Talk:Divinization (Christian)

Old discussions from 2003

Some Mormons argue that even assuming mainstream Christianity's definition of God's omnipotence and omniscience, not only can God exalt mortal man, but God must do so.

I don't understand this sentence. I don't know what the issue is supposed to be, to which Mormons are contributing their "argument"; I don't know what it means that God "must" exalt mortal man. Mkmcconn 20:54, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not clear what the writer meant. I have no idea who wrote it, but I'll change it.

Sorry for that very brief and very confusing statement. Where it reads, omniscience, it should have read, omnibenevolence. The idea is that the Mormon meaning of deification is supported even by mainstream Christianity's definition of God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence (in contrast to Mormonism's less literal definition of God's omnipotence). Namely, if God really is omnipotent, then God can deify mortal man...and if God really is also omnibenevolent, then not only can God deify man, but God's goodness compels God to deify man. —B 23:36, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Much more clear. Thanks. Mkmcconn 23:40, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This does raise a question for me; and since I argued with my wife today, and lost, concerning who should have the car this morning, I am in the mood to ask it. Should "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence" imply, as your argument holds, that making gods out of created beings is something that God must do, then why do you not expect that every person would be exalted? For that matter, is God too small to exalt animals? vegetables? rocks or sand?

Perhaps the argument assumes the same shallow and useless understanding of "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence" as atheists do? Argumentatively yourse, Mkmcconn 21:52, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am curious. Being Orthodox, we believe that God's benevolence includes allowing mankind to have free will to choose holy ways or not, to work toward theosis or not. If it is mandantory that God exalt mortal man, what does that say for what Mormons believe about free will and why it does (or doesn't) exist? Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the nature of God is to become the nature of Man to the nature of God is to become united with the nature of Man. This is an important distinction. This union of the two natures first took place in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, when the two natures were joined in Christ's one person. God's divine nature is unfathomable, and will never be understood by us, much less become completely ours. Theosis is rather our participation in God's divine energies (as described/defined by Gregory Palamas) and union with His nature. We will still never be divine in quite the same way that God is divine; we will still always possess a human nature only, it's just that that human nature will be thoroughly healed and cleansed, and united with the divine nature. At least that's my current understanding. References available, and corrections remain most welcome. :-) Wesley 06:23, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

excellent Mkmcconn 18:17, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Entire sanctification

I'm pretty sure that it is tolerable to teach "entire sanctification" in the EOC; although I'm sure that it isn't a doctrine in the sense of being something necessarily believed. Therefore, I would like to remove the disclaimer sentence in the opening paragraph, which says "but this is not a doctrine of Orthodoxy". Mkmcconn 16:09, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The "EOC" abbreviation threw me for a minute; my first assumption was "Evangelical Orthodox Church", which my local parish used to be part of until not that long ago; then I realized you probably meant "Eastern Orthodox Church", right? Gotta love these TLA's, especially with regard to denominations. Anyway, "entire sanctification" is probably one of those teachings that isn't officially affirmed or denied by Eastern Orthodoxy, in large part because the doctrine of entire sanctification was formed in a different context and in response to different questions and answers than anything Eastern Orthodoxy has really needed to directly confront. In a similar vein, I haven't been able to get a straight answer from anyone as to what Orthodoxy thinks of semi-pelagianism; closest I've come is "Orthodoxy deals with different questions" or "Orthdoxy would pose the question differently, and then answer that other question like this". Coming back to entire sanctification, the closest thing to an "official" position I can think of is just a story of a monk telling his abbot that he had finally "arrived" and was no longer experiencing any temptation to sin, much less sinning. The abbot answered that he would ask the other monks to pray fervently for him, since to not struggle with temptation was to be not fighting the Christian fight at all, or something along those lines that was generally rather unfavorable. Wesley \

"Semipelagianism" is a non-issue, since we never had to really deal with Pelagianism. Any Orthodox conciliar condemnations of the doctrine were simply confirmations of some local synodic condemnation, with no great debate over the matter. What I can say is that the Orthodox Church greatly stresses the doctrine of "Synergy". The GOARCH web site has a good explication of this:

A better view is the so-called "dynamic view" of the cooperation between man and the Holy Spirit in the case of the Bible. In any case of "synergy" (cooperation) between God and man, God leads, and man follows; God works, and man accepts God's work in him, as God's coworker in subordination to Him.

Divine grace, the work of the Holy Spirit, is a free gift, necessary for our salvation, non-coercive, which requires our cooperation (synergy). Our response to the grace of God is our works of love, which are the fruits of God's grace working in us. We are justified by God's grace. However, this justification is not real, unless it produces the "works of righteousness."

Thus, as you can see, hardcore Augustinianism and Calvinism would be outright anathemized within Orthodoxy, as they deny any possibility of cooperation on the part of the sinner. God freely permits us to exercise our choice, just as He humbled himself to take on our nature. That is, we only have the opportunity to cooperate or not cooperate specifically because it is His will that we have this opportunity. 134.68.153.37 21:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, the "standard" morning prayers you find often include a line to the effect of "grant that we might pass this day without sin", which you might think would imply a belief that such a thing was possible. But the "standard" evening prayers include Psalm 50 (Ps. 51 in the Masoretic text) and other confessions of sin and requests for God's mercy, and later perhaps the request "grant that we might pass this evening without sin." Another Orthodox story: a villager for a while lived in awe of the presumed piety and holiness of the monks at a nearby monastery. Once he met a monk on the street and asked him what the spiritual life was like behind the monastery walls, and was told, "We fall down, and we get up. We fall down again, and we get up again." There. Nothing as official as a canon from an ecumenical council, but that about sums up what little I know of what Orthodoxy thinks of entire sanctification. And I've been interested in the question, as I was a Methodist for a while (among other denominations) and not unfamiliar with Wesley's thoughts about it. Wesley \

Inasumuch as I understand the Church's teachings on this matter (and it is actually not considered to be all that important, in any case), it might be theoretically possible for someone to be sinless, but the instant that one has the thought "I am without sin." one has committed a sin--specifically one has indulged in self-pride. 134.68.153.37 21:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Having said all that, I'm sure that opening paragraph could be worded better; it is a little awkward as it is now. I'm not trying to discourage any changes there. :-) Wesley 06:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Having been Orthodox for a short time (5 years), I'll offer some ramblings from my POV. While theosis is partly striving for a sinless, holy life, it is also being transfigured by the grace of God, by the Holy Spirit acting within us. Jesus Christ said to go and sin no more; this seems to suggest that it's possible. Be holy as your Father in heaven is holy (I Peter). The example of the morning prayers above is a weak one. Elsewhere in the liturgy is the prayer that "that the remainder of the present day and the whole time of our life may be peaceful and sinless". Being "without sin" and "living a sinless life" are different things, the latter possibly having sinned in the past. Also, "living a sinless life" is more than just keeping your record clean of strikes, it is more of the stance of your very will and soul, of becoming unobstructedly in the constant presence of God. Personally, I take comfort in knowing that it is possible to truly repent. If it be possible to give up one particular sin entirely, why can't that be extended to the whole? We are exhorted to be sinless, and our hope is to be sinless, holy people. If it weren't possible, our strivings may not be in vain or misplaced (still asympotically useful), but some of us would feel a bit misguided, at least. Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved from article

' As stated earlier, most Christians who advocate theosis consider that theosis without the background and base of the doctrine of the Trinity amounts to the Satan rebellion of trying to be the same as God in glory, power, and status. '

This doesn't make sense to me. I assume their was some sort of typing or merging error? Sam [Spade] 17:16, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I would say that even if theologically plausible, it is too windy a statement to warrant entry into the encyclopedia. Trc | [msg] 17:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the author of the deleted text, but I think I can tell you what the intent was. Mormons want to quote the Church Fathers' talk about theosis to support their own idea of becoming equal with God. But Mormons reject the theology of the Trinity, which the Fathers being quoted held. Divorcing the Fathers' doctrine of theosis from the doctrine of the Trinity, makes Man simply wanting to be God's equal in power and glory etc., which is Satan's original aspiration and which led to his fall, at least according to an allegorical reading of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. The gist is that Mormons are taking the Fathers' words about theosis grossly out of context if they divorce the idea of theosis from that of the Trinity. Therefore the sentence should be restored, though perhaps in a way that makes this idea clearer. Does that make any sense at all? Wesley 03:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some. I would ask you to discuss this here for a time, and then write a completely different sentance (perhaps another paragraph) rather than make a minor change to this one however. You seem to be suggesting that Satan tried to be God(like?), and thus theosist christians may be satanic in intent? Am I following correctly? Sam [Spade] 03:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Embedded comments

There have recently been a number of comments added to the article as HTML comments. Many of them are good comments, but they ought to be here on the Talk page where they can be better preserved, as well as form the start of a dialogue. Wesley 03:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's one representative comment:

==Theosis in Christianity==<!-- why did this say "Orthodox"? -->
<!-- This entry will need a lot of work to ensure there is no confusion among union 
with God and the call to holiness, no assertion that a Christian mystical concept is only 
for the East or only found in the East, and to avoid other related confusions.-->

I would agree that the notion of theosis is not confined to Orthodox Christianity; it is also found in the West. However, it is likewise not confined to "Christian mysticism", at least as I understand that term. Theosis is foundational to the Orthodox understanding of salvation; it is essential. Understanding of it may vary; the precise means or asceticisms attempted to "achieve" or "attain" theosis may vary, and may indeed be more pronounced or visible among some Orthodox mystics. But the theology of theosis is foundational. Some sections should perhaps be rephrased to not limit it to Orthodoxy, but they should not confine the idea of theosis to "mysticism" either. Unless of course one wants to define belief in God or in anything supernatural to be mysticism. Wesley 03:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello! I tucked those comments into there. The entry should not be left in a condition that implies to encyclopedia users that (a) the seeking of spiritual union is found only in the East while in the West they are presumably focused on legalistic concerns, (b) spiritual union is only really understood in its whole progression in the East, while in the West they haven't got beyond more elementary notions; nor indeed other related misimpressions that are quite without foundation. Trc | [msg] 11:43, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your point. Let's keep working on the article to avoid both misperceptions. It will be a good article if we can do that. In general, I sometimes attribute particular ideas or practices to Eastern Orthodoxy only because I'm not sure whether they are more widely shared or not; in these cases, I'm depending on someone to eventually come along and correct the instances where the idea or practice is in fact held more widely. This may turn out to be one of those cases. Wesley 16:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-> I offered a new edit. One thing I left out entirely was the Methodist connection. It struck me as erroneous to suppose that something was "rediscovered" that was never forgotten by anyone. Also I doubt a strong connection with theosis properly understood. But maybe it should be put back in. I was more concerned with the key issues. I also ignored the Mormon section. In my edit the parallels throughout apostolic Christianity are much more clearly drawn. Trc | [msg] 05:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This terminology is foreign to most Protestants; it was "rediscovered" by movements in Protestantism, in that sense. There is a connection between the Methodist doctrine and "theosis" properly understood. Here is a Google test that illustrates this connection, for your edification. Mkmcconn — 17:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Union between God and Man

The opening paragraph has this disclaimer, which seems to be overstated:

Theosis does not imply that the Divine Nature of God will become united with the mortal nature of humanity: the ontological wall between the created and the Uncreated will not be torn down.

According to the Chalcedonian Creed, the Divine and human natures already have been united in the Person of Jesus Christ. They remain distinct from each other, unconfused, but in Christ they are also inseparable. Their union in Jesus' person makes possible our union with God. This is already spelled out later in the article; can we agree to amend the opening accordingly? Wesley 17:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this element was overstated. Still a useful point to make, though, as people not familiar with Christianity might wonder about Christians trying to become God. Trc | [msg] 04:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Becoming God"

Theosis can be translated as "becoming god", but not as "becoming God". Capital-G God is distinguished in Greek by the definite article (ho Theos) and the Greek Fathers did not use this term. A common analogy is a sword placed in the fire: the sword will glow and give off light and heat like the fire, because it is acquiring some of the fire's nature from basking in the fire, but it remains distinct from the fire. So are the saints as they bask in the glory of God. Lawrence King 07:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it has been posited that a more appropriate translation would be "becoming divine" or "becoming God-like". Similar Greek constructions are found in such verses as "God is love" which would more appropriately be translated as "God is loving" (God characteristically has love. Love in itself cannot be said to be God). Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apotheosis

Apotheosis is also a term wrongly used for Theosis. To become blessed or to become divine or holy in Eastern Orthodoxy does not mean to become God, though Scripture does tell us that one-ness with God was the reason Christ was sent on Earth. --203.59.182.2 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put 'related terms' on a separate line but it would not stay

I have added Biblical Quotes in the first section to give the article more support. Hope no-one minds. Can someone help with this? Also I agree with previous discussion that non-Chrtians may be put of by Christians trying to become Gods. A call to godlyness and holyness or consecration by the Eastern Fathers does not mean the same thing as some Gnostics used to think that they could become God. The Greek Word Theos is taken from Greek Mythology but in Christianity it means YHWH (Hebrew). Theosis should not be confused with Apotheosis. One deals with grace, the latter with an essential tranformation into God or a god. Hence the emergence of Energy-Essence distinction theology. Ie St Maximus the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas etc.

oops forgot to sign--203.59.182.2 18:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why redir from deified/Deification?

Christians didn't invent deification. I got here following a wikilink in Elagabalus (deification of Roman emperors), fixed that one by changing it to Imperial cult, but I suggest deified and Deification be redir'd to Divinization rather than here.--84.188.139.121 01:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...On Polygamy

I saw something interesting and I would just like to comment about it...

The article states that according to the Mormons, when we die, we'll get multiple wives in heaven and populate different planets...

What the main problem we're running into is this; Jesus stated that in heaven, no one is married or given in marriage...and Mormons claim that they honor and obey the Bible as well...

...Isn't there a visible contradiction?

--JJ

No, but I'll leave it to someone with more tact to explain. If you don't want to wait for that, it's addressed at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/love.shtml#heaven . In any case, whether this is a visibile contradiction or not, it belongs in the article. If you want to learn more about or communicate with editors interested in Mormonism, check out WP:LDS. Of course, you're always welcome by my talk page as well.

You can and should sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ to produce this: Cookiecaper 09:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC) . Hope to see you around. :) Cookiecaper 09:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my talks with Mormons (possibly not official Mormon doctrine?), they usually claim that they believe the Bible is flawed, which Mormon doctrine corrects. Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. You all write about theosis as if it were one objective standardized concept. You should qualify your discusssions with regional and plural markers i.e. Wesleyan theoses or Syrian Greek Orthodox theoses of the 14th century or Pentecostal theoses in Atlanta or the theosis of Luther etc. Otherwise you come off sounding rather repressive. Thanks Theandra 11:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding intra-Orthodox distinction, Orthodox aren't in the habit of specifying that Russian Orthodox believe this whereas Greek Orthodox believe that (or insert other nationality), because there really is a large degree of unity doctrinally and in the faith of constituents. I have been personally amazed at this, having seen it for myself and having partaken of this one faith across ethnicity, history, and patriarchates. As an evangelical protestant, I never saw the like of it. We don't specify a difference because often a difference is not felt. Orthodox teaching is Orthodox teaching no matter where you go (the different patriarchates being different geographical jurisdictions), just as the Divine Liturgy is the same (with slight variation) such that you can actually learn a foreign language if you know it in your native tongue well enough. Epte 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of major rewrite

While I appreciate the significant effort (anonymous) has put into rewriting major parts of this article, I think he or she needs to slow down and go a bit more slowly. Stylistically speaking, simple words should not be wikilinked every time they appear. In particular, quotations should rarely if ever have words in them wikilinked, since the authors certainly were not linking to wikipedia articles. Language should try to avoid expressing an opinion as though Wikipedia held that opinion; views should be attributed to the people or groups who hold them.

More substantially, the Catechism of the [Roman] Catholic Church is almost certainly not the best source for Eastern Orthodox theology of theosis, even if the two bodies were in substantial agreement on the subject.

While I'm reluctant to undo what has probably been a great deal of well intentioned work, a full reversion appears to be the most expedient way to address these deficiencies. I apologize if this seems to protectionist, and I hope to work on constructive changes together. Wesley 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate presentation of Christian Perfection doctrine

Holiness/Christian Perfection doctrine is quite diverse. The notion that it is to become capable of living without sin describes only a minority of the movement. The wiki on Christian Perfection makes this clear. Your labeling as heretical of the movement as a whole is inaccurate. 69.244.244.192 06:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR Tag

Kenosis, you added an OR tag, but you have not explained yourself as required by the tag. Either present your specific reasons or the tag will be deleted. Tags are used to improve articles; they are not soapboxes to express personal opinions. Please help us improve the article by explaining your actions. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is rife with editors' interpretations of Biblical passages (primary source material), and the vast majority of the content isn't verified at all. Until it is, a note of caveat emptor for the reader is appropriate. ... Kenosis 03:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

henosis

Kenosis I am curious about your edit. How is the posting I posted POV of western orthodox? Do you mean theologically? If so, would that be against V. Lossky? Is neoplatonicism a western orthodox POV? LoveMonkey 04:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The edit summary for the inclusion of this passage about henosis ([1]) stated the apparent intent of the editor who added it. The edit summary said: "Origen heresies ar not church theology@"

(2) The added sentence "To merge with God in Greek would be henosis.", taken by itself, would be reasonable. Tacked onto the end of that paragraph, it reads as a blatant Western orthodox POV in my reading of it. (The prior sentence currently is the following largely Western apologetic: "Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God.") Not all Eastern orthodox perspectives agree with the prior sentence by itself, let alone when the new sentence was added in its earlier form (now changed by User:LoveMonkey).

(3) The existing prior sentence already stretches the boundaries of a POV based on a Western evangelical perspective imposed upon a section devoted to Eastern orthodox views of theosis/divinization. The whole point of the concept of theosis is the assertion that all persons can seek divinization, and indeed achieve it. For the Western orthodox perspective this will only happen on the "last day", as they say. For Eastern orthodox theology, in general, this quest for union with God can be actually achieved, the remaining questions usually surrounding the idea of what it means to be "one with" or "at one with" God. Someone will need to address this issue squarely at some point in the article's future development.

That, in short, is why I removed the earlier version of the sentence. The current version, incidentally, could very easily be placed somewhere else in the article. That sentence presently reads "In Greek philosophy henosis is Greek for deification." ... Kenosis 04:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no relationship between the "henosis" concept and this topic. I have removed it, as it is irrelevant. It is arguably comparable, in a superficial respect: as the Mormon concept is superficially comparable, and therefore discusses this comparison in a distinct section. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got Greek?

So Kenosis and Mark name your Greek Orthodox theologians. That you are quoting, I named mine. Lossky and Professor Ed Moore. Both Greek Orthodox theologians, As is the case with Henosis. It is important to understand the confusion that the term theosis causes, that was what prompted Professor Moore from the Greek Orthodox theological seminary where he works to write the article to clarify the difference between philosophical divination (henosis) and Greek orthodox divination (theosis). His article is quote clear. Since this article has a banner across it stating that it is original research I thought adding a dead and living Greek Orthodox theologian would at least give the article alittle credibility. Where are yours? So name your Greek orthodox theologians. I mean I can name you some who imply that the general concept of theosis is against Orthodoxy even though they are themselves Greek Orthodox. But I want to see YOUR sources from within the Greek Orthodox church. LoveMonkey 17:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox Christian sources: scholars or holy men?

I haven't yet seen this topic raised, and for this particular subject, I feel it is relevant. Within Eastern Orthodox Christianity (or at least my experience with it), there are two conceptions of "theologian", viz. "those who know about God" (scholarly types) and "those who know God" (holy men, saints). For theosis, it is my experience that within Eastern Orthodox Christian communities that, for the subject of theosis at least, that the latter (and quotes from them) would be given more weight than the former, not just for vague spiritual instruction but also for the specifics of how to go about attaining theosis and the conception of what theosis is. We tend to look to our Saints, because who is there better to tell us of theosis than those who have attained it?

I don't mean to polarize the issue. Likewise, I would trust the knowledge of my bishop and priest over that of someone who merely has a degree. There is a continuum to be had here.

So the question I put to the participants in this talk page: whom do we quote (more often?) as authorities when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christian theosis? Outside readers would likely give more weight to the "experts", viz. the scholars who have studied and summarized it (and those summaries can truly be useful). However I, for one, would feel misrepresented if there weren't quotes from the "experts", viz. the ones in the field and have been doing it.

I do not know what the Correct (tm) approach would be. And I am not implying that the two categories are mutually exclusive, however often they are. I am putting the question out for consideration and comment. Epte 17:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???? The vital component is not gnosis, that validates. If you are tackling theosis you know the valid component has a VERY specific name. Like say the difference between Seraphim Rose and St Seraphim of Sarov. One spoke in a western scholastic terminology'ish way that layed out knowledge/gnosis. The other spoke the truth that was not scholastic, legalistic or pedantic. It was the real, real, the truth basic on the critical component. You are Orthodox you know what "silences all flesh". And no don't be silly it is not death. Or in code, the experience of the cloud and THE "light". Email me if you don't or have not the experience. God Bless you. LoveMonkey 03:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking more of the difference between both of those and someone like Clendenin (who has a sympathetic academic attitude towards Orthodoxy, but it ends there). Seraphim Rose might be an example of both being scholarly and saintly, but I don't know him well. Epte 16:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]