Is this quote by Boethius theologically sound?

[Christoffer]

From the consolations of philosophy, book III, prose X

But just as men become just by acquiring the quality of justice, and wise by wisdom, so by the same reasoning, by acquiring divinity they become divine. Every happy man then is divine. But while nothing prevents as many men as possible from being divine, God is so by His nature, men become so by participation.

Is it correct to say that we participate in divinity and so become divine?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think we'd call this a bit confused. At least by way of theological development, the ontology of participation tends to erase the Creator-creature distinction.

It sounds somewhat close to the Eastern doctrine of theosis, in which "sanctity" (or the process of sanctification) is a matter of literal participation in the divine perfection.

There's more than a little Platonism here, I suspect. In this view, God is the "highest" of beings, and has all qualities in their highest measure or degree. Observe here a lack of the true and radical "Creator-creature distinction."

Sometimes, it is claimed that 2Pet.1:4 supports the notion of participation, because of the language, "partakers of the divine nature." But this is manifestly not the case. The is unquestionably blessings that flow from "partaking" of the divine nature, including resemblance. However, that in no wise leads to the conclusion that we thus begin to share ontologically in the ineffable being of God.

By way of analogy, by eating a crust of bread it is true that I am "partaking" of the bread-nature. However, whatever the blessings accrue to me by this partaking (and there is a grain of truth to the expression: "you are what you eat," cf.1Cor.10:17), still I am not becoming "bread" myself. Not even a little bit.

And this is the case in regard to a thing with which I do share an ontological relation. The bread and I are both carbon-based. The living stuff that went into the bread is materially connected to my flesh already. But I am not adopting breadlike qualities, nor is the bread that I eat adopting human qualities (as if the question were one of direction-of-flow).

By sanctification, we are not entering into divine ontology. Neither is God absorbing us into his being. We are being transformed and conformed to the perfect human-image of Christ, the last Adam; but an image is still image-like, a simulacrum, a type. There is One, and one only, who engages in a unique sort of "participation" in the divine--namely Christ Jesus. And the reason he does so is because he IS the eternal, divine Son. He partakes of our nature, Heb.2:14, even to associating it with his Person. But his human remains human, and his divine remains divine; yet they are in harmony (not conflict) within the Person.

We, by comparison, are never going to have "two natures, in one person." Our tangible union with Christ is by virtue of his humanity; our legal union is by virtue of his Person.

 

[py3ak]

While the words employed may lend themselves to the sorts of confusions Bruce cautions against, I think when you look at it in context it is highly unlikely that Boethius (or Philosophy, for she it is who speaks) meant anything unorthodox by it. The message is not that men turn into God, but that, as God is Himself supreme blessedness, real happiness is found in Him. The earlier statement, "Then it is necessary to acknowledge that God is very happiness" is important to bear in mind, as is the conclusion of the section, "'Then we can safely conclude, also, that God's essence is seated in absolute good, and nowhere else." And the parallel case of wisdom is illuminating. He is called, "God only wise" in Scripture; and our wisdom results, nor from a substantial conversion to His nature, but through God communicating wisdom to us, and in that sense, we become "participants" in it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

And to the degree that Reuben has discerned the true authorial intent, I fully concur. The "participatory" language needs to be contextually understood according to the shades of meaning that have developed historically around the terms. If "divine" (adjective) is being used in the same sense as "godly" or "pious," then the statement is unobjectionable.

But as I understand the facts historically (and the power of words), the figurative notions sparked by the language of participation tended to drift toward concrete ideas, spurred on by Platonism. Thus, a joining into the realities embodied in God leads to divinization in the ontological sense, thus blurring the Creator-creature distinction.

I would rather that we saw more explicit recognition of the qualities of divinity, as distinct from the essence, to which we are joined. All to say that the reading of the ancients requires great sensitivity to their often very, very different ways of thought.

If I can add one thing: I do think that we ARE able to well-comprehend the text of Scripture, and especially if we have been reared in its language, terms, and cadences. We still live in our own eras, and are affected by present philosophies; but we also have the mind of Christ, in the Word. Those who from childhood have known the Holy Scriptures, able to make them wise unto salvation, have had their thinking molded by that Word often for decades. Such a person is well-equipped to understand the Bible "from within." He brings less extraneous philosophy to the Bible; and has had his philosophy ordered in large measure by the Bible.

 

[Christoffer]

Wow, thanks for the responses. My brain is making popping sounds again, much to learn...