Does WOF teach henotheism???

[pinetree]

LOL

You are bad!

Noooo,he is good.
Sir..
Do believe you are a god?
I am trying to understand what it is all about.
Could you put it laymans terms?
Thanks.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Noooo,he is good.
Sir..
Do believe you are a god?
I am trying to understand what it is all about.
Could you put it laymans terms?
Thanks.

I don't believe you are "trying to understand what it is all about".

If you were trying to understand what it is all about you would have given credence to the number of replies explaining it.

If you were trying to understand what it is all about, you would at the very least recognize the numbers of people that are actually Word of Faith saying that what you are promoting is not what is believed.

I hope that is in clear laymens terms

Oh, I forgot the scripture verse

1 Cor 14:38

 

[pinetree]

2 Thessalonians 3:11
We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies.

 

[dkbwarrior]

No you don't. You need to come up with some scripture for that one.



Wrong. That makes you a born again person.



You just said you were "a god". Are you, or are you not?



You were adopted being a child of sin and an enemy of God, at best you can claim that you are being restored to the place a human should be.

You are purposefully misinterpreting his words, as the critics pruposefully misinterpret the statement, "ye are gods".

He doesn't literally mean dna strand, like the double helix, and the complex chemical protiens; but dna philisophically, that is, the image and likeness of the end result.

Seeds carry within them dna, that is the information, the image and likeness of the end result, what we call dna. The Word carries information also, the image and likeness of the end result, thus the use of the term dna.

John said we are born again by the seed of the Word of God, that liveth and abideth forever. The Word contains the image and likeness of God, just as the seed carries the image and likeness of the plant in the form of dna.

Now, Jesus used the term 'seed' because His world had no knowledge of dna. But the properties of a seed are the properties of dna. So the metaphor that you are arguing against is Jesus own metaphor. And, yes we are Born of Gods seed, ie, Gods dna, spiritually speaking.

Peace...

 

[Yekcidmij]

It seems both sides are simply using a different definition of the term "god". One side keeps a very strict and tight definition where "god" only refers to the Almighty, Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator and such a word is reserved only for Him. The other side uses a broader definition for the word "god" to include divine beings and godlike attributes/qualities such as authority, status, etc..

So on the latter definition someone who partakes in YHWH's Authority would be a god, not in the sense of Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator, but in the sense of ruling with Yahweh's authority. Or to say someone is a "child of God" on the latter definition means they are a "god", not in the sense that they ARE ALMIGHTY or something, but in the sense that they have been adopted into His family as a child. Note this is a difference in definitions, not a difference in ontology (which would be beyond heresey if it were).

I would humbly submit that the bible uses in term "god" (elohim in Hebrew, theos in Greek) in a broader sense to include, at times, angels and humans. One such tough example is from Psalm 82 (among other places):

82:1 God stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

Here in this Psalm, it's fairly obvious that the "gods" that "God" stands in front of are not human, even though later Rabbi's would believe that the "elohim" (gods) in this Psalm were in fact human. In either interpretation, the term "god" is used to refer to someone/something other than the God of Israel.

Several times in Exodus Israelite judges are called "gods":

Ex 21:5 But if the servant should declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 21:6 then his master must bring him to the judges [elohim='gods'], and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

Ex 22:8 If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges [elohim] to see whether he has laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods. 22:9 In all cases of illegal possessions, whether for an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any kind of lost item, about which someone says ‘This belongs to me,’ the matter of the two of them will come before the judges, and the one whom the judges [elohim] declare guilty must repay double to his neighbor.

Ex 7:1 So the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God [elohim] to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Note the word "like" is added into that translation. The bible, and OT in particular, uses a broad definition for the term translated as "god". This broad range of definition makes interpretation of some passages difficult (like Psalm 82).

If someone is going to insist on called themselves a "god" though, I think an explanation of what is meant should follow such a claim since in our world when someone says the word "god" a certain concept comes to mind automatically and we think, "Omnipotent, Eternal, All Knowling, All Present Creator of the Universe". This is the sort of definition that most people have so they naturally laugh and think it's ridiculous when someone says "I'm a god" because on the definition they are using, it is beyond ridiculous.

One way to see the way the bible uses the word "elohim" is to say that there are many elohim; Yahweh is an Elohim (He is the Elohim of Israel), but no other elohim are remotely close to Yahweh. All elohim are subordinate, and different ontologically, from YHWH the Elohim of Israel.

It's always important to define ambiguous terms. The difference, at least on this thread, seems to be about definitions, not ontology.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I wouldn't say, in general, that WoF teaching is henotheistic. Perhaps I'm wrong but I haven't run across any WoF who say they are a divine being vice a human one.

Trust me when I say that you're more than on point. The same issue has been debated many times in the past on a myriad of issues....and specifically, whenever it comes to charges of henotheism---or polytheism, for that matter--I do think it a bit sad to see how little research goes into the matter...specifically on the issue of Monolatry, a far more accurate description of what those within WOF are coming from.



For a basic definition, starting from Wikipedia (which of course is a secondary source rather than primary):

Monolatrism or monolatry (Greek: μόνος (monos) = single, and λατρεία (latreia) = worship) is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity.[1] Monolatry is not the same thing as henotheism, which is the belief in and worship of one God without at the same time denying that others (of different nations on this earth) can with equal truth worship different gods.[2] The primary difference between the two is that monolatry is the worship of one god who alone is worthy of worship, though other gods are believed to exist, while henotheism is the worship of one god, not precluding the existence of others who may also be worthy of praise. The term was perhaps first used by Julius Wellhausen.

There are nonetheless seeming elements of "polytheism" in certain biblical books, such as God's reference to himself as "us" in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22, in Daniel's frequent use of the honorific "God of gods" and especially in the Psalms. Jewish scholars were aware of this, and expressed the opinion that although the verse can be understood wrongly, God was not afraid to write it in the Torah. However, the word God in Hebrew (Elohim) is also a plural, meaning "powerful ones" or "rulers". This is true in Hebrew as well as other related Canaanite languages. So "Elohim" could refer to any number of "rulers", such as angels, false gods (as defined by Torah), or even human holders of power including rulers or judges within Israel, as described in Exodus 21:6; 22:8-8, without violating the parameters of monotheism.

The primary difference between the two is that Henotheism is the worship of one god, not precluding the existence of others who may also be worthy of praise, while Monolatry is the worship of one god who alone is worthy of worship, though other gods are known to exist. Henotheism thus supposes to know less about divine matters, and Monolatry more
​

The highest claim to be made for Moses is that he was, rather than a monotheist, a monolatrist. … The attribution of fully developed monotheism to Moses is certainly going beyond the evidence."

"As absolute monotheism took over from monolatry in Israel, those who had originally been in the pantheon of the gods were demoted to the status of angels."
​

"The exclusivity of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel is an important element in Israel’s oldest religious tradition. However, it is not necessary to ascribe the present formulation of the commandment ["you shall have no other gods before me"] to a very early stage of the tradition, nor is it advantageous to interpret the commandment as if it inculcated monotheism. The commandment technically enjoins monolatry, but it can be understood within a henotheistic religious system."
​

"The Deuteronomic Code imposes at the least a strict monolatry."
​

"In the ancient Near East the existence of divine beings was universally accepted without questions. As for unicity, in Israel there is no clear and unambiguous denial of the existence of gods other than Yahweh before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C. … The question was not whether there is only one elohim, but whether there is any elohim like Yahweh."
​

This was recognised by Rashi in his commentary to Deuteronomy 6:4 that the declaration of Shema accepts belief in one God as being only a part of Jewish faith at the time of Moses, but would eventually be accepted by all humanity.[9]
Some scholars claim the Torah (Pentateuch) shows evidence of monolatrism in some passages. This argument is normally based on references to other gods, such as the "gods of the Egyptians" in the Book of Exodus (Exodus 12:12). The Egyptians are also attributed powers that suggest the existence of their gods; in Exodus 7:11-13, after Aaron transforms his staff into a snake, Pharaoh's magicians do likewise.

The Ten Commandments has been interpreted as monolatry: Exodus 20:3 reads "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" (emphasis added).

There is even a passage in the Book of Psalms, Psalms 86:8, that reads "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."


​

Again, I do pray that the information does aid....and on the issue, for a Jewish perspective, people must remember that the language used to define "gods" in polytheistic circles is not the same as that in Jewish Circles. The best resource I've seen thus far among many:

• Moses and Monotheism: Scholars debate whether the Israelites recognized only one God or worshipped only one God ( //myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/god/Overview_About_God/God_Monotheism_Tigay.htm )

And for excerpt:

The belief that only YHVH is an independently effective divine power is de facto monotheistic. It reduces all other supernatural beings to the level of angels, spirits, and the like. Since biblical Hebrew generally continued to use words for "gods" (elim and elohim) to refer to those supernatural beings, whose existence was not denied, we cannot speak of monotheism in the etymological sense of the word but only in the practical, de facto sense just described.
​

As Albright put it, "Mosaic monotheism, like that of the following centuries (at least down to the seventh century [B.C.E.]) was…practical and implicit rather than intellectual and explicit…The Israelites felt, thought, and acted like monotheists."
​

I thought that was more than on point----as in "practical sense", where one worships as a Monotheist in believing there is but one Supreme God....but the issue of "god" in the sense of those the Lord has placed within positions of authority/under His control is another issue. They were Monotheists in the "de-facto" sense, where it was in practice but not necessarily ordained by law/officially established. Didn't mean that all aspects of monolatry were off, but the system was not necessarily the best---as besides monolatry, there're other complicated versions of monotheism that allow for the existence of of other powers next to or within God, such as the notion of plurality as a heiarchry....whether it be in regards to the spiritual realm concerning angelic beings/their ranks or men on the earth. At best, it can perhaps be said that "The Deuteronomic Code" imposes at the least a strict monolatry. And for more information on the issue, as seen in an excerpt from one of the other articles on the issue one can easily look up online under the name of The Birth and Evolution of Judaism: National Monolatry and Monotheism( //www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Monolatry.htm ):

The Mosaic religion was initially a monolatrous religion; while the Hebrews are enjoined to worship no deity but Yahweh, there is no evidence that the earliest Mosaic religion denied the existence of other gods. In fact, the account of the migration contains numerous references by the historical characters to other gods, and the first law of the Decalogue is, after all, that no gods be put before Yahweh, not that no other gods exist. While controversial among many people, most scholars have concluded that the initial Mosaic religion for about two hundred years was a monolatrous religion. For there is ample evidence in the Hebrew account of the settlement of Palestine, that the Hebrews frequently changed religions, often several times in a single lifetime.
​

One can also go online and look up at Jewish Encylopedia information on the issue---as seen in the article entitled MONOTHEISM ( //www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=731&letter=M&search=Monolatry )---and also one entitled Torah on the Web - Virtual Beit Midrash - VBM Torah Studies - Parsha ( //www.vbm-torah.org/parsha/16besha.htm ), dealing with the differeces between religious monotheism (which is what Monolatry is about) and ontological monotheism. Additionally, for more info, Ancient Israel and monolatry in the Hebrew bible ( //boards.ign.com/spirituality_religion_and_faith_board/b6827/176322199/p1) is an excellent place to begin. Many others besides this...and if able, will come back later with the other extensive resources on the issue concerning the myriad of perspectives within Jewish thought.....for in studying the issue, I cannot help but see much harmony between it and what WOF has always taught.



Something else to consider on the matter, as there was also a very informative/reasonable article on the very issue that I remember reading last year (with the ministry/author not even being WOF related)--as one can find out more on it by going online and looking up thed article entitled Psalm 82: The Judgment of the ‘Gods’ ( //www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=519 ).:

:

Often, when human rulers obtain power and prestige, they forget the source of their authority. Thus Nebuchadnezzar had to be humbled by living as a beast:

“King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whomever He wishes” (Dan. 4:31b-32).
​

It is possible that the second line of verse 6 is the kind of (synonymous) poetic parallelism which merely restates the thought of the first in different words. I am inclined to think that the second line builds upon the first. While the first line addresses only the rulers, the second broadens the scope of God’s warning to include the entire community of Israel (“all of you&#8221. Now, of course, this may mean “all of you rulers.” I am inclined to think that the condemnation of the earlier verses is being broadened to include all of the people of Israel. After all, how can men be leaders unless there be followers? Many passages place responsibility for just rulers and just rule on all of Israel, not just on its leadership.

“You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice” (Exod. 23:1-2).

“You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the word of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you” (Deut. 16:18-20).
​

These passages teach that the responsibility for godly leadership rests upon the community. The people as a whole have an obligation to make sure that godly leaders are appointed. They must resist peer pressure and stand alone, if necessary, in upholding righteousness.

.....Strange as it may seem, Psalm 82 has something to say to us about church discipline. The church members are “gods” in the same way that Israel’s leaders were, because we are assigned the responsibility of acting in God’s behalf when church members willfully disregard God’s word and the warning of fellow saints.​

Again, even from a Non-WOF Perspective, thankfully there're others who can easily make distinction on how the "little god" issue is truly not something to trip about. But apart from that, if wanting more information, I'd would suggest looking into the work of a man by the name of Michael S. Heiser, PhD. ( //michaelsheiser.com/ )----as he has written many powerful articles/research on the issue regarding the views of Israel and how it seems that perhaps neither Monolatry nor Monotheism is the best definition for how to go about dealing with "god" texts. He's an EXCELLENT Hebrew Scholar---and made an article you could look up online under the title of "Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism: Toward an Honest (and Orthodox) Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible" ( //ttpstudents.com/papers/ets/2003/Heisermonotheism/Heisermonotheism.html )


Again, pray that the infomation does serve to bless others immensely......and if anyone would like more, one can ask and I'll be more than happy to supply/give out...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

On a serious note, I wonder if Mr. Hanegraaff would accuse the church fathers of drinking Henessy Beer (Isn't that what Henotheism is? ):

"we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods...." [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF 1:522.]

Do we cast blame on him because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." ... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality."(Irenaeus, Against Heresies,4.38. Cp. 4.11)

Origen claimed that God "will be 'all' in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God...." [Origen, De Principiis 3:6:3, in ANF 4:345.]

"Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a GOD". (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1)

"if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God.... His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, 'Men are gods, and GODS are men.'"(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 See also Clement, Stromateis, 23).

"made like God, free from suffering and death," and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming GODS and of having power to become sons of the highest." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124)

​

You know, I did quote Augustine as well, who is the "father" of the theological perspective you hold to (Calvinism). But just for laughs, here is a quote by Martin Luther:

This is what I have often said, that faith makes of us lords, and love makes of us servants. Indeed, by faith we become gods and partakers of the divine nature and name, as is said in Psalms 82,6: "I said, Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High." But through love we become equal to the poorest. According to faith we are in need of nothing, and have an abundance; according to love we are servants of all. By faith we receive blessings from above, from God; through love we give them out below, to our neighbor. Even as Christ in his divinity stood in need of nothing, but in his humanity served everybody who had need of him. Of this we have spoken often enough, namely, that we also must by faith be born God's sons and gods, lords and kings, even as Christ is born true God of the Father in eternity; and again, come out of ourselves by love and help our neighbors with kind deeds, even as Christ became man to help us all.[Luther, Martin The Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), pp. 73, 74]
​

Augustine nor Luther are Scripture. Both actually taught numerous things that I strongly disagree with. However, many statements made by Luther are closer to Word-Faith thought than many of the WoF critics are willing to admit. This is one of them. If the WoF critics would like to keep beating on the WoF for statements they make then why not just say that Luther was a heretic as well? If they could at least be consistent then we might have a little more respect for them. On the contrary people like Hanegraaff claim that WoF teachings are not derived from history but from cultic sources such as New Thought and Mormonism. This is why I present the church fathers and Luther to rebut such false accusations.

I do recognize that I am a "son of God" (small "s") while Jesus is the Son of God (big "S"). Both words are from the Greek word "teknos." Do you heretic investigators recognize that such a teaching is Scriptural? Do you acknowledge this? Do you even believe in a literal new birth where a person has been made a new creation?

Furthermore, in your catalogue of who you define as heretics (based on your man-made criteria), have you added the Church Fathers and Reformers such as Martin Luther to it? I showed you in several posts that they taught theosis - no different than what some WoF teachers teach? So are they in your catalogue of heretics? If not then why not? And if you claim that what they mean is different than the WoF then please explain the difference and provide some FACTS!!! If you believe that Luther and the Church Fathers are just as wrong then please explain to me why you are NOT on the Reformed forums and Orthodox forums castigating the followers of these various denominations and theologies.

Which leads to another series of questions? Do you consider the Greek Orthodox church to be heretics?

More than on point, Bro---and thanks for the reminders, though it's always interesting to see how the issue is ignored needlessly. But again, on the discussion, it is indeed a trip seeing how much church history itself has borne witness to the reality of man being created in the Image of God/made to be like "gods"---as well as the reality of what a "god" is.....and of course, the arguments often switch when being unable to show how those in Church History meant differently than WOF do today---with the stance often switching from saying "WOF is not in line with the church" to saying "Well, the church isn't right on everything....."...and even then, consistent inconsistency. For the casual reader interested, the issue brought up by VictoryWord /as well by other WOFers at length in other debate forums where issue has come up from those who're critics of WOF/love Hannegraff....and for reference:

• THEOSIS, Psalm 82, & WOF Nuggets on "Little God": Thoughts On The Issue? ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=147283&highlight=monolatry )

• WOFers Must Prove They Are NOT Mormons ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=147530&highlight=monolatry )

• Satan is the god of the world ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=3924426#post3924426 )

• "Gods" equals "Authority"---as clearly seen in Spiritual Warfare/Levels of RANK ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=3731235&postcount=188 )

• more "little gods" ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=145042 )

• WOF Teaches People To Break The Ten Commandments Part 1 ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=137781&page=7 )

• Who said this? ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=3892073&postcount=14 )

• For any WOF except BobC ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=144388&page=8 )

• The problems with the little gods critique... ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=4080444&highlight=monolatry#post4080444 )

• Jesus growth into sonship? ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=4325858&highlight=monolatry#post4325858 )

• A Look at Monolatry ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=173569&highlight=monolatry&page=3 )

On the issue, as noted before, I'm still amazed in witnessing how there's no such record of terminology regarding being "gods" as being such problem in Early CHurch History since they used the terminology with ease (for anyone honestly reading)---and before people say "You're just reading WOF into things", bear in mind NUMEROUS OTHERSS came into WOF from other theological backgrounds studying church history/understanding concepts from multiple perspectives.... without ever having a "WOF" Frame of reference/filter and IMHO, to say otherwise is to claim the nature of denial.....

In example, here're some of the phrases many have issue with when it comes to WOF:

“We are Christ.”

“Every man who has been born again is an incarnation and Christianity is a miracle. The believer is as much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth.”




​

Some of these are from Hagin Himself (and one from Benny Hinn, I think)....Now, with that said, let us take a simple one people can square with (from one of the PRIMARY Sources )

Theosis (lit. "ingodded," "becoming god," deification) in the Eastern Orthodox tradition is a vision of human potential for perfection, anticipated in ancient Greece, witnessed to in both the Old and New Testaments, and developed by Patristic Christian theologians of the first five centuries after Christ. This vision survived the fourth-century purges of heresy and persists yet today in Eastern Christianity as a challenge to Western theology. According to Vladimir Lossky, we are nothing less than "creatures called to gods" (The Vision of God). In the words of Irenaeus (120-202): "If the Word was made man, it is that men might become gods" (Against Heresies, Bk. V. Pref. col. 1035).

As Athanasius (293-373) said of the Incarnation of Christ: "God became man so that man might become God" (On the Incarnation of the Word, Bk. IV. par 65). The idea of theosis is that God and humanity progressively achieve a union in Christ which in the end both blurs and preserves the distinction between Creator and creation, as in a mirror perfectly reflecting the source of its
image

​

And for commentary:

Plato had already defined theosis as "likeness to God so far as possible" (Theaetetus). How far is possible is what was debated in the Platonic tradition. The Greek idea of theosis was incorporated into Patristic theology as theosis kata charin (ingodded according to gift or grace). As a gift of God, according to capacity, a person can become a "partaker of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). Just as God, as Creator, crossed over from the divine realm and became a human, so human beings (through progressive participation in the divine nature) may cross over from creaturehood into the uncreated realm--a grace which restores the image and appropriates the likeness of God, as far as possible in this life and the next.

The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis is understood to be grounded in Scriptures (Psalms 82:6, John 10:34-35, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:1-2) and in the Apostolic Tradition according to its principal proponents (Origen, Clement, Ephrem, Macarius, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor). After the Orthodox acceptance of the views of Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) on the distinctions between divine energies and divine essence, the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis became defined as a "union (of energies) without confusion (of essence)" in which the essential distinction between Creator and creature eternally remains. As Orthodox Bishop Kalistos Ware writes:"In the Age to come, God is 'all in all,' but Peter is Peter and Paul is Paul." Each retains his or her own nature and personal identity. Yet all are filled with God's Spirit and perfected as creature (The Orthodox Way, 168).
​

As another hurch father said best ( Saint Maximus the Confessor ):

"A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God himself became man.... Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the divine nature, and will raise it up for his own sake to the same degree as He lowered himself for man's sake. This is what St Paul teaches mystically when he says, '...that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace'

• PHILOKALIA Volume II, page 178

One can go to the Philokalia (Gk. φιλοκαλία "love of the beautiful/good")-- a collection of texts by masters of the Eastern Orthodox, hesychast tradition, writing from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries on the disciplines of Christian prayer and a life dedicated to God---for further information. But the material is indeed fascinating. It was the case that many of the Church Fathers took the concept of theosis to mean that it goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in Jesus's person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time.



To be even more clear, all of the individuals noted were all individuals who actively stood against herectical teachings/concepts and were well revered for it/other contributions they made to the CHurch History that is often pitted against WOF as if they do not understand it or appreciate it........

People can say "Well, language changes over time...so when the early church fathers used the language of man being "gods", it just wasn't the same.."...but I've yet to see any evidence showing concretely what the Church Father meant when it came to him saying "gods"---or, for that matter, how other church fathers used the language in the 1500'S---was any different than how it's used today in WOF, especially seeing how often those who were apart of the Early Church often qualified their statements so that there'd be no confusion as to where they were coming from...and the same for those in WOF

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here is Creflo Dollar explaining this view:

Here is the understanding you should receive concerning this chapter. It's understood that you and I are not God. There is only one God. However, as His children, we are like Him. He is the big "G," and we are the little "g." In Him we have been given the authority to rule and reign in this earth just as Jesus did. We have the mind of Christ. Even Jesus said that we would do the works He did and greater works as well. (John 14:12)

The Image of Righteousness, pg. 91​

This is a far cry from henotheism, if I'm understanding the definition correctly. Henotheism embraces the possiblility of many gods, but one of them is worshipped. However, Creflo says that there is ONE God and explains that we are not God, but we are His children and we are like Him.

H

Indeed--and glad, by the way, that you investigated Dollar's book to see fully where he was coming from...

The thread is a blessing, Bruh----as the same issue was brought up elsewhere when it came to accusations made against Creflo Dollar, with critics doing as is usually the case in choosing to go to second-hand information of what a "discernment ministry" (and that's said loosely) states---with only select quotes seperated from the whole of a teaching---then procedding to make a devil out of the person being discussed. Creflo, alongside nearly all within WOF, state multiple times man is NOT God/only the Lord alone is worthy of WORSHIP!!!!!!!!

Discussed the matter in depth before over at CARM--as seen in Jesus growth into sonship? ( //www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=4325858&highlight=monolatry#post4325858 )---where folks made accusation that Creflo felt God was not truly who He was. However, none showed ANY knowledge of what He had stated fully in his book.

The Image of Righteousness: You're More Than You Know

For more info, one can go online /type up the following names in the search box:

• Creflo Dollar Says "You Are gods" ( biblelight.net/Creflo-Dollar.htm )

• Archived Audio and Video Messages from Creflo Dollar Broadcasts (interactive.creflodollarministries.org/broadcasts/archives2002_t.asp?site=CDM )---so that one can see all of the audio/video clips IN FULL from his ministry archive and hear his series IN CONTEXT.

Creflo is essentially no different in what he's saying than what one would see in a liturgical circle such as Eastern Orthodoxy when it concerns the concept of Theosis---except in language/terms. And for more info on that from their perspective if wanting comparision:

• Theosis: Partaking of the Divine Nature ( //www.antiochian.org/node/16916 )

• A Response to Credenda / Agenda on Orthodoxy’s Teaching of Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation / Salvation By Christ: A Response to the Credenda/Agenda ( Salvation By Christ: A Response to the Credenda/Agenda )

2 Corinthians 3:18
And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

2 Corinthians 5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
​

I'm still reminded of what I learned in attending Creflo Dollar's Church ages ago (back in 2000-2002, actually) when the series came up known as "Growth Into Sonship" and "The Righteousness Of God In Christ"---both which impacted my life greatly, " :

"I'm going to to tell you what blasphemy is! When God says you are the righteousness of God and you go around talking about, 'I'm unworthy.' That's blasphemy!...Blasphemy is when you go against what God has said about your true self! OOOOh! We are so unworthy! Shut up with that blasphemy!....You are not a sinner saved by grace. You are sons and daughters of the Most High God! You are gods! You are God's reflection on this planet. For you to say that thing is for you to count the blood of Jesus worthless. ................

​

The entire issue of being like "gods" was always in regards to God being in intimacy with us----and apart from His redeemption/restoring us, there'd be no issue. Minus being "gods" in the sense of being in His Image/with many of God's traits (i.e. creativity, intellect, reason, self-determination, etc), when His Spirit is upon/working in us, we're effectively "gods" (II Peter 1)...little rulers in His Image/Spreading His message of the Gospel....and that in no way means that we're ever going to be like God on the same level. This has been repeated for ages among WOF.... Though of course, you already know the rest of my views when they were shared in depth elsewhere on the WOF Forums...and in excerpt:

One of which is a teaching on the issue of who we are in Christ---the issue of being "The Righteousness of God in Christ" (which is also blasted within WOF many times by others outside of it)--that may bless you ( //frimmin.com/faith/theosis.php# ):

Theosis, (also called divinization, deification, or transforming union) was one of the most important of early Christian doctrines, but it has become such a well-kept secret, that is nearly unknown to most contemporary laymen. It means participating in, and partaking of, God's Divinity. It is likely to sound so alien to our ears that we might quickly dismiss it as some heresy, rather than realize this is the heart of the Christian calling.

Yet, from the first chapter of Genesis, to Christ the Word of God, through the Apostles, to numerous saints, theologians, and Christian writers throughout the centuries and today, the message is clear: God made us to be like him, wants us to become like Him, and will ultimately transform us into being like him. From the second-century St. Ireneaus, to the twentieth-century C. S. Lewis, some theologians have used the most shocking language to bring home how shocking this gift of God is: "becoming gods," or even "becoming God."

Becoming God doesn't mean we become all-knowing, all-powerful, or that we remember saying "let there be light." It really means becoming Christ, or becoming divine—that God's God-ness is experienced and known not as something outside and separate, but as a part of our own being. It means knowing God as Jesus knew the Father, so like Jesus, we are with him, fully human, and fully divine.

This is a difficult teaching to accept at first. It is one thing to think of ourselves as children of God in the sense that, like all creation, we ultimately come from God. But it is quite another to believe in the biblical usage of the words children and sons, because their implications of likeness, growing up, and inheritance are much stronger than that. "the power to become children of God," (John 1:12) indicates something much more than the fact that he created us.

It would be less shocking to consider this transformation a purely moral one: that our goal of "godness" just means "goodness" or "godliness," in the moral sense, coupled with the reward of eternal life, another divine quality. It certainly is that, but the indications from both Scripture and Tradition are that it is much more—a transforming union with God that makes us also Christ, at once human and divine, as Jesus was. This is the completion and perfection of salvation, to become Sons and Daughters of God with, within, and like him, the Son of God.


Children of God

Paul teaches that as Adam was the first man, so Christ is the "last Adam," superseding all that has come before. All who are born in him will be children of God, so even more surely than we are children of Adam, we are the children of Christ. Elsewhere, he describes us as being given the "spirit of sons," and declares that "the Spirit and our spirit bear united witness that we are children of God. And if we are children, we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christs, sharing his sufferings so as to share his glory." (Rom. 8:15-17) Sharing his glory. I don't know how many times I might have read that or heard that without letting it hit me. We will share his glory!

Theosis is described in Scripture in many ways—children inheriting from their Father and growing up to be like their Father is just one example. This is present even in the first chapter of the Bible. After God creates animal life by telling the earth to produce every kind of creature (Gen. 1-24-25), God does something completely different with man. He makes man directly, not indirectly, and makes him "male and female" to be like him, charged with ruling the rest of creation. (1:26-27) The implication is man is a little god, by the grace of God. (Of course, Genesis 3 describes how something went wrong with that!)

Bride of Christ

Another image is the "divine marriage." Jesus is the Lover of the Church and the Christian soul. He is the Bridegroom and we are the Bride. He will marry us, and we will become one with him. Jesus repeatedly described himself as the Bridegroom, probably bringing up the powerful love imagery of the Song of Songs to his listeners' minds. This image of theosis carries with it a powerful message of what changes us—Christ's unfailing and total passion for us. Theosis is considered the fruition of grace and love, nothing that comes to us by right or by nature. Our union with Christ is passionate, ardent, joyous and life-giving.

Paul describes this transformation of love as leading to a union so profound there are no barriers: "the two will become one body...This mystery applies to Christ and the Church" (Eph. 5:31-32), which leads us to...

The Body of Christ

This image goes even farther in bringing home the depth and immediacy of theosis—the Body of Christ. This is the one we are probably most familiar with, and maybe we have become too familiar with it to be shocked by its spiritual implications. Bridegroom and bride will share their bodies intimately, but a persistent theme in Paul's revelation is that Christ lives in our bodies, and together, we are his body.
In other words, the Incarnation was not a just a one-time event, but is the pattern of how Christ chooses to work on Earth. As God the Son was incarnate in Jesus, the risen Christ indwells us, enfleshed in all his people. He literally lives within these cells of skin and blood. And if Christ, who is both human and divine, lives within us, we become both human and divine as well. A book title I saw recently said it well—One Jesus, Many Christs. Or, in Jesus' own words "I am the vine, you are the branches." How close is a living branch of a vine to that vine? It is part of the very same organism!

The divinized Christian is a living Eucharist, a vessel presenting God's spirit to the world, constantly welling up within them. He is transforming this world, by living within us, and we are his hands, feet, and mouths. Instead of asking why God allows so much suffering on Earth, we should ask ourselves why we allow it!

Light of the World

Another image of theosis is seen in the use of the words sun and light. Jesus identified himself as "the light of the world," yet on another occasion called his disciples the light of the world." John teaches us that He is the "true light that enlightens every one" (Jn.1:9) Paul says we are like mirrors that not only reflect God's brightness, but which are transformed into the light which they reflect.(2 Cor. 3:17-18)

There are many more Biblical images of this wonderful work of God. He changes us like living water welling up within us, by living in him and he in us, by knowing him, and by becoming his brothers ( Hebrews 2:10-12/) Hebrews 2 ), just to name a few more.

​

More than on point, IMHO...and I pray that it does bless you...

Even for many of the teachers in WOF, I investigated the writings and didn't see anywhere close to what has been said of them when I saw the totality of their words/the lives and beliefs of those following them up close. Not Benny Hinn, or Myles Monroe---who was the one I followed the most growing up (and even he clarified men are not dieties when the term "gods" is used in WOF...). Joyce Myers was the other one on my mind, as I've read the books/heard her words in context and I'm still surprised to see people come back to the wrong concepts as if she was ever saying men were "dieties"...and for more info:

• Video Clips of Joyce Meyer on “The Power of Words” and “Man is a ‘Little God.’” (wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=resources.meyer )----which I was very grateful--as the way she said some of the things she did in the clips were not simple 5-minute bites..

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It seems both sides are simply using a different definition of the term "god". One side keeps a very strict and tight definition where "god" only refers to the Almighty, Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator and such a word is reserved only for Him. The other side uses a broader definition for the word "god" to include divine beings and godlike attributes/qualities such as authority, status, etc..

So on the latter definition someone who partakes in YHWH's Authority would be a god, not in the sense of Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator, but in the sense of ruling with Yahweh's authority. Or to say someone is a "child of God" on the latter definition means they are a "god", not in the sense that they ARE ALMIGHTY or something, but in the sense that they have been adopted into His family as a child. Note this is a difference in definitions, not a difference in ontology (which would be beyond heresey if it were).

I would humbly submit that the bible uses in term "god" (elohim in Hebrew, theos in Greek) in a broader sense to include, at times, angels and humans. One such tough example is from Psalm 82 (among other places):

82:1 God stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

Here in this Psalm, it's fairly obvious that the "gods" that "God" stands in front of are not human, even though later Rabbi's would believe that the "elohim" (gods) in this Psalm were in fact human. In either interpretation, the term "god" is used to refer to someone/something other than the God of Israel.

Several times in Exodus Israelite judges are called "gods":

Ex 21:5 But if the servant should declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 21:6 then his master must bring him to the judges [elohim='gods'], and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

Ex 22:8 If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges [elohim] to see whether he has laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods. 22:9 In all cases of illegal possessions, whether for an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any kind of lost item, about which someone says ‘This belongs to me,’ the matter of the two of them will come before the judges, and the one whom the judges [elohim] declare guilty must repay double to his neighbor.

Ex 7:1 So the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God [elohim] to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Note the word "like" is added into that translation. The bible, and OT in particular, uses a broad definition for the term translated as "god". This broad range of definition makes interpretation of some passages difficult (like Psalm 82).

If someone is going to insist on called themselves a "god" though, I think an explanation of what is meant should follow such a claim since in our world when someone says the word "god" a certain concept comes to mind automatically and we think, "Omnipotent, Eternal, All Knowling, All Present Creator of the Universe". This is the sort of definition that most people have so they naturally laugh and think it's ridiculous when someone says "I'm a god" because on the definition they are using, it is beyond ridiculous.

One way to see the way the bible uses the word "elohim" is to say that there are many elohim; Yahweh is an Elohim (He is the Elohim of Israel), but no other elohim are remotely close to Yahweh. All elohim are subordinate, and different ontologically, from YHWH the Elohim of Israel.

It's always important to define ambiguous terms. The difference, at least on this thread, seems to be about definitions, not ontology.

Great points, sir...and many thanks for sharing them in the Lord

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It seems both sides are simply using a different definition of the term "god". One side keeps a very strict and tight definition where "god" only refers to the Almighty, Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator and such a word is reserved only for Him. The other side uses a broader definition for the word "god" to include divine beings and godlike attributes/qualities such as authority, status, etc..

So on the latter definition someone who partakes in YHWH's Authority would be a god, not in the sense of Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator, but in the sense of ruling with Yahweh's authority. Or to say someone is a "child of God" on the latter definition means they are a "god", not in the sense that they ARE ALMIGHTY or something, but in the sense that they have been adopted into His family as a child. Note this is a difference in definitions, not a difference in ontology (which would be beyond heresey if it were).

I would humbly submit that the bible uses in term "god" (elohim in Hebrew, theos in Greek) in a broader sense to include, at times, angels and humans. One such tough example is from Psalm 82 (among other places):

82:1 God stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

Here in this Psalm, it's fairly obvious that the "gods" that "God" stands in front of are not human, even though later Rabbi's would believe that the "elohim" (gods) in this Psalm were in fact human. In either interpretation, the term "god" is used to refer to someone/something other than the God of Israel.

Several times in Exodus Israelite judges are called "gods":

Ex 21:5 But if the servant should declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 21:6 then his master must bring him to the judges [elohim='gods'], and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

Ex 22:8 If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges [elohim] to see whether he has laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods. 22:9 In all cases of illegal possessions, whether for an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any kind of lost item, about which someone says ‘This belongs to me,’ the matter of the two of them will come before the judges, and the one whom the judges [elohim] declare guilty must repay double to his neighbor.

Ex 7:1 So the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God [elohim] to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Note the word "like" is added into that translation. The bible, and OT in particular, uses a broad definition for the term translated as "god". This broad range of definition makes interpretation of some passages difficult (like Psalm 82).

If someone is going to insist on called themselves a "god" though, I think an explanation of what is meant should follow such a claim since in our world when someone says the word "god" a certain concept comes to mind automatically and we think, "Omnipotent, Eternal, All Knowling, All Present Creator of the Universe". This is the sort of definition that most people have so they naturally laugh and think it's ridiculous when someone says "I'm a god" because on the definition they are using, it is beyond ridiculous.

One way to see the way the bible uses the word "elohim" is to say that there are many elohim; Yahweh is an Elohim (He is the Elohim of Israel), but no other elohim are remotely close to Yahweh. All elohim are subordinate, and different ontologically, from YHWH the Elohim of Israel.

It's always important to define ambiguous terms. The difference, at least on this thread, seems to be about definitions, not ontology.

Great points...and many thanks for sharing...

 

[Tallen]

So what is your question? I counted 13 questions and can't really see any that you asked sincerely wanting to know the answer to. In reality it was more of a rant to not ask a question rather than to ask a sincere question, was it not?

 

[probinson]

So what is your question? I counted 13 questions and can't really see any that you asked sincerely wanting to know the answer to. In reality it was more of a rant to not ask a question rather than to ask a sincere question, was it not?

You mean someone asked a "question" that they already had their mind made up about? I am shocked, *SHOCKED* to hear of this happening on CF.

 

[MinJeremiah]

Tallen, you have lost the debate. Your arguments are unscriptual and illiogical.