"He is sovereign.  He's the Creator.  No body created Him.  He does not have a spiritual head.  He is THEE spiritual Head.  Are you listening to me now?  I've had people carry signs and advertise my meetings for me.  You know?  ... And most of them, the sign that they carry said, "Kenneth Copeland says that he's God."  Now look -- I was born at night, but not last night. I am not that stupid ... Anybody who thinks he's God -- It don't take but a second to prove that he's not.  Amen!  Now, we are created in the same class with God, in the fact that we have the spiritual capacity ... to be called His own sons and daughters.  We are born of His Spirit." (Copeland, "Believer's Voice of Victory", Feb 26 1995)

 

"God told Adam to subdue the earth...Now in that he's created in God's class...God gave man authority -- that put him in the same class with God. Now you take the word "god" with a little "g" just simply means authority. It also means provider...In that sense -- the fact that God gave man a free will to make choice. In that way we're created in God's class. Now when I originally started talking about that, I didn't take time to explain that. I thought Ned and the third primer could understand that.  But I forgot how ignoramous religion can be and how blind it can be. In that sense you're created in God's class...Man is not a sovereign being. You're subject to something.  You can't be sovereign and I don't care how hard you try. You are either subject to God or...to the devil." (Copeland, 1993 Southwest Believer's Convention, Video #3/G-63-0307)

 

Faith teachers have made several statements with regard to the believer's authority and dominion that they later had to clarify.  These statements served as corrections to typical evangelical paradigms (e.g. the woe is me mentality).  The faith teachers, being somewhat naive about the potential ramifications of such unqualified statements, didn't bother to qualify the statements at the time they were made. This certainly roused the feathers of the heresy hunters.  Nevertheless, they were qualified later.  Yet the heresy hunters have pressed on, regardless of the clarifications, as if their intentions to destroy these ministries have deafened their ears to any qualifications.

Even the father of heresy hunting, Hank Hanegraaf, admits that using the phrase "little gods" should not be deemed blasphemous if it is meant in the Biblical sense.  He writes:

 

"It [the use of the phrase "gods"] is not necessarily heretical in and of itself, as long as it is not intended to convey that man is equal with or part of, God." (Hanegraaf, Christianity in Crisis, Pg. 109)

The Hebrew word elohim is normatively rendered as "God" or "god".  In Psalm 82:6, God uses this very word to describe humans.  He intimates, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (KJV).  Jesus alludes to this verse in John 10:34-35 in order to vindicate Himself from charges of identifying Himself as the Father when He said "I and the Father are One".  In these verses, the term "gods" is referring to those who are rulers, magistrates, or judges -- not divine beings with ontological equality with God Almighty.  Copeland uses the term similarly. We were designed to be God's under-rulers of the earth (Gen 1:26, Psalm 8:5-6 NASB, Psalm 115:16).  Though believer's share in the divine nature morally (2 Pet 1:4) and arguably in some sense metaphysically (due to having the zoe life of God in us by the indwelling Spirit), we certainly are not in ontological equality with God. 

Prayerfully that answered your first question.  I personally wouldn't use the term "god" in referring to myself or any other believer, due to the baggage that phrase hold in our culture.  Yet I don't think Copeland's use of the term was in a blasphemous manner.

Now let us proceed to the second question.  The degree of Christ’s estrangement from the Father on the cross (as some call a spiritual death or separation) is taken to differing levels among faith teachers (See Mt 27:46).  Kenyon’s teaching, which portrays Christ taking on our actual sinful nature, is seemingly the most severe. Admittedly, to say that Christ took on a sinful nature implies that He had an inclination to do evil (i.e. think evil thoughts, have evil lusts...); For that is the normal understanding of a "nature" -- an "inclination" or "persuasion".  Again, I think Kenyon was taking the concept of Identification (and Substitution) to its full extent, perhaps not thinking through the potential ramifications of these statements.  Yet, even Kenyon would never deny the Holiness of Christ during His spiritual death and descent into Hell.  He wrote, “Psalm 88 gives us the picture of a righteous man in Hell” (Bible in the Light of Our Redemption, P. 166). He also wrote how the disciples only saw the physical side of His sufferings, “They didn't see demons take that beautiful spirit [Christ] and carry it away” (Advanced Bible Course, P. 277).  These passages make me think that perhaps critics have taken Kenyon's ideas to convey something he did not intend.  Unfortunately, Kenyon is not alive to qualify his strong language in his book "What Happened From the Cross to the Throne".  Neither is the heroic reformer Martin Luther alive to fully qualify his statements that the crucified Christ was temporarily not "the Son of God born of the virgin Mary, but a sinner...", Who became "of all the sinners, the greatest" (Luther, Commentary on Galatians).  Copeland states:

"What everybody gets so upset about is when you go talking about Jesus experiencing spiritual death.  Which is separation from God!...If He wasn't separated from God there's no way for you to ever be joined to God (Copeland, "The Just Shall Live by Faith", 1996, Audiotape 1, side 1)

So Copeland equates Jesus' cry in Matthew 27:46 to His spiritual death (i.e. estrangement from God).  Many prominent commentators (as well as the Spirit Filled Life Bible in Psalm 22) would agree with him up to this point (yet many would not use the phrase "spiritual death", but rather "total separation" from the Father).  He also seems to be quite evangelical in his communication of imputation (notice the phrase "as if" below):

"He bore sin itself.  He paid the price for doing that. He paid the penalty as if He had opened the door for the devil and gave him this whole thing." (Believer's Voice of Victory, January 1, 1995)

 However, in the shadow of Kenyon, Copeland takes it to the next level:

"He accepted the sin nature of Satan in His own spirit." (Taken from "Chrisitanity in Crisis", Pg. 157-158)

Theologians have struggled with the true meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21 for years, and there are various views as to what it means to be "made sin" (though Kenyon and Copeland would be in the minority view).  Obviously, "sin" is not a tangible substance, but rather an act of disobeying God's law (1 John 3:4).  In a similar vein, a "curse" is not a tangible substance, but rather a pronouncement of woe or judgment.  Therefore, it is makes more logical sense to interpret 2 Corinthians 5:21 in correlation with Galatians 3:13, which states in similar language that Christ was "made a curse" for us.  The last part of the verse clarifies the meaning of being "made a curse" by intimating, "For it is written, cursed is..." So, to be "made X" is to have the passive form of the root verb of "X" applied to you.  So to be "made a curse" is "to be cursed", and we know that "to be cursed" means to bear a curse, or more explicitly, bear the penalty associated with a curse. Therefore it seems appropriate to interpret the phrase "made sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21 in a penal, rather than substantive sense. With these conclusions in mind, to be "made sin" (i.e. to be sinned -- which obviously doesn't make sense but I'm keeping the same phrasing as Gal 3:13) means to bear sin in a penal sense, or more explicity bear the penalty for sin. Christ "bore our sins in His body on the tree" (1 Pet 2:24, c.f. Isa 53:6) in the sense that He bore the penalty -- the consequences our sins -- the curse of the Law.  Paul metaphorically paints a picture of a huge substantive substance of sin sitting on top of Christ on the cross, but never really intends to convey that sin is something that materializes or that someone could transform into a substance called "sin."  The sin-bearer interpretation, then, is the most fitting interpretation¹. So the question then arises, "What spiritual state was Christ in during this penal period?"  In order for God to treat Him thus, He had to temporarily forsake Him and treat Him as a spiritually dead sinner, thus warranting Jesus cry in Matthew 27:46.  If the Father had not really forsaken Christ, then Christ cried out a blatant lie.  So we must assume that the separation was real.  The degree to which this experience effected Christ's spirit metaphysically is a matter which we should not take too many liberties with limited Biblical evidence.  As Robertson comments, "We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ’s suffering on the Cross, but this fact throws some light on the tragic cry of Jesus just before he died: "My God, My God, why didst thou forsake me?" (#Mt 27:46).".  I personally see the whole process as primarily imputational (a reckoning as a sinner) rather than infusional (a becoming a sinner), and thus I don't adhere to any teaching that places a tangible sin nature on Christ, nor do I believe Christ had to atone for any sins in Hell (although I do believe He went there to proclaim His victory and free the captives -- you can see my Q&A "What is all the controversy over the events that took place from the cross to the throne?").

Kenyon's and Copeland's "satanic nature" teaching (or that which is perceived by the heresy hunters) is not something that is taught universally in Word of Faith (WoF) churches.  In fact, in a 1991 letter to the Christian Research Institute, Hagin's son, Kenneth Hagin Jr, argued that Hagin Sr had never taught the born again Jesus or the adoption of Satan's nature.  So we see this type of teaching diminishing in the WoF ranks. The Word of Faith movement is not a denomination with a strict set of universal beliefs.  The main fabric holding together the movement is the "Word of Faith" (i.e. Boldly believing and speaking the Word of God by Faith to be a world overcomer). You can still be a WoF adherent without believing that Jesus took on a sin nature, the same way you can be a WoF adherent and believe in speaking in tongues as the evidence of the baptism of the Spirit (though E.W. Kenyon, the father of the movement, did not believe this).

¹ The Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary (JFB) rightfully argues against the "sin offering" interpretation, claiming that such an interpretation would force the term "sin" to be used in different senses in the same sentence, unless of course we rendered the first half of the verse as "for he hath made him to be sin OFFERING for us, who knew no sin OFFERING;" -- which would completely irrationalize the first half of the verse, not to mention destroy the antithesis with "Righteousness" in the second half².  JFB also argues against the "sinful person" interpretation (which is somewhat similar to Kenyon's interpretation), claiming that such an interpretation would require the antithesis in the second half of the verse to read "righteous men", not "righteousness".  Instead, JFB leaves the reading as "sin", clarifying "sin" to mean the "representative Sin-bearer (vicariously) of the aggregate sin of all men past, present, and future. The sin of the world is one, therefore the singular, not the plural, is used; though its manifestations are manifold (#Joh 1:29). 'Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the SIN of the world.'" (JFB, 2 Cor 5:21)

2 Adam Clarke apparently is okay with this contextual inconsistency.  He claims that "sin offering" is the best rendering because the word for sin "answers to the chattaah and chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch." (Adam Clarke's Commentary on 2 Cor 5:21)