Posted on 12/01/2013 9:06:36 PM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
TBN does not preach the Gospel of the grace of God, it preaches an ecumenical gospel, that all roads lead to heaven.
This is an issue about the Gospel, not sinless perfection.
Exactly!
His ministry certainly had nothing to do with Christianity.
Thank Beelzebub we’ll still have Madame Pompadour to send our hard earned coins to!
I typically go to the Greek and also see where else that word is used in scripture.
2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers (koinónos) of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
koinónos - Definition: a sharer, partner, companion.
2844 koinōnós (a masculine noun/substantival adjective) – properly, a participant who mutually belongs and shares fellowship; a "joint-participant."
And then other places that word is foung.
2 Corinthians 8:23 Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner (koinónos) and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.
Philemon 1:17 If thou count me therefore a partner (koinónos), receive him as myself.
When we are a partner of someone we don’t become that person or even take that persons identity or likeness.
>>Trust me, Catholics go with St Peter on this.<<
Not by the looks of it. What Peter said was not what Catholics believe it seems to me. If Catholics believed what Peter actually said they wouldn’t say that they become gods.
O well, there’s always the Reverend’s Telethon. I sent my kid’s college money to that.
They’re sending Bibles to El Salvador.
Who's "we"?
I never saw it.
I think it might be helpful to bring to mind the difference between "person" and "nature." Jesus Christ is a divine Person who has two natures: divine and human.
A human person (like you or me) could never be, and will never be, a divine Person. IN that sense, we are never "divinized," we never become "gods" either in the Mormon sense of plural gods (polytheism) or in the Brahmin sense of being merged into God so that one's own human personhood simply dissolves.
Those two senses (polytheism or personal annihilation) are errors --- I think we'd both agree on that. Those senses are not St. Peter's meaning, and are not the Catholic meaning.
Bu when you look at what Peter said, precisely, he said we are "partakers (koinónos) of the divine nature" not of the divine Personhood.
"Person" answers the question "WHO is that?"
"Nature" answers the question "WHAT is that?" Or, functionally, "What can it do? hat is it capable of?"
It seems to me --- and metaphysics isn't my bag, so I'm kind of feeling my way here --- that if we are partakers in His divine nature, we become sharers or partners in what He does, and we have a relationship (not an identity, a relationship) with His incomparably high and infinitely majestic Person.
Any doctrine of sharing the divine nature, I think, would have to observe these distinctions. If any of the great Catholic teachers like Saint Irenaeus or Clement of Alexandria speak of being "in the end, gods" they must be understood in this sense: that we are called to be partakers in the Divine nature, not as Divine Persons, of who there are only Three: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
CCC 460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” (Against Heresies 5, preface)
Clement of Alexandria
- “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,
“He became man that we might be made divine.” Athanasius, On the Incarnation,
That we might be made divine? We become a god? We are made ”what he himself is? I don’t think you can spin those any other way than to understand that the Catholic Church teaches people will become gods.
This leaves me with no basis for further discussion, since you have --- it seems to me --- assumed that I am arguing fraudulently, or adhering to a church which (like an imbecile) defines its terms by denying its own definitions.
If you'll try not to do that, then let me repeat:
Therefore --- since both the Bible and the Catechism speak of being "partakers in he divine nature," --- I propose this is what the "divinization" (theosis) language is all about: partaking in the divine nature.
It is not good for accurate mutual understanding if you read your own definitions into other people's statements, and then argue that they're wrong on the basis of those definitions which came from you, not from them.
Let's stipulate, then, that Catholics are not Mormons and not Brahmins. If that's the case, think: in what Judeo-Christian, Biblical sense could we understand this divination doctrine?
The answer to that, will be the true touchstone of the doctrine.
Do you see what I'm saying?
That is what the Church means by (to use the Greek term) theosis.
Any interpretation in a contrary sense, is in error.
We're in agreement: you, me, and the Catholic Church. OK?
I showed you what the Greek literal and intent of the word meant. In no way can it be construed to mean that men become gods. The literal meaning and the intent of the word means to partner.
****************************
The Catholic Church does not teach that. I don't know about the Mormons.
And I'm agreeing with you. It cannot mean to become gods in the sense of polytheism (which would be idolatry) or in the sense of being merging and being dissolved into God (which would be blasphemy.)
Therefore, the only orthodox way "becoming gods" can be interpreted in this context, is to partner by a participation in the *nature* of God.
Do you care to comment on this very important distinction between "person" and "nature"?
No, I do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches in this regard.
And what is it you think the Catholic Church teaches in this regard. Is it polytheism? Is it annihilationism? Or is there a third or fourth option?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.