 100% Biblical.

Benny Hinn (et al.) on the other hand, have a 100% gnostic infatuation with Spritual "power" which manifests itself in the working of miracles, etc,. It is 100% UNBIBLICAL. It is NOTHING at all like the RCC and EO doctrines.

To lump them together is unjustifiable.

Kepler

Spot on bro! Preach it!

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

The problem is that the RCC and EO Churches have a theology of divinization based in the words of Paul and Peter. We partake of the divine at the Lord's Table, and we are thus partakers of the divine nature. We also grow in grace to the eschatalogical point of being partakers of the divine. It is seeking to become transformed into the likeness of Christ:

It has nothing to do with "power"; it has everything to do with submission. And it is 100% Biblical.

Benny Hinn (et al.) on the other hand, have a 100% gnostic infatuation with Spritual "power" which manifests itself in the working of miracles, etc,. It is 100% UNBIBLICAL. It is NOTHING at all like the RCC and EO doctrines.

To lump them together is unjustifiable.

Kepler

Spot on bro, preach it!

 

[graysparrow]

I don't see any Scriptural verification for this.

We are not Sola Scriptura
We are not Sola ScripturaWe are not Sola Scriptura
We are not Sola Scriptura
We are not Sola Scriptura

We are not Sola Scriptura
​

We are not Sola Scriptura
​

We are not Sola Scriptura
​

We are not Sola Scriptura

 

[ScottBot]

We are not Sola Scriptura
We are not Sola ScripturaWe are not Sola Scriptura
We are not Sola Scriptura
We are not Sola Scriptura

We are not Sola Scriptura

​

We are not Sola Scriptura

​

We are not Sola Scriptura

​

We are not Sola Scriptura

I'm not sure I get your point. Could you say it again?

 

[Lynn73]

We are not Sola Scriptura
We are not Sola ScripturaWe are not Sola Scriptura
We are not Sola Scriptura
We are not Sola Scriptura

We are not Sola Scriptura

​

We are not Sola Scriptura

​

We are not Sola Scriptura

​

We are not Sola Scriptura

So? I am and if anything you tell me doesn't agree with the Bible I'm going to reject what you say, not reject the Bible.

 

[Benedicta00]

So? I am and if anything you tell me doesn't agree with the Bible I'm going to reject what you say, not reject the Bible.

Lynn, I would love for you to show me just one verse from the bible only that teaches us that only the bible contains God's revelation to man. If you can not show us from the bible only that only the bible is revelation then your position is nothing more than a contradiction.

You believe in a dogma- sola scripture that isn’t taught anywhere at all until the reformation in the 16 century by sources outside the bible. So by that token alone- bible only is a fallacy.

The only possible way it could ever be true is if the bible alone taught it and it does not. In fact the bible says the Church is the pillar of truth, not the bible.

 

[graysparrow]

So? I am and if anything you tell me doesn't agree with the Bible I'm going to reject what you say, not reject the Bible.

but we are not, be reasonable, you can't pretend to convice us with an argument based solely in Sola Scriptura.

 

[KEPLER]

Perhaps rather than just dismissing theosis/dvinization simply because it's what the RCs and EO believe, perhaps we should actually read the article the somebody supplied earlier?

There is a very biblical basis for this belief...

[Genesis 1:26]Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."[/quote]
The imago dei ("image of God") given to Adam became tarnished and cracked, broken and faulty, when Eve and Adam sinned. We lost the close fellowship and unity with God that Adam and Eve had enjoyed. The process of theosis (divinization) is the restoration of that image, that fellowship, that unity. The process is a struggle in this life, but is completed in the eschaton (life hereafter). This is what Paul is describing in 1 Corinthians 15:

Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Jesus prays in JOhn's Gospel that just as He and the Father have unity, that we (the believers in this life) may also have unity:

I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

How do we achieve this unity? By partaking of Christ:

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Our "fellowship" on this earth is not determined by a "voluntary association" of oneself with another group of people. Fellowship (according to Paul) is achieved through everyone's fellwship in the blood and body. By partaking of the one loaf (which is Christ's body) we become one body. We have unity with one another, because each us partakes (or should partake) of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Being one with Christ then has it's consequences:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith--that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

It's not a coincidence that Peter here uses the same word as did Paul in 1 Corinthians 10. Through the promises, we have "fellowship" in the divine nature.

So, yes, there is a very Biblical basis for this belief. Perhaps if we were to ever get out of "everything that anyone who disagrees with me believes is wrong" mode, we might spend some time actually reading other believers have to say...?

As for you EOs and RCs, instead of merely reading the Church Fathers on this stuff, you might perhaps read what the Church fathers were reading (i.e., the Bible) and take the time to come up with a biblical explanation. The Church Fathers, after all, implicitly believed in "Sola Scriptura", since the people they learned their doctrine form were the people who wrote the Scriptures. Duh!

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Iollain]

i believe Lynn was rejecting the power of one listening to prayers when they pass on, was her original post that she was saying she does not see any Biblical proof.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Regarding teachings of "gods." When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, He said: "They do all their deeds to be noticed by men" (Mt. 23:5). . . . Theirs was a problem of priorities: Their first priority was social status, to which end God was but a means. What greater affront to God could there be? Better to ignore Him altogether than to exploit Him as a means to something else you value more highly. Psalm 40:4 (NIV) Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust, who does not look to the proud, to those who turn aside to false gods.

 

[graysparrow]

L

As for you EOs and RCs, instead of merely reading the Church Fathers on this stuff, you might perhaps read what the Church fathers were reading (i.e., the Bible) and take the time to come up with a biblical explanation. The Church Fathers, after all, implicitly believed in "Sola Scriptura", since the people they learned their doctrine form were the people who wrote the Scriptures. Duh!

Cheers,

Kepler

That's not the same The apostols taught by oral tradition too... and besides when the Church Father afirm the ever virginity of Mary, are they quoting Scripture?

 

[KEPLER]

i believe Lynn was rejecting the power of one listening to prayers when they pass on, was her original post that she was saying she does not see any Biblical proof.

It appears you are right...Sorry, Lynn, my apologies, I ascribed something to you which you did not actually say. My bad. I will edit.

As for you, Iollain....

We will never be God, we are children of God, and just like humans have human babies, the children of God are 'little gods'....i think this is the manner in which some people use this. We have the third person in the Trinity living in us, and we always will, we have authority to cast out demons, etc.

This sounds much like Copeland, and has very little if any biblical basis. I see no Scriputre that suggests we are "gods". Scripture suggests that we achieve some kind of (mystical) unity with God, that we have fellowship in the divine nature. BUt in all that, Scripture ALWAYS maintains that there is only ONE God. The "little gods" nonsense implies multiple gods, and is thus much more akin to Mormonism that Christianity. You're not clear as to whether or not you atually believe this, so I will stop short of ascribing it to you.

I don't think people in the Christian community use this to mean anything else. But as someone pointed out, some have a greater belief that we will be able to hear many prayers at once when we pass on, so there is a split on how 'godly' we will become.

There is one Scripture from revelation somewhere that seems to suggest that those who have gone to their reward hear the prayers of those of us still here. I just can't remeber where it is...

Kepler

 

[Benedicta00]

As for you EOs and RCs, instead of merely reading the Church Fathers on this stuff, you might perhaps read what the Church fathers were reading (i.e., the Bible) and take the time to come up with a biblical explanation. The Church Fathers, after all, implicitly believed in "Sola Scriptura", since the people they learned their doctrine form were the people who wrote the Scriptures. Duh!

They were basing it on what was written yes, but not solely, only on what was written.

Let’s keep in mind, none of what they were reading at that time was verified and canonized so they really were relying on Tradition, not just the written down account of it.

 

[KEPLER]

That's not the same The apostols taught by oral tradition too... and besides when the Church Father afirm the ever virginity of Mary, are they quoting Scripture?

You should take my statement as more of an "elbow in the ribs" and a wink, than a "poke in the eye" and an accusation.

As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, I am about 90% there...BASED ON THE BIBLICAL TEXTS!!! I have a pretty good understanding of ancient near east culture, so Jesus turning Mary over to another disciple's care is a pretty profound event. It could very well mean that Jesus had no siblings. OTOH, it could also mean that Jesus had only sisters (who were in no cultural position to care for Mary), or that his siblings were dead. ???

Kepler

 

[Benedicta00]

You should take my statement as more of an "elbow in the ribs" and a wink, than a "poke in the eye" and an accusation.

As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, I am about 90% there...BASED ON THE BIBLICAL TEXTS!!! I have a pretty good understanding of ancient near east culture, so Jesus turning Mary over to another disciple's care is a pretty profound event. It could very well mean that Jesus had no siblings. OTOH, it could also mean that Jesus had only sisters (who were in no cultural position to care for Mary), or that his siblings were dead. ???

Kepler

It's not impossible to become 100% Catholic in belief by reading the bible alone. Scott Hahn was led to Catholicism because of his intense study of scripture.

It’s when he ‘discovered’ things he thought no one else did in the scriptures and checked the early Church and the early reformed Church to see if anyone else had discovered what he did and he learned, that he indeed discovered nothing new, only what the Catholic Church had been teaching since day one.

 

[Iollain]

As for you, Iollain....

This sounds much like Copeland, and has very little if any biblical basis. I see no Scriputre that suggests we are "gods". Scripture suggests that we achieve some kind of (mystical) unity with God, that we have fellowship in the divine nature. BUt in all that, Scripture ALWAYS maintains that there is only ONE God. The "little gods" nonsense implies multiple gods, and is thus much more akin to Mormonism that Christianity. You're not clear as to whether or not you atually believe this, so I will stop short of ascribing it to you.


There is one Scripture from revelation somewhere that seems to suggest that those who have gone to their reward hear the prayers of those of us still here. I just can't remeber where it is...

Kepler

I know what it is, the elders are holding the vials of prayers of the saints, now we need proof that they are men or angels. I believe they are men but that does not prove anything like that to me.

Now we do have power to cast out demons, this is something we would have no power to do without the God given ability to do it......in Jesus' power and name. I don't agree with you that there is a suggestion of multiple gods.

Though i know what some of the guys are trying to say with this, i would have to debate with some of them on how they present it. I like Hinn but i've not heard the rest of them preach long enough to make a decision on if i would seriously disagree with them.