Televangelist Paul Crouch dies

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trinity-network-televangelist-paul-crouch-dies-21058680 ^ | AP

[Morgana]

COSTA MESA, Calif. — Paul Crouch, the televangelist who built what's been called the world's largest Christian broadcasting network, has died. He was 79.

Crouch died at his home in California on Saturday after a decade-long fight with degenerative heart disease, his grandson, Brandon Crouch, told The Associated Press.

"He was an incredible businessman, entrepreneur, visionary; he built something that impacted the world," he said.

Trinity Broadcast Network had reported that Crouch fell ill and was taken to a hospital in October while visiting the network's facility in Colleyville, Texas. He later returned to California for continued treatment of "heart and related health issues."

[Morgana]

“You do know that the original thread poster can get the WHOLE thread yanked off of FR”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Envision this:

Humblegunner in nothing but Mormon underwear

Humblegunner in nothing but Mormon underwear

Humblegunner in nothing but Mormon underwear

[Mrs. Don-o]

Who's contorting? You are preemptively denying the very possibility that the Catholic Church is using the word "God" or "gods" in a Biblical way. Having made a prior judgment without evidence, you proceed to reject any interpretation based on actual definitions found in Scripture and in the Catholic Church.

First, you have failed to clarify what you THINK the Catholic Church is guilty of: is it polytheism (many gods), or is it a assimilation/annihilation (one God into whom everybody is merged)? ... Or is it something else --- some third or fourth concept distinguishable from the two mentioned above?

Evidence, please.

Second, you have ignored the crucial difference between "Person" and Nature." We believe we are called to participate in the divine nature. We do not become divine Persons. That would make a difference, wouldn't it?

Third, you ignore Scriptural uses of the word God or gods, which illustrate that one is not always talking about polytheism or idolatry.

I'll give examples:

Look at Psalm 82, the psalm that Jesus quotes in John 10:34. The Hebrew word translated “gods” in Psalm 82:6 is Elohim. It usually refers to the one true God, but it does have other uses.

Psalm 82:1 says, “God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods.” It is clear from context that “gods” refers to magistrates, judges, men who hold positions of authority. Calling a human magistrate a “god” means he has civil authority over others, and he derives his power and authority from God Himself, who is pictured as judging the whole earth in verse 8.

Check out when God sent Moses to Pharaoh: "And the Lord said to Moses, Lo! I have made thee the god of Pharaoh; and Aaron, thy brother, shall be thy prophet." Wycliffe Bible (Exodus 7:1). This simply means that Moses, the messenger of God andspeaking God’s words, would thus be God’s representative to the king. The Hebrew word Elohim is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28.

Fast forward and check out how Jesus uses Pslam 82. Jesus had just said he's the Son of God (John 10:25-30). The Jews then charge Jesus with blasphemy, since He claimed to be God (verse 33). Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, reminding the Jews that the Law refers to mere men—albeit men of authority and prestige—as “gods.” Jesus’ point is this: you charge me with blasphemy based on my use of the title “Son of God”; yet your own Scriptures apply the same term to magistrates in general. If a mere man who holds a divinely appointed office can be spoken of as “god,” how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (verses 34-36)?

This illustrates that "god" and "gods" are used (although rarely) in analogical senses in the OT and the NT. They do not mean a personal equality or identity with the Supreme Being; they mean, holding a share of God's authority, BY His authority.

In none of the above usages is polytheism implied. These are the Scriptural senses in which the Church understands the concept of divinization.

If you had not excluded all these Biblical precedents from the outset, you would not have latched exclusively onto the misunderstanding that Catholics believe in polytheism. You ought to go after the ones who have deviated most radically from Christian Orthodoxy into real polytheism: people like Kenneth Hagin, Creflo Dollar, and Benny Hinn.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Paragraphs would be nice.

[CynicalBear]

First you make a statement like this.

“First, you have failed to clarify what you THINK the Catholic Church is guilty of:”

Then later in the post you make this statement.

“you would not have latched exclusively onto the misunderstanding that Catholics believe in polytheism.”

I have simply, to a comment about Crouch claiming to be a god, shown that others do that also. I have found it fascinating that I have received outright denials that the CC teaches that. I have made no judgment as to that teaching. The comment about Crouch, which didn’t come from me, was a comment of condemnation for that view. Simply showing that the CC also teaches that men become gods brought about some rather harsh toned responses and denials.

>> Third, you ignore Scriptural uses of the word God or gods,<<

No, I didn’t. I didn’t address the scriptural uses other than to point out that the New Testament examples refer to more a partner arrangement.

As you have pointed out, scripture itself points to the use of gods when referring to men. In fact, in the passage from Psalm 82:1 uses the exact Hebrew word “Elohim” for both God referring to the one triune God and also for men.

Again as you pointed out, the use of the term “blasphemy” so flippantly or denial of both scripture and what the CC teaches are both dangerous. As it turns out you and I are indeed on the same page here. I sincerely hope that we have illustrated that knee jerk accusations or denials are ill advised. I will also point out the need for holding scripture alone as our guide and sole source for ultimate truth. I alone is the infallible word of God. You illustrated that truth by using scripture as the final authority. Now, how about we do that with other teachings of the CC? And yes, the likes of Kenneth Hagin, Creflo Dollar, and Benny Hinn and others regardless of what “church” they claim to belong to.

[CynicalBear]

Kin I watch?

[Mrs. Don-o]

First you make a statement like this... “First, you have failed to clarify what you THINK the Catholic Church is guilty of” ... Then later in the post you make this statement.... “you would not have latched exclusively onto the misunderstanding that Catholics believe in polytheism."

Yes, that's an error on my part; but (But! But!) it is occasioned by the point that you STILL have not clarified, which is: what do you think the Catholic Church means by its doctrine on "theosis"? Is it polytheism (which I perhaps too-hastily supposed is what you think)? Or is it absorption into the Godhead and personal extinction? Or is it something else?

You can't judge a doctrine until you have an adequate understanding of what it means.

So would you please answer that question? Because you can't critique what you can't define.

[Elsie]

Kinky dude!

Or else you are a Mormon Bishop. THEY want to know about your underwear status every year at interview time.

[CynicalBear]

>>what do you think the Catholic Church means by its doctrine on "theosis"?<<

I would have no idea what the Catholic Church means by its doctrine. Once again we can only go to scripture to know what we should believe. Scripture clearly shows men who have been called gods to be representatives or emissaries of God in that we are to carry out His will and commands.

The Greek word used in 2 Peter 1:4 is “theias” and is an adjective (not a noun) which means that we can exhibit some of the attributes of God. In other words we can manifest the characteristics of God’s nature. Examples would be love, charity or other attributes described in Matthew 5. It does not use the word “theos”. One thing we need to keep in mind is that any “attributes” of God that we show spring from the indwelling of the Spirit of God within us and not of ourselves. Thus in the case of Crouch and others who tend to claim that “theias” for themselves rather than attributing it to the Spirit of God within them is telling. Is the Catholic Church attributing those attributes and the “theosis” of man to that indwelling Spirit or to man himself?

[CynicalBear]

Nooooo! I ain’t kinky. I just like a good laugh. :-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yay! Now we're getting somewhere!

" I would have no idea what the Catholic Church means by its doctrine."

Right you are. That's why you should not condemn what you admittedly do not understand.

"Is the Catholic Church attributing those attributes and the “theosis” of man to that indwelling Spirit or to man himself?"

The former.

Those who hold the latter -- e.g. the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, who have been flirting with panentheism and New Age syncretism --- are squacking (skwawking? squaw... whatever) that they've been hit by a Doctrinal Assessment under Pope Benedict, which is one of the first things reiterated by Pope Francis when he took office.

In other words, they've been called out for setting up their own counter-magisterium which opposes the Church's own understranding of doctrine. Those who do this are either out (e.g. Matthew Fox) or on their way out.

Can I have an Amen?

( The tagline is Ephesians 4:15)

[CynicalBear]

>> That's why you should not condemn what you admittedly do not understand.<<

You mean other than their history of crediting man in places that God should get the credit? That alone indicates that they would assign that to man. I will do more research on this topic to determine what the CC actually believes.

>> The former.<<

We will see.

>> Can I have an Amen?<<

I suppose it depends on what any particular person or group disagrees with the magesterium. Call me cynical. I have seen way to much error to trust the "magesterium".

[smvoice]

“Trust but verify” comes to mind here.

[CynicalBear]

As with most denominations really. It’s just that the Catholic Church has such blatant errors one hesitates to even trust.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Is the Catholic Church attributing those attributes and the “theosis” of man to that indwelling Spirit or to man himself?"

Nice article here I just stumbled upon:

Pope Francis on "Christians Without Jesus" (Link)

[CynicalBear]

You’re correct it was good. I was rather perplexed even at the first sentence however. Why would the central leader of a religion that calls itself Christian feel the need to remind people to “never forget” that Jesus is central? “It’s not easily understood that Jesus is at the center”? Really? For him to feel compelled to make that speech is a sad, sad indictment of the Catholic Church and it’s rituals and formalities. And I would seriously take a second look at following that organization if you feel compelled to point to some speech that shows that Catholics actually worship Jesus.

Jesus should be the ONLY focus. If one has to feral out that Jesus is in there somewhere and the pope has to remind people of that there is something drastically wrong with that “church”.

[Mrs. Don-o]

He could have been speaking about any church. Mine. Yours. Ours.

In fact, I think he was.

I've certainly seen other fine Christians (I'm thinking of Albert Mohler) inveighing against Churchianity in very much the same terms.

[CynicalBear]

It wouldn’t be mine I can assure you. If Jesus isn’t center and the ONLY focus I’m outa there pronto.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I’m so impressed. A church without sinners! And here I am stuck, sinners to the right of me, sinners to the left of me, sinners in my own pew -— sinner in my own seat!

[CynicalBear]

What? Who said anything about a church without sinners? There ain’t such a thing. I’m simply talking about making sure Jesus is the central and ONLY focus of veneration, adoration, or worship.

[Elsie]

Then I’ll post MY picture!