Question:
Is the "little gods" doctrine REALLY unorthodox?
Law Abiding Citizen
2009-03-05 14:42:29 UTC
Word of Faithers catch a lot of flack for their "little gods" doctrine. Many people say it's a heretical doctrine. Many say it isn't an orthodox teaching. It isn't? If not, how do you explain this quote by the great reformer 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."

Source: Luther, Martin The Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), pp. 73

Martin Luther brought about the Protestant Reformation and he taught that "by faith we BECOME GODS and partakers of the divine nature.

Also, how does one explain this quote by late Baptist preacher A.J. Gordon (1836-1895)?

"But now God comes with the veritable promise that they shall, through faith, be made god-like, sharers of His nature and conformed to His image."

Source: Gordon, A. J. Partakers of the Divine Nature This article appears on the site: http://www.posword.org/

It seems Word of Faithers are not so unorthodox in their belief that Christians are "little gods" and partakers of the divine nature. Even the Bible points this out:

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

Yeah, I know people will say that "gods" means "magistrates" but as I've shown you from history, the orthodox view is that we as Christians are "little gods". So those who hold to the view that "gods" in this passage is interpreted as "magistrates" or "judges" are actually unorthodox, as nobody in church history taught such heresy.

It's easy to explain away clear cut scriptures. It's a little more difficult to explain it away when you are presented with evidence that the view in question is rooted in church history and your own view goes against the grain of orthodoxy.

So, is the "little gods" doctrine REALLY unorthodox?
Seven answers:
gumby
2009-03-05 14:52:42 UTC
LOL. If someone doesn't agree with your beliefs you insult them, if they do agree with your beliefs, you accuse them of stealing. Nice.
?
2016-10-14 09:27:11 UTC
Lol... my mom thinks this is the worst subject ever once you call a toddler 'undesirable'... undesirable boy, undesirable lady, and so on.... yet you're being a mom, and you're doing issues your way... and battling your son from throwing tantrums. in spite of age, he needs to appreciate that he won't be in a position to escape with that and his habit is unacceptable. your mom is being a gramma... and protecting her little toddler boy... it's going to ensue something of his existence... in that concern you need to tell your mom to stay out of it regrettably. and no, no longer all boys act like this each and all the time. do infants and infants have tantrums and misbehave? of direction. do they do issues to objective you? each and all the time... it quite is while parenting comes into play... that's strictly why you probably did what you probably did. if this is effective, then you definately did the main magnificent subject. reliable success and purely think of of ways this is going to be while he hits his 2's... :)
2009-03-05 14:58:05 UTC
[h410]='el :



1) god, god-like one, mighty one



a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes



b) angels



c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)



d) God, the one true God, Jehovah



2) mighty things in nature



3) strength, power



Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 245

AV — God 213, god 16, power 4, mighty 5, goodly 1, great 1, idols 1, Immanuel + 06005 2, might 1, strong 1

> so this what you think you are ?
G
2009-03-05 14:56:46 UTC
Sounds familiar:



4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!



5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God....
2009-03-05 14:46:23 UTC
Too much reading.
2009-03-05 15:52:48 UTC
*tears clothing*



That's blasphemy. NO MAN is a god, and no man can become G-D.

There is ONE G-D who is Eternal and Reigns in such a fashion. Salvation will NEVER, never, never ever EVER put us onto the same level as the Eternal Lord of Hosts. We NEVER EVER will be equal in power, authority, holiness, wisdom, integrity or ANY other divine attribute with the Eternal G-D. We are CREATIONS of the Most High, we ARE NOT, and NEVER will EVER become the Most High or even SHARE in His Glory just a little bit as He shares His glory with NO ONE. HE IS GOD. And no man will ever ever ever ever ever EVER be equal to Him.



It is blasphemy and heresy to say so.



That LIE is what caused both the Fall of Man AND the Fall of Satan IF you read your Bible. Lucifer was cast down for the pride of wanting to be G-D Eternal. To, Be God and be worshiped as God. Mankind fell, because in his heart he mimicked the same pride of the devil and desired to "become like God, knowing Good and Evil." (Genesis 3:5)



That is the very same lie from the beginning; and it is as blasphemous as it is heretical. No man, is God; and no man can EVER become God or "like God" in the fashion that you so have described.



That being said. The context of "gods" being "magistrates" and/or "judges" is more appropriate within the confines of scripture text than stating "gods" meaning exalted beings as the Eternal is. The Later statement is most definitely heresy and blasphemy.



The CJB renders Psalm 82:6 as "My decree is: 'You are elohim [gods, judges], sons of the Most High all of you."

KJV renders as "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

The word used in this verse is 'elohiym (’ĕlôhîym) interpreted as "gods" in this context means: rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, gods, works or special possessions of God, et cetera.

Strong’s defines as: (430) plur. of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec.used (in the plur. thus, espec. with the art.) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as superlative: - angels, x exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), x (very) great, judges, x mighty. (The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, p307)



It is obvious that "little gods" in terms of demi-gods as the mythological pagan concept is inferred by you from the isolated quotes is NOT appropriate. After the statement, "gods" comes "judges" or "sons" ... this is more so indicative of authoritative rulership and governing than it is becoming "like god" and, is relative in conjunction to mankind’s rightful authority over the earth (Gen 1-3) his appointment as 'judge' and 'ruler' (Ex 22:28) and the adoption as "sons" and "daughters" of God. (Romans 8:15-17; 8:22-24; 9:3-5; Galatians 4:4-8).



Galatians 4:4-8 reads, "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, v5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. v6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." v7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. v8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods."



This reiterates Martin Luther's statements in which he quotes Psalm 82:6. He did not preach polytheism (which is heresy) but he was saying "gods" in the sense of "sons, rulers, judges, magistrates, rightful heirs" to salvation.



Also, You have taken Jesus' statements in John 10 out of context. You have grossly misunderstood. Jesus responded in that fashion because He was two seconds away from being stoned to death for claiming that He was God. In His statements, He places himself on the same level as the Eternal and makes a claim to Divinity by saying, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) The "one" in this context, is Heis (hĕis) (Strongs. 1520 crf. 1527,3391etc). meaning "one thing" not "one person." He was building upon the Shema (Deut. 6:4) and was implicating the Echad (’echâd) of this verse.

It was CLEARLY understood by the preceding statements he made; So his listeners knew full well what he was saying and thus "picked up stones to stone him" (v31). The Reason?

Jesus says, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" (vs32) And to which they reply, "We are not stoning you for any of these, ... but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."(vs33).

THEN Jesus quotes the Law (Ps82:6) and says, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? (meaning, Judges, Rules, 'magistrates') AND He (Jesus) continues: "If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came -and the Scripture cannot be broken- v36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? v37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. v38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."



Jesus is referring to "gods" as in the same way described in the Law, and meaning "rules, judges and authorities" of Scripture who were divinely appointed by God. (Ex 22:28; Deut 1:17; 16:18; 2 Ch 19:6).

So, as you see, you have taken it out of context.

And Martin Luther was referencing THIS concept also, not blaspheming claiming that mere men could be equal to or are "Gods" as is the Eternal.



It is not Orthodox teaching, by any means. And no disrespect intended to the LDS, but they are not Christians, mostly due to the doctrine you cite (the belief that YOU have mentioned): that mankind can progress to godhood. That's is not Scriptural and it is blasphemy.



Hope this helps you out. xoxo ♥
No Chance Without Jesus
2009-03-05 14:46:02 UTC
WRONG.....and evil


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...