Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Theosis and its relation to the oldest lie in the book...


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#1 Jake A.

Jake A.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:56 AM

How does Orthodox Theosis differ from Satan inspired doctrines of the Mormon Church and Freemasonry, that man can become like God/Divine.

How does St. Athanasius of Alexandria's quote which states that:

"God became man so that man might become god."
[the second god is always lowercase] (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B)

Differ from Masonic author, Joseph Fort Newton quote, which states:

".. to the profoundest insight of the human soul -- that God becomes man that man may become God."

[The Religion of Freemasonry: An Interpretation, Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1969, p. 37]

?

Thank you.

#2 Brian Mickelsen

Brian Mickelsen

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:01 AM

Hi - Man will never become God. That should be obvious - as the rock or stone was cut out of the mountain in Daniel 2 we can only become part of the mountain again (through Christ - of course) . We (Jesus followers) will never be the the Mountain (God).

Brian

#3 Benjamin Amis

Benjamin Amis

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:22 AM

How does Orthodox Theosis differ from Satan inspired doctrines of the Mormon Church and Freemasonry, that man can become like God/Divine.

How does St. Athanasius of Alexandria's quote which states that:

"God became man so that man might become god."
[the second god is always lowercase] (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B)

Differ from Masonic author, Joseph Fort Newton quote, which states:

".. to the profoundest insight of the human soul -- that God becomes man that man may become God."

[The Religion of Freemasonry: An Interpretation, Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1969, p. 37]

?

Thank you.


Here is a good time to introduce and/or expound upon the doctrines of Divine Essence and Divine Energies. In the Orthodox Church, it is understood that both of these exist and proceed from God. The Divine Essence is that which is purely God. This is the "same essence" (ὁμοούσιον in the Nicene Creed) that Christ shares with the Father and the Holy Spirit, making each person equally God. Man cannot, in any way, partake of the essence of God. This is a state of God alone, which is uncreated.

However, the energies of God can be partaken of by created beings. Many would say that God used Divine Energies to create the world, and that grace and love (in perfect form from God) among with other virtues of Scripture, are Divine Energies. As we practice these virtues (and follow God, by grace) and become more like Christ, we come to partake more and more of the Divine Energies of God. It is in this way that we become god (lowercase, of course) as St. Athanasius says.

The problem with the Mormon faith is that they do not see this distinction, and only see God as a man from another world who attained godhood and created this world out of matter, which is the only eternal thing. This is anathema, because we know as Orthodox Christians that only God Himself is eternal, and is not some exalted physical man from some other universe. Theosis is the process of partaking of the Divine Energies of God and becoming like Him (i.e., Christ), we ourselves do not become God in essence.

I hope that this helps. I'm sure there are people on this forum that can explain this better than I can, and I'll gladly yield to them, but hopefully this sheds some light on the issue.

Edited by Benjamin Amis, 25 November 2009 - 02:25 AM.
Addendum.


#4 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:26 AM

How does Orthodox Theosis differ from Satan inspired doctrines of the Mormon Church and Freemasonry, that man can become like God/Divine.

How does St. Athanasius of Alexandria's quote which states that:

"God became man so that man might become god."
[the second god is always lowercase] (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B)

Differ from Masonic author, Joseph Fort Newton quote, which states:

".. to the profoundest insight of the human soul -- that God becomes man that man may become God."

[The Religion of Freemasonry: An Interpretation, Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1969, p. 37]

?

Thank you.


We do not become God, but we can partake of God's energies, and become like God. Remember that we indeed were made in His likeness and image. While we still retain the Image, we have to regain the Likeness. But God is still God and still the Father. We cannot be the Father, and I am sure that St. Athanasius was fully cognizant of that. Remember that he said many things and lifting that one statement out of context we can make it mean whatever we want it to. But it must be seen IN CONTEXT, along with the rest that St. Athenasius wrote in order to understand what HE meant when he said it regardless of what we try to make it mean.

Satan twisted the Truth into a lie, that does not make the Truth untrue anymore. Remember that context means something.

#5 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:08 AM

Just a point of clarification on the quotation from St Athanasius:

"God became man so that man might become god."
[the second god is always lowercase] (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B)


No, it isn't! This is purely a convention of interpretation, to comfort those who grow uneasy with the implication. But the Theos in the second part is unequivocally God Himself -- and indeed, the to draw a formal distinction between 'God' (God proper) and 'god' (god-like) in this phrase, is to utterly miss St Athanasius' whole point, which is that man is grafted into God through the incarnation.

Deification is not about becoming 'godly' or 'god-like'; it is about being drawn into communion with God Himself.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

#6 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,027 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:10 PM

Just a point of clarification on the quotation from St Athanasius:



No, it isn't! This is purely a convention of interpretation, to comfort those who grow uneasy with the implication. But the Theos in the second part is unequivocally God Himself -- and indeed, the to draw a formal distinction between 'God' (God proper) and 'god' (god-like) in this phrase, is to utterly miss St Athanasius' whole point, which is that man is grafted into God through the incarnation.

Deification is not about becoming 'godly' or 'god-like'; it is about being drawn into communion with God Himself.

INXC, Dcn Matthew


The use of the lower case for 'god' in the well-known saying of St Athanasius may reflect two things. First, in the Greek text, the word 'God' is not used: it reads, 'Αυτος γαρ ενηνθρωπησεν, ινα ημεις θεοποιηθωμεν'. Secondly, though the word in bold means to divinize, 'become god' is the usual rendering, and the use of the lower case can be thought of as avoiding any meaning of man becoming God ontologically which is, of course, impossible. What is meant by becoming God is usually explained by reference to 2 Peter 1:4 - partaking of the divine nature. The incarnation divinized human nature. As St Maximos the Confessor puts it, 'the incarnation of God which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man'. What is divinized is the common nature which all human beings share. Christ assumed this common human nature in His incarnation. But individuals have an individual hypostasis and so each one must accept divinization in order to attain to theosis. Christ likewise assumed a created hypostasis (as a man with unique characteristics) as well all of the common human nature. Christ is the pioneer of theosis by His Ascension and His sitting at the right hand of the Father. The divinization of human nature does not, of course, mean the salvation of all; Christ the man was united with Christ God because He was perfect man, but we are not perfect and so must strive by asceticism towards that perfection, working out our salvation.

#7 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 25 November 2009 - 01:13 PM

The desert fathers always add this caveat: to the extent possible while remaining in a physical body. Another way of looking at this, again via the desert fathers, is that as we are glorified, our sense perception is transformed, and we become able to see things as God sees them. But again we are referring here to God's energies, most specifically, light. We are able to see the true light that exists throughout creation, including other people. There is a very good treatment of this in the story of a Russian priest in the Gulag, whose name escapes me at present.

#8 Michael Stickles

Michael Stickles

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 1,438 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:15 PM

There is a very good treatment of this in the story of a Russian priest in the Gulag, whose name escapes me at present.


Father Arseny, I believe. We read from a book about him as our family dinnertime reading for a while.

Theosis is an interesting concept to try to communicate. A proper understanding appears to rely on many prerequisites, so it's no wonder that differences in the understanding of God, the Incarnation, man's nature, salvation, etc. cause the exact same words to be read very very differently.

(Reminds me of those Coors commercials where the wife comes home, says to her husband "I need to vent", and misunderstanding immediately ensues)

In Christ,
Michael

#9 Rick H.

Rick H.

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,231 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:27 PM

Theosis is an interesting concept to try to communicate. A proper understanding appears to rely on many prerequisites . . .


I wonder if there is a thread here that attempts to communicate a proper understanding of theosis?

#10 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 08:53 PM

Andreas! The word ‘God’ (Theos) most certainly is in the phrase—in the very word you quoted and placed in bold-face: θεοποιηθωμεν. This is a compound word in Greek, of which one of its two parts is Theos, the other the verb poieo, ‘to make’. As a compound word (for which Greek has a special fondness) this may not be readily apparent to non Greek-speaking/reading eyes; but it is most certainly present.

I agree by and large with your points; the problem is in trying to sort out the whole of the Orthodox vision of deification through recourse to one passage in St Athanasius—a passage that is all too often used for precisely this. But St Athanasius expressly says ‘to become God’, without qualification. Or rather, his expression is qualified, by the entirety of the book in which that passage is found (which most who raise the quotation don’t read).

St Athanasius’ point, throughout the De incarnatione Verbi is that the incarnation makes it possible for man to be joined to God, and in this joining, this union, to be united with Him as He is united with us. Within his context and his expression, qualifying the ‘becoming God’ with some distinction of capitalisation that implies something other than the coming-into-oneness-with the true God Himself, is to miss entirely his point.

Is this the be all and end all of the Orthodox discussion of deification? Of course it is not. But we mustn’t attempt to make Athanasius do something he is not trying to do, and in the process pervert his own unique and wonderful expression. Man becomes a son of the Father through union with the Son, God Himself. Man’s ‘God-ness’ is ‘God’ and not ‘god’, precisely because it is not a moral condition, an emulation, a synthesis, but authentic union in the eternal and true God. To qualify this, to admit that the ‘God’ in man’s ‘becoming God’ is anything lesser than the true and eternal God, is—in the context of St Athanasius’ discussion—to deny the very heart of the incarnation.

There are very good reasons for making various qualifications on the Orthodox vision of theosis; but sometimes, it is precisely the ‘shock’ of the Fathers at their word, that is most necessary in our day and age.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

#11 Owen

Owen

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:30 PM

Another Father, whose name I can't recall, said that we were meant to become by grace everything that God is by nature. This implies that God intended us to achieve the Lineness in which He created us, and which we lost in the Fall while retaining His Image in a marred state. And if He intended that we become partakers of the Divine nature, then He also set the terms and conditions on which we could do this.

The "oldest lie in the books" is, then, a half-truth (as most heresy is); it assumes that we can become like God outside the terms and conditions He has set; and this is the meaning of the eating of the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

#12 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,027 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:23 PM

Andreas! The word ‘God’ (Theos) most certainly is in the phrase—in the very word you quoted and placed in bold-face: θεοποιηθωμεν. This is a compound word in Greek, of which one of its two parts is Theos, the other the verb poieo, ‘to make’. As a compound word (for which Greek has a special fondness) this may not be readily apparent to non Greek-speaking/reading eyes; but it is most certainly present.

INXC, Dcn Matthew


What you say is, if I may say so, correct. I meant what I said about this word in a grammatical sense rather than a theological sense.

#13 Brian Mickelsen

Brian Mickelsen

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 03:25 AM

Hi -

[

This is the "same essence" (ὁμοούσιον in the Nicene Creed) that Christ shares with the Father and the Holy Spirit, making each person equally God.


Benjamin you mentioned (in the quotation pasted above) something that I have questions about. Although Christ Jesus was one with the Father and presumably experienced what is called Theosis.

I say that Jesus experienced Theosis (the preceeding may be an ignorant statement -- I don't know) because He grew in wisdom etc., Luke 2:40.

Lu 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(KJV)

How is it that almost all people, when asked will say that Jesus was equal with God the Father? However when Jesus Himself commented on this realtionship He said that the Father was greater than Himself, John 14:28.

Joh 14:28 ¶ Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

If Jesus was/is a part of God, as I feel is illustrated in Danial 2, He could accurately say that the Father was greater than Himself.

Oneness with the Father in that case would not necessarily have conveyed equality. Just as the husband and wife become one flesh and yet the Husband is said to be the Head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, Eph 5:23.

If it were possible for a person to become equal with God through "Theosis" then Jesus (our example, 1 Jn 2:6) most certainly would have desired it. Yet He did not. He said about His ascension, "Glorify me with the same Glory I had with you before the world was.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

If Jesus relationship is related to the stone cut from the mountain in Danial 2 then Jesus was not asking for equality with the Father, but to again be a part of the Father as He was before He came to earth.

We are encouraged to aspire to Christlikeness - but never to Godhood.

Even in the case of Lucifer - He did not aspire to Godhood but aspired to be exhalted over the stars of God, Isaiah 14:3. In other words Lucifer's sin was to want to be exhalted over the people of God, not to be exhalted over God himself or even be equal with God the Father. Even in the example of the chief sinner (Lucifer), the thought of ascending to Godhood is not alluded to. Probably because of the ridiculous nature of the very concept of created beings aspiring to equality with or exhaltation above the Creator.

If Jesus could say (for our benefit) that the Father is greater than Himself would that not mean that the statement "Jesus was/is equal with the Father is incorrect?

The following verse seems to contradict the concept of the Father being greater than Jesus. At first glance it seems to imply that Jesus is equal with the Father.

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (KJV)

Php 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(ASV)

Now having said all of that, and please forgive the length of this posting. How can the differences in translation, and in fact the very verse itself (Philippians 2:6) be pieced together with other scripture to for a coherant whole?

Could the following be a correct understanding of the information contained in Philippians 2:6 -- If Jesus though he existed in the form of God (as we exist in Christ) considered not equality with God (the Father) a thing to be reached for?

Brian

#14 Anna Stickles

Anna Stickles

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 November 2009 - 03:29 AM

bk 4 ch 38
1. If, however, any one say, What then? Could not God have exhibited man as perfect from beginning? let him that, inasmuch as God is indeed always the same and unbegotten as respects Himself, all things are possible to Him. But created things must be inferior to Him who created them, from the very fact of their later origin; for it was not possible for things recently created to have been uncreated. But inasmuch as they are not uncreated, for this very reason do they come short of the perfect.

3. ....For from the very fact of these things having been created, [it follows] that they are not uncreated; but by their continuing in being throughout a long course of ages, they shall receive a faculty of the Uncreated, through the gratuitous bestowal of eternal existance upon them by God. And thus in all things God has the pre-eminence, who alone is uncreated, the first of all things, and the primary cause of the existence of all, while all other things remain under God's subjection. But being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God—the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made], but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One.

Something that struck me when I first read this passage by St Ireneaus, is that it seems that there is no implication here that deification, as it was originally intended, included any kind of substantial change Rather what he appears to be saying is that man becomes god by being more of the same, not by being changed from one thing into another. God has preeminance by virtue of His eternity, His aseity*, not by virtue of superior 'substance' or something essentially different in kind. Man although of the same make up, is imperfect, not by virtue of what he is substantially, but by virute of the fact that he is less of it.

Fr Dn Matthew's comments

Man’s ‘God-ness’ is ‘God’ and not ‘god’, precisely because it is not a moral condition, an emulation, a synthesis, but authentic union in the eternal and true God. To qualify this, to admit that the ‘God’ in man’s ‘becoming God’ is anything lesser than the true and eternal God, is—in the context of St Athanasius’ discussion—to deny the very heart of the incarnation.

brought this back to mind, and I admit that on reflection it still seems incredible and I wonder if I am really understanding this rightly.

Is this why Athanasius talks somewhere in On the Incarnation, about man returning to nothingness? because man is substantially nothing apart from his godlikeness? that the essence of man then is precisely to be god? It is something man is always growing into but never reaching since only God is fully, immutably what He is, by virtue of being What HE IS in Himself? but we are what He is only by virtue of our union with Him. However, apart from our union with Him we are nothing at all for separation from Him destroys what we essentially are, it destroys our very being.

We often talk about essence and energies, but what does it really mean to say we participate in God's energies but not His essence within the context of hos the Father's understood this?

* aseity- Being self-derived, in contrast to being derived from or dependent on another; being self-existent, having independent existence.

#15 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,516 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 04:15 AM

God the Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity. The Son is not subordinate to the Father in essence, but only in the heirarchy. There is neither male nor female in Christ. Both husband and wife are equal in essence but not in heirarchy. Christ the person grew in stature and wisdom we dont divide the human and divine nature, as scripture says:

"Therefore the jews sought all the more to kill him, because He not only broke the sabbath but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God,"(JN 5.18)

The old fire and sword analogy needs to be mentioned again for deification, When a steel sword is thrown into a hot fire it begins to glow red. Anotherwords it partakes in the energy of that fire.

The hymn of Phillipians 2 along with St. Athansius statement is summed up in 2 Cor 8.9, "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ , that though he was rich yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty may become rich."


The freemason quote which mirrors that of St Athanasius is indeed like that statement of Satan. The mason does not say the same thing as Athanasius, though on the surface it seems like he does, Athanasius says God (Logos) became man (at the virgin birth).

The mason says God BECOMES man, because masonry believes in a generic god which can accomodate all theists. In christianity it was in the child of Mary that the hypostatic union took place, not everytime a human is born of woman. The masonic statement implies we are all a hypostatic union of humanity and divinity.
Christ was born of the virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit in a perfect union, the divinity assuming flesh and a rational soul. We on the other hand partake of the divine energy after the aquisition of the Holy Spirit , it is not inborn in us, for us it is an infinite process of struggle with the passions.

And judging from these posts its easier to theorize about divinization than put it into practise. It is the saints who live theosis and dont need to talk about it . They become incorrupt and fragrant upon death and illumine all of creation with their wisdom. For the rest of us, we fail miserably

Edited by Kosta, 26 November 2009 - 04:31 AM.


#16 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:15 AM

Dear Brian, that Christ is equal to the Father in godhead is a foundation of the Christian faith, indicated in Christ's words, the Scriptures, and explicitly described in the first ecumenical council. Christ is not 'part' of God; and He is 'subordinate' to the Father only in taxis within the relations of the Trinity (or, as Kosta has called it, hierarchy - though our good Father Patrick would dislike use of this term here!). Further, it is incorrect to say that Christ underwent/undergoes deification (theosis), for the process of being drawn into communion with God does not apply to one who is God by nature.

Dear Anna, your linkage to the words of St Irenaeus is interesting. One thing that it is sometimes helpful to keep in mind is that deification is really an anthropological doctrine: it describes the true state of man. We are created for communion in the living Lord; our experienced lack of this union is a fracture of our humanity. Deification is its restoration. It is not the making 'supernatural' of man, but the making man of man. For God first fashioned Adam to receive His breath...

INXC, Dcn Matthew

#17 Olga

Olga

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,821 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:39 AM

Brian

Further to Fr Matthew's post above, may I add that in Orthodox belief, it is beyond question that all three persons of the Holy Trinity are equal in stature. Even a brief look at Orthodox liturgical hymnody, particularly the hymns dedicated to the Holy Trinity, bear this out explicitly.

#18 Peter S.

Peter S.

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 27 November 2009 - 10:55 AM

The use of the lower case for 'god' in the well-known saying of St Athanasius may reflect two things. First, in the Greek text, the word 'God' is not used: it reads, 'Αυτος γαρ ενηνθρωπησεν, ινα ημεις θεοποιηθωμεν'. Secondly, though the word in bold means to divinize, 'become god' is the usual rendering, and the use of the lower case can be thought of as avoiding any meaning of man becoming God ontologically which is, of course, impossible. What is meant by becoming God is usually explained by reference to 2 Peter 1:4 - partaking of the divine nature. The incarnation divinized human nature. As St Maximos the Confessor puts it, 'the incarnation of God which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man'. What is divinized is the common nature which all human beings share. Christ assumed this common human nature in His incarnation. But individuals have an individual hypostasis and so each one must accept divinization in order to attain to theosis. Christ likewise assumed a created hypostasis (as a man with unique characteristics) as well all of the common human nature. Christ is the pioneer of theosis by His Ascension and His sitting at the right hand of the Father. The divinization of human nature does not, of course, mean the salvation of all; Christ the man was united with Christ God because He was perfect man, but we are not perfect and so must strive by asceticism towards that perfection, working out our salvation.


What a sad story... This is not theosis.

The people in Christ will resurrect in a spiritual body. As St. Paul said to the corinthians in his first letter to them. As St. Chrysostom refferred to. this way to be in Christ is the key to interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is One. If you dont have the key everything will fall apart sooner or later when you compare the books in the Bible.

I will die my material death without being perfect (I guess), but I doubt I will lose my faith in Jesus. That is what counts says Jesus in John. Many people in Christ have died before perfection. It is the spiritual death that can be avoided.

Then we will have a new body. And dont doubt it, and ask how the body will be as St. Paul says, and comes with an analogy to the difference of the bodies of the stars and bodies of humans etc. There are many perspectives and dimensions I dont know. Its ok.

In Christ
Peter

#19 Brian Mickelsen

Brian Mickelsen

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 27 November 2009 - 02:56 PM

Peter -

Thankyou for this supportive posting. I am not gererally familiar with Orthodox terminology. When I use the term "theosis" I am not completely sure if I am using it correctly.

What is divinized is the common nature which all human beings share. Christ assumed this common human nature in His incarnation. But individuals have an individual hypostasis and so each one must accept divinization in order to attain to theosis. Christ likewise assumed a created hypostasis (as a man with unique characteristics) as well all of the common human nature. Christ is the pioneer of theosis by His Ascension and His sitting at the right hand of the Father. The divinization of human nature does not, of course, mean the salvation of all; Christ the man was united with Christ God because He was perfect man, but we are not perfect and so must strive by asceticism towards that perfection, working out our


It seems as though it would just stand to reason that Jesus as (our example) underwent what is termed "theosis". Since Christ is said to have Grown etc. ---

Lu 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(KJV)

There may still be a plausible way to reconcile the comment's of Dcn. Steenberg and the writings of St Maximos the Confessor. I am simply not familiar with the Orthodox faith, but I do invite anyone to clarify this seeming discrepency.

Brian

#20 Herman Blaydoe

Herman Blaydoe

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,157 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 27 November 2009 - 03:17 PM

Peter -

Thankyou for this supportive posting. I am not gererally familiar with Orthodox terminology. When I use the term "theosis" I am not completely sure if I am using it correctly.

It seems as though it would just stand to reason that Jesus as (our example) underwent what is termed "theosis". Since Christ is said to have Grown etc. ---

Lu 2:40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(KJV)

There may still be a plausible way to reconcile the comment's of Dcn. Steenberg and the writings of St Maximos the Confessor. I am simply not familiar with the Orthodox faith, but I do invite anyone to clarify this seeming discrepency.

Brian


It is challenging to explain, but yes, Christ submitted to being small and helpless in His human nature, but He was still God. He did not "take off" his Divinity, but it was "covered" or hidden by His humanity. God did not have to "develop" spiritually, but merely in a physical way. Let us break down that verse if I may:

And the child grew,: in a physical sense. He grew larger, his features matured, His physical body learned to walk, talk and manipulate the physical world as would any child

and waxed strong in spirit: can be taken a variety of ways. The Moon waxes and wanes, to our eyes, but it is still the very same Moon, it does not change shape or size. As our Lord grew and His human form developed, obviously His ability to interact in a physical way quickly became more sophisticated, to those around Him, He appeared to be one smart child!

filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him: Well nothing "developmental" about that! It was there all along, it simply became more apparent to those around Him. Even as the Moon appears to become more full as the month pass, so too, did Christ appear to become more "strong" and "wise" as the years passed. He had a plan and all things had to happen in the proper times.

Christ IS God, there is no need for Him to "reunite" with a Godhead He never divided from! He simply knew things, even as a child, that He did not "learn". He wowed them in the Temple even before He was "of age". We have no indications that He attended any formal schooling, being the "son" of an itinerant carpenter. Yes I know that the average Jew, in general, tended to be more educated than in many other cultures at the time, but Holy Scripture really does not speak to it much does it?

Therefore, yes, the physical body of Jesus had to develop, just like ours. But Jesus did not have to "regain" or "grow into" His Divinity.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.
Herman the Pooh




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users