# Athanasius: ...becoming God?



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 23, 2006)

"He (Jesus), indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God." _On the Incarnation, pg. 93 (sect. 54)._

What did Athanasius mean here? Is he just using "God" as synonymous immortality or glorification? I don't have a Greek version. Does he use theos there? Are there some presuppositions from the Greco-Roman world at play here? This was around the time Plotinus was becoming popular wasn't it?


----------



## DTK (Jun 23, 2006)

> "He (Jesus), indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God." On the Incarnation, pg. 93 (sect. 54).
> 
> What did Athanasius mean here? Is he just using "God" as synonymous immortality or glorification? I don't have a Greek version. Does he use theos there? Are there some presuppositions from the Greco-Roman world at play here? This was around the time Plotinus was becoming popular wasn't it?



Patrick,

It is somewhat complicated, and (from my perspective) esoteric of Eastern Orthodox theology. The eastern Church placed/places a great deal of emphasis upon qeo,sij as the central theme of redemption. By "œantinomic" Meyendorff means "œcontradictory."



> *John Meyendorff:* Byzantine theologians seldom devote much explicit attention to speculation about the exact fate of souls after death. The fact that the Logos assumed human nature as such implied the universal validity of redemption, but not the _apokatastasis_, or universal salvation, a doctrine which in 553 was formally condemned as Origenistic. Freedom must remain an inalienable element of every man, and no one is to be forced into the kingdom of God against his own free choice; the _apokatastasis_ had to be rejected precisely because it presupposes an ultimate limitation of human freedom"”the freedom to remain outside of God.
> But by rejecting God, human freedom, in fact, destroys itself. Outside of God, man ceases to be authentically and fully human. He is enslaved to the devil through death. This idea, which is central to Maximian thought and which made him profess so strongly the existence of a human, created will in Christ, serves as the basis of the Byzantine understanding of the destiny of man: participation in God, or "œdeification" (_theÅsis_), as the goal of human existence.
> En-hypostasized in the Logos, Christ´s humanity, in virtue of the "œcommunication of idioms," is penetrated with divine "œenergy." It is, therefore, a _deified_ humanity, which, however does not in any way lose its human characteristics. Quite the contrary. These characteristics become even more real and authentic by contact with the divine model according to which they were created. In this deified humanity of Christ´s, man is called to participate, and to share in its deification. This is the meaning of sacramental life and the basis of Christian spirituality. The Christian is called not to an "œimitation" of Jesus"”a purely extrinsic and moral act"”but as Nicholas Cabasilas puts it, to "œlife _in_ Christ" through baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), pp. 163-164.
> 
> ...


Now, the closest correspondence that qeo,sij has to western though is that of sanctification. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, the energies of God radiate, as it were, from his essence and share its nature; but it must be understood that the deified person retains his personal identity and is not absorbed into the essence of God, which remains for ever hidden from his eyes. As you may have guessed, Mormons often appeal to Athanasius for their views of deification.

You seem to be asking a lot of questions lately about things pertaining to Eastern Orthodox theology. Meyendorff's book, from which I've cited repeatedly above, is a good place to start in order to try to understand Eastern Oerthodox thought.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 23, 2006)

Thanks DTK. Iven't been looking into EO so much, just working my way through Athanasius' little book, trying to understand theology back then. I know he was influential on EO, but I wonder how much they have taken him out of context.


----------

