# Theosis



## JM (May 11, 2012)

> ...the continuous process of acquiring the Holy Spirit by grace through ascetic devotion



A good intro to the Eastern Orthodox idea of theosis.

Theosis: Partaking of the Divine Nature | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese


> deification is very akin to the Wesleyan understanding of holiness or perfection


----------



## J. Dean (May 11, 2012)

The whole issue I have with theosis is that it seems to put the cart (sanctification) before the horse (justification).


----------



## wsmeathers (May 11, 2012)

The EO’s definition of “deification” or “theosis” seems almost exactly the same as what most western Christians call “sanctification”. Though I’m not sure what they mean by the “ascetic” nature of devotion – are they saying that to be devoted, a Christian must endure pain?


----------



## Claudiu (May 11, 2012)

wsmeathers said:


> The EO’s definition of “deification” or “theosis” seems almost exactly the same as what most western Christians call “sanctification”. Though I’m not sure what they mean by the “ascetic” nature of devotion – are they saying that to be devoted, a Christian must endure pain?



EO's definition of Theosis is a lot more radical than how Western Christian's define Sanctification. By "asceticism", they practically mean "works". It's obviously more than that, but think of monasticism as an example of a more extreme case of asceticism for the EO. In general, it's how to live the Christian life, which involves fasting and giving up certain things. It's their way of "dying to the world".

---------- Post added at 07:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 PM ----------




J. Dean said:


> The whole issue I have with theosis is that it seems to put the cart (sanctification) before the horse (justification).



The EO almost get rid of Justification entirely in cases.


----------



## JM (May 13, 2012)

Theosis is discussed in the video below as a response to Dr. Horton's comments, who agreed, Dr. Horton's comments are found here.

[video=youtube;-nBaqXrXhgg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nBaqXrXhgg&feature=endscreen&NR=1[/video]


----------



## py3ak (May 13, 2012)

I enjoyed the article, thanks for posting it.

James White pointed out quite a few years ago now that he also has a doctrine of theosis. I think that is true of all of us. But I think I would take 1 John 3:1-3 as my starting point (only v.2 is mentioned in the article, and that only as an item in a list).

_Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure._

Here is expressed an obvious commonality and likeness between the Father and his children, extending even to the point of the world's attitude towards them. But note also that the perfection of this is put into the future. When he shall appear, we shall be like him. Whereas the article states: "Note that he did not say God will glorify them only after they die, at the final resurrection. This glorifying can be a present reality." And yet the creation still waits for the manifestation of the sons of God, something that will not happen until the resurrection of the body. Finally, this likeness is put into ethical terms: we purify ourselves as he is pure. 

So I would submit that this article suffers from an over-realized eschatology: we shall indeed bear the image of the heavenly man, even our bodies of corruption being changed; but for now we are weak and sick and frangible: we are in bodies capable of suffering, and that will suffer. In this time our conformity to Christ is primarily spiritual and ethical; the physical is to follow. That might not be such a great flaw as the superstition of coordinating our breathing with a continual reiteration of a form of words, but it was an error that leaped out to me in the fact that 1 John 3:2 was quoted but its relevance for the discussion apparently not apprehended. And such mistakes do wind up discouraging God's people; it is frustrating and disheartening to be told that glorification is for today. If one buys into it, it is a hope which cannot but be deferred, and cannot then help but make the heart sick. Our light afflictions which are but for a moment work for as a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; but we are still in the moment of affliction; we have not entered eternity.

It might be helpful to people lured by EO to realize that, in common with the church fathers, Protestants do have a doctrine of theosis: and it has the advantage of being unencumbered by open idolatry and patent superstitions; more carefully attuned to the indications of the text; does not teach us to look for a particular experience or phenomenon, but for genuine and practical holiness. It does me no good to have flames coming out of my fingers - it does me a lot of good to have the bridle of God's word firmly strapped down over my tongue.


----------



## JM (May 14, 2012)

Excellent points Ruben.


----------



## louis_jp (May 14, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I would take 1 John 3:1-3 as my starting point (only v.2 is mentioned in the article, and that only a part of a list).
> 
> Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
> 
> ...



I read it differently than you did. The author repeatedly said that deification was a "process by which we are renewed." He located the present reality of this experience in passages of scripture which do in fact indicate the "already" aspect of the "already-not yet" framework. That is what we "acquire in this life." His citation of 1 John 3:2 was immediately followed with, "these passages promise to all Christians and _ending_ like Christ _at the consummation of history_," although we obtain "more and more of that reality in this life." I don't see an over-realized eschatology in this article.

Don Fairbairn has a good and balanced critique of the doctrine of deification here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/papers/ets/2005/Fairbairn/Fairbairn.pdf


----------



## py3ak (May 14, 2012)

Louis, sure, he admits that there is a future aspect; but then look at his anecdotes of the experiences of the saints: they are undergoing physical changes. "This glorifying can be a present reality." I do not believe that the physical aspect of glorification is a present reality - not unless resurrection is also a present reality.


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 7, 2012)

Can anybody here comment if Letham Robert interacts with Theosis in his book _Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy A Reformed Perspective_?


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 12, 2012)

bump


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 13, 2012)

I am sure he would comment about it since it is a fairly big part of the EO doctrine.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 13, 2012)

JM said:


> Theosis is discussed in the video below as a response to Dr. Horton's comments, who agreed, Dr. Horton's comments are found here.


When watching this video (and some of the others associated with it) I was struck that the presenter:

1) did himself exemplify most of the methodological _criticisms_ he leveled at Horton (and Clark);
2) assumed the unquestioned superiority of his own understanding of history and theology, whether the subject was a shared heritage, or specific either to his own ecclesiastical tradition or to Protestantism/evangelicalism in general or Reformed Christianity in particular; and
3) assumed that those with whom Horton had engaged in the past were dumb laypersons, with less competence than himself; they couldn't have been comparable Dr.s of theology in the EO tradition.

He evidently knew going in he had nothing to learn, even about an opposing view. And where he admitted that he couldn't make out the statements and arguments made by Dr.s of theology, he simply assumed their incompetence, ignorance, or duplicity ("the only logical conclusions"). After all, it couldn't be the case that his own apprehension of the issues was deficient...


----------



## JM (Jun 13, 2012)

Excellent points Rev. Buchanan.


----------

