Theosis

[puritanpilgrim]

Is anyone knowledgeable on the subject of theosis. It sound almost pagan to me. Apparently some believe that in your christian walk you become more like God to the point you take on an aspect of God's divinity. I look it up in a couple systematic theology books. Culver breaks it down to mysticism. Personally, it sounds incredibly idolatrous. Sure, in our Christian walk we become more Christ like, but an argument that we take on God's divinity sounds idolatrous.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Theosis is a term found in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theology, from the Greek meaning deification or making divine. It is an understanding that human beings can have real union with God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the divine nature here and now. The concept is supposedly derived from the New Testament regarding the goal of our relationship with the Triune God. The terms theosis and deification may therefore be used interchangeably in this context.

The Eastern Orthodox are quick to say that this does not imply that we become gods, but rather, that we are to become the fullness of the "divine image" in which we were created (Gen. 1:26), i.e. a perfect reflection of our God, and become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

It may be related to the Protestant concept of sanctification but goes further with what may be expected in this life, emphasizing the element of our mystical union with God in Christ. It may also be seen as somewhat akin to the Wesleyan idea of "entire sanctification". However, Theosis remains a mystical concept not easily grasped and subject to various interpretations. Some pretty weird manifestations of this concept have supposedly been reported in Eastern Christianity and thereby contribute to its disregard by Protestants.

See Becomimg Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine Of Theosis, JETS 40/2 (June 1997) 257-269.

Also, Theosis - Achieving Your Potential In Christ, from an Easter Orthodox theologian.

 

[Christusregnat]

Is anyone knowledgeable on the subject of theosis. It sound almost pagan to me. Apparently some believe that in your christian walk you become more like God to the point you take on an aspect of God's divinity. I look it up in a couple systematic theology books. Culver breaks it down to mysticism. Personally, it sounds incredibly idolatrous. Sure, in our Christian walk we become more Christ like, but an argument that we take on God's divinity sounds idolatrous.

Aaron,

Many pagan cultures assumed a "scale of being" from the divine on top to the lowest life forms on the bottom. Greeks and Canaanites had this idea.

In this way of thinking, holiness consists of sliding up the scale. Related to this is the pagan notion of reincarnation as one moves himself up the scale of being. For the Canaanites, Moloch (or King) worship was the idea that the state was the highest rank in the scale, and therefore the King was divine (revived later by "Divine Right Monarchists").

This is why it's such a popular concept among the Eastern faiths, because they never fully grasped Augustinian Realism / Rationalism, and have been stuck in the mire of Mysticism to this day. This made it hard for the Eastern Christians to fully adopt Augustinian soteriology, and Conciliar theology (Nicea and Chalcedon, for instance). As an interesting side-light, it is my opinion that the refusal of Augustinian Rationalism is what has left the Eastern Christians without a "Reformation". Chalcedon makes Christ the unique link between heaven and earth, and demands that His divine and human natures are UNMIXED. In other words, no theosis of His human nature, and no anthroposis of His divine nature, thus gutting this idea. However, without the right epistemology, the Greeks have never caught on.

Cheers,

 

[RamistThomist]

Calvinist RObert Letham does a good job showing how some forms of theosis are biblical. It suffers from the fact it just sounds weird. It presupposes a more participatory ontology than a strictly juridical ones. Westerners and Easterners need to come to grips that the Bible mentions both participatory ontologies and judicial ontologies.

 

[Christusregnat]

Calvinist RObert Letham does a good job showing how some forms of theosis are biblical. It suffers from the fact it just sounds weird. It presupposes a more participatory ontology than a strictly juridical ones. Westerners and Easterners need to come to grips that the Bible mentions both participatory ontologies and judicial ontologies.

This is nonsense. Man and woman are said to be one, yet Scripture clearly identifies them as separate and distinct individuals, whose union is legal, and which is separated upon death. Godhead can't become manhood, and manhood can't become Godhead. Other theories are heretical.

Scripture uses the marriage analogy for just this reason: husband does not become wife, and vice versa. Man doesn't become God, and vice versa.

Cheers,

 

[Davidius]

Perhaps Peter is referring to some kind of theosis when he says that we partake in the divine nature.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Michael Horton has a helpful chapter on this subject in his Covenant and Salvation.

 

[Christusregnat]

Perhaps Peter is referring to some kind of theosis when he says that we partake in the divine nature.

Davidius,

I think this is the pretext for such an idea, and if someone wants to use the term theosis to describe this passage, I wouldn't quibble about words. The substance of the traditional doctrine of theosis is what is so dangerous, because it assumes man's divinity, outside of the unique God-Man, Jesus Christ.

Peter seems to be referring to the "divine nature", or "the way God is", which is reflected in our regeneration, or renew in the image of God

Cheers,

 

[RamistThomist]

Perhaps Peter is referring to some kind of theosis when he says that we partake in the divine nature.

Davidius,

I think this is the pretext for such an idea, and if someone wants to use the term theosis to describe this passage, I wouldn't quibble about words. The substance of the traditional doctrine of theosis is what is so dangerous, because it assumes man's divinity, outside of the unique God-Man, Jesus Christ.

Peter seems to be referring to the "divine nature", or "the way God is", which is reflected in our regeneration, or renew in the image of God

Cheers,

would you apply the label "nonsense" to St Athanasius, then?

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

In his great work, On the Incarnation, Athanasius wrote that Christ "was made man that we might be made God." This becomes one of the Eastern proof texts for their idea of Theosis.

From the JETS paper by Robert Rakestraw linked in my earlier post:

"Hughes notes that while Athanasius did not clarify in every reference what he intended by his concept of deification, he made it quite clear from his writings as a whole that he did not have in mind a transformation of the human into the divine, an ontological or essential change of humanity into deity.

"Hughes goes on to explain, correctly I believe, what Athanasius did mean, and in so doing gives us a useful definition of theosis as . . ."

the reintegration of the divine image of man's creation through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit conforming the redeemed into the likeness of Christ, and also of the believer's transition from mortality to immortality so that he is enabled to participate in the eternal bliss and glory of the kingdom of God. (Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, The True Image )

However, this definition of Theosis by Hughes does not reach the idea held by Eastern Orthodox, which I believe is rather un-orthodox (pun intended).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Another thing that contributes to the EO misapprehension of union with Christ is their emphasis on the Incarnation to the relative exclusion of the forensic aspects of the Atonement. One finds little of this Pauline focus (such as we see especially in Romans) in EO, as though it were almost alien to them.

In their views of the Fall, we are not utterly alienated from God by our sin, but more "damaged" and the image of God is but distorted and can be reformed by diligent alertness, studying the writings of the Fathers, austerities, adhering to the teachings of the Church (esp. the sacraments), etc. It comes down to stuff we do, and not what He has done.

Paul Negrut has written an interesting article (in PDF): Searching for the True Apostolic Church: What Evangelicals Should Know About Eastern Orthodoxy

 

[wturri78]

Here's an article on theosis from an EO website that's fairly easy to read and seems easy to understand. In it, theosis is compared loosely to Wesleyan holiness doctrine.

We become united with God by grace in the Person of Christ, who is God come in the flesh. The means of becoming “like God” is through perfection in holiness, the continuous process of acquiring the Holy Spirit by grace through ascetic devotion. Some Protestants might refer to this process as sanctification. Another term for it, perhaps more familiar to Western Christians, would be mortification—putting sin to death within ourselves.

In fact, deification is very akin to the Wesleyan understanding of holiness or perfection, with the added element of our mystical union with God in Christ as both the means and the motive for attaining perfection. Fr. David Hester, in his booklet, The Jesus Prayer, identifies theosis as “the gradual process by which a person is renewed and unified so completely with God that he becomes by grace what God is by nature.” Another way of stating it is “sharing in the divine nature through grace.”

With regard to the "weird manifestations" mentioned in a previous post, try these on:

Finally, countless saints throughout history have demonstrated the possibility of deification as a reality in their lives. They attained deification only after intense suffering. Their sufferings came through persecution and martyrdom, intense ascetic discipline and countless nightly prayer vigils wrestling with evil spirits to obtain victory in the spiritual life. Through suffering such blessed victory was won.

Two stories of two saints show the effects of theosis on the body. Some may wish to discount these accounts as “hero worship” or “mythology” or “hagiographic exaggeration.” I prefer to offer them as inspiration to strive toward theosis in each of our lives.

St. Seraphim of Sarov, a Russian monk of the nineteenth century, went into the forest with his disciple, Motovilov, during a snowstorm. While praying, St. Seraphim became iridescent in appearance, to the point of emitting what was for Motovilov an almost blinding light. Accompanying this glow was a warmth in the midst of the Russian winter snow, along with a beautiful fragrance and unspeakable joy and peace. St. Seraphim attributed this blessed state to his having acquired the Holy Spirit, or deification.

Abba Joseph, a desert father, was approached by Abba Lot, who informed him that he had kept his rule of prayer, fasted, purified his thoughts, and lived peaceably—what more could he do? Abba Joseph held out his hands toward heaven, fingers extended, and said, “You can become fire.” Each fingertip blazed like a candle. Abba Joseph’s point was that the younger monk could be set ablaze by the Holy Spirit.

I've managed to get a few sparks out of my left thumb, but I'm still pretty low on the sliding scale of theosis!

 

[Christusregnat]

would you apply the label "nonsense" to St Athanasius, then?

Perhaps you could quote Athanasius for us, Saint Jacob. Some things in Athanasius are very good, and some are otherwise. I'd need to know what propositions you're referring to, rather than a bare appeal to a name.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

I've managed to get a few sparks out of my left thumb, but I'm still pretty low on the sliding scale of theosis!

You need some more ascetic devotion, O Thou who losest.

Adam

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

would you apply the label "nonsense" to St Athanasius, then?

Perhaps you could quote Athanasius for us, Saint Jacob. Some things in Athanasius are very good, and some are otherwise. I'd need to know what propositions you're referring to, rather than a bare appeal to a name.

I took a shot at answering his reference to Athanasius (above) as soon as it was mentioned -- including the quote most Theosis folks bring up in defense.

 

[Poimen]

would you apply the label "nonsense" to St Athanasius, then?

Perhaps you could quote Athanasius for us, Saint Jacob. Some things in Athanasius are very good, and some are otherwise. I'd need to know what propositions you're referring to, rather than a bare appeal to a name.

Cheers,

[Moderator voice on] Inflammatory language is not appreciated or tolerated here Adam.[Moderator voice off]

 

[Christusregnat]

would you apply the label "nonsense" to St Athanasius, then?

Perhaps you could quote Athanasius for us, Saint Jacob. Some things in Athanasius are very good, and some are otherwise. I'd need to know what propositions you're referring to, rather than a bare appeal to a name.

Cheers,

[Moderator voice on] Inflammatory language is not appreciated or tolerated here Adam.[Moderator voice off]

Rev. Kok, pardon my miscommunication; this was not intended to be inflammatory, but merely to point up an inconsistency. Jacob is one of God's saints; why save the title for saints that are dead? Thank you for your concern.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

I took a shot at answering his reference to Athanasius (above) as soon as it was mentioned -- including the quote most Theosis folks bring up in defense.

Thank you Gomarus. I did note your quotations, but I did not read them as direct quotations from Athanasius, but quotations about Athanasius. I'm interested in the particular, full quotation to which Jacob referred.

Cheers,

 

[Poimen]

Perhaps you could quote Athanasius for us, Saint Jacob. Some things in Athanasius are very good, and some are otherwise. I'd need to know what propositions you're referring to, rather than a bare appeal to a name.

Cheers,

[Moderator voice on] Inflammatory language is not appreciated or tolerated here Adam.[Moderator voice off]

Rev. Kok, pardon my miscommunication; this was not intended to be inflammatory, but merely to point up an inconsistency. Jacob is one of God's saints; why save the title for saints that are dead? Thank you for your concern.

Cheers,

In context it sounded and looked sarcastic. Mea culpa.

 

[RamistThomist]

I took a shot at answering his reference to Athanasius (above) as soon as it was mentioned -- including the quote most Theosis folks bring up in defense.

Thank you Gomarus. I did note your quotations, but I did not read them as direct quotations from Athanasius, but quotations about Athanasius. I'm interested in the particular, full quotation to which Jacob referred.

Cheers,

The Word was made man so that we might be made God'' (De Inc 54.3); I can only access PB severeal times a week. I have read De Incarnatione several times, but I simply googled that one. I will go home tonight and check my copy to see if I am correct.

Several conservative evangelicals and Calvinists have sympathetically interacted with these perspective. I am not simply "abandoning Augustinian realism," but acknowleding another facet of Christian theology.


Amazon.com: Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective: Daniel B. Clendenin: Books

Amazon.com: Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy A Reformed Perspective: Letham, Robert: Books

PS: Actually, I don't agree with the strong force of St Athanasius's claim, but just ackowleding that he takes it further than I do.

 

[Poimen]

We are partakers of the divine nature in an ethical sense and not in an ontological sense.

This is rather clear from the context of 2 Peter 1:4. We are given His divine power (vs. 3) but not His divine essence. We are called by His glory and virtue but not are taken into His glory and virtue. (vs. 3) We have escaped the corruption of that is in the world through lust but not become part of the incorruptible one. (vs. 4) And finally none of the good things that we are called to practice and become in vs. 5-7 indicate that we become part/one with the Godhead. Instead we are clearly called to imitate the divine nature, and so in this way we partake of the divine nature.

 

[Christusregnat]

PS: Actually, I don't agree with the strong force of St Athanasius's claim, but just ackowleding that he takes it further than I do.

Jacob,

I don't think that (in context) Athanasius is making the "strong claim" that scholars are claiming he did. If you read this statement in context, deification, for Ath. is merely being restored into the original created order: the Image of God.

For instance, after stating that God became Man that we might become God, Ath. explains this to mean 1. Our reception of ideas about God the Father; 2. Our inheritance of undyingness/immortality; 3. We are brought above and beyond all suffering, and become impassible; 4. We partake of the uncountable achievements/merits of the Savior on our behalf.

This is not at all what the pagans had in mind. In fact, Ath. is clearly an Augustinian (if you'll forgive the term) rationalist, since his doctrine of salvation is primarily intellectual. Man is divinized by receiving an idea about God. In other words, he is restored to knowledge, righteousness and holiness.

What Ath. uses is a common form of speech, a synechdoke, where the one thing is used to stand in the place of the other. Christ was humbled so that we could be exalted. Christ suffered, even though impassible, so that we would be released from our suffering. Christ died, so that we could become immortal. This is not divinization as the pagans believed, or even as EO or mystical so-called Calvinists might want to assert. It is rational and moral, and we receive the rewards of Christ's merits.

I may be mistaken in my reading; if so, please let me know. But I think the rationalism of Ath. may be clearly seen in this passage; I find no hint of non-definable mysticism.

Cheers,