Theopoiesis vs. theosis

[Rick H.]

Dear Monachos Discussion Community:

I am in a conversation with a person who has explained that: "There are two traditional teachings here that are commonly referred to as theosis but are indeed two separate teachings: theopoiesis and theosis."

He has shared with me that: "Theosis is the teaching of the Cappadocian fathers and theopoiesis is the teaching of Clement, Athanasius and Cyril, which is the adoption spoken of by Paul. The Cappadocian teaching of theosis is quite similar to that which belongs to Greek philosophy, and is riddled with philosophical terms."

In short what is being presented is that:




Theosis is becoming God by ascension through meditation and spiritual elevation and appears to include sharing in the divine substance when we finally reach full communion with God in Heaven. In theosis we become one with God by becoming a part of God.

Theopoiesis, is the being made a god through sonship by adoption. We unite with Christ at the marriage supper of the Lamb and the sonship which Christ has is transmitted to us only because of our connection to Him, much like the magnetic properties are transmitted to a piece of steel when it unites with a magnet. We do not become what God is but we become one with Him as a married couple becomes one.




It is being suggested that:

"Theosis is borrowed from Greek philosophy and St Gregory Nazianzen was primarily responsible for its introduction into the Christian faith. Gregory believed that man could ascend and be like God in the same degree in which He became like us.

Theopoiesis is becoming god by adoption and in name only and we must be careful not to include it as becoming God by nature. For Christ is God by nature and we only may be by adoption and title."

I have never heard of this before, and I am wondering if any others more informed than myself could share anything about this assertion with me please.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

Your friend is riddled with error. I am not familiar with this pseudo controversy, but we only have to look to Athanasius, a contemporary: "God became man that men might might become god." Or to St. Paul who charges that we should become partakers in the divine nature.

This is an age-old controversy that has been addressed here in numerous threads, the idea that a false teaching entered Christianity via a fascination by certain Greek fathers with "pagan" Greek thought. One would have to include St. Paul in this, what is essentially a smear campaign. His tripartite division of the soul can be found in Plato, after all.

The Syriac fathers are typically skeptical of all Greek thought, but what they criticize is a certain tendency toward intellectual abstraction, whereas Syriac theology is very concrete. If you look at the Philokalia this difference is quite clear. One can incorporate both approaches and still be entirely Christian, entirely Orthodox.

The early Church dealt with numerous problems with heretical movements such as Arianism, Donatism, Montanism, Adoptionism, Docetism, etc. and many who were highly educated in the Greek academy we can thank for a towering intellectual achievement in both countering heresies within the Church as well as countering philosophical schools that attacked Christianity while developing the Trinity into a fully differentiated theological understanding. That they did so utilizing to some degree philosophical language that was well established at the time has its pluses and minuses to be sure -- one might argue that their use of the term nature as a philosophical concept has its limitations -- but that would be like demanding that Newton address relativity.

St. Gregory, by the way, utilizes the term philosophizing interchangeably with theologizing, but he does so in a cautionary manner, stating that this is not something that is done without great care, and in a timely manner, and is not the subject of coffee shop banter. There is a time and a place for it -- a suitable season -- he avers.

[Herman Blaydoe]

My, my, but we do certainly expand our vocabulary here at Monachos. I think we can file "theopoiesis" under "Least likely to actually be used in casual conversation".

I agree with Owen that the definition of "theosis" presented is nothing like anything I have heard or read in Orthodoxy.

Here is another word for today:
straw man: a sham argument set up to be defeated.

Herman the Pooh

[Rick H.]

I have never heard of this before . . .







I am not familiar with this pseudo controversy . . .







I agree with Owen that the definition of "theosis" presented is nothing like anything I have heard or read in Orthodoxy.




Dear Owen, Dear Herman,

Owen--Thanks very much for your post. And, I don't know how far I can take this at the present, because I am still trying to understand what is being said by this person as he draws a distinction between these two words. I wonder if I can take advantage of the firepower here in a way that focuses more, at the present, on what is said about this in the following:




Gregory of Nazianzus was the first to use the word "theosis" to describe this, and he used it very infrequently. The doctrine and terminology of theosis kicks into gear with Pseudo-Dionysus, the hesychast controversy, Palamas and Maximus the confessor. It is thus linguistically anachronistic to claim that the early fathers have a doctrine of "theosis." With the hesychast controversy, not only the terminology but the doctrine changes. Instead of a strongly soteriological understanding of deification, theosis develops in a mystical context, and is worked out by Palamas and others through the distinction between the essence and energies of God, a distinction that has no place in the earliest doctrine of deification.


Herman--Yes, "words" . . . I also thought of something like the word "sham" when I was first exposed to this distinction, but I wonder what you think about the above statement that to claim the early fathers have a doctrine of "theosis" is linguistically anachrosnistic? In this presentation, there seems to be nothing short of what is known elsewhere as a development of doctrine as it relates to "theosis."

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

Herman--Yes, "words" . . . I also thought of something like the word "sham" when I was first exposed to this distinction, but I wonder what you think about the above statement that to claim the early fathers have a doctrine of "theosis" is linguistically anachronistic? In this presentation, there seems to be nothing short of what is known elsewhere as a development of doctrine as it relates to "theosis."

In Christ,
Rick

"Linguistically anachronistic", what a fun little phrase. At first glance, it sounds like it actually means something, like "re-engineering the paradigm to empower the enterprise core values". But if you actually take a moment to examine it, what does it actually say? Not much, I fear, but boy don't it sound impressive!

Just because a particular word or term might not have existed at a particular time or place does not necessarily mean that the concept did not exist under other, perhaps less precise, terms? You know, like the word "Trinity". Can we also say it is "linguistically anachronistic"? And if so, so what?

Herman the Pooh--looking for the "so what"

[Owen Jones]

I would like to see attribution for this quote before wasting my time on it. Is it from the Catholic Encyclopedia? The Baptist Encyclopedia?

The fact is that the doctrine of theosis is purely Biblical, OK? I don't know when the term first entered our theological language, but Christ commands us to be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect. He says that we shall do greater works than He. Paul says that we have become partakers of the divine nature. What else do we need to know? The doctrine of the Trinity, and of Christ's nature, are the results of hundreds of years of Church controversies. So do we throw them out because the words were not used in the first century? Our liturgy is a product of centuries of development. Do we throw it out because it was not the same way Christians celebrated the eucharist in the 1st Century?

And what is the nature of the concern here? Are we worried that there is something fundamentally wrong with Orthodoxy every time some guy comes up with a theory? Is this the kind of intellectual distraction that a believing person ought to engage in? I'm not opposed to asking questions about the faith, and I am surely the last person to advocate a mindless dogmatism, but again and again I ask, what is the underlying problem?

[Rick H.]

I'm not opposed to asking questions about the faith, and I am surely the last person to advocate a mindless dogmatism, but again and again I ask, what is the underlying problem?



This is what I'm trying to understand as well "the underlying problem?"

I don't chase everything I hear, but this still has me engaged.

Owen---This quote is from Peter J. Leithart (hopefully, we can concertrate on the content and not the man):

I can't seem to shrink this link down to size . . .

Peter J. Leithart » About (http://www.leithart.com/about/)

I actually liked the phrase Herman . . . I guess what is a phrase to one is a pharse to another--oh bother! :)

Poor spellers of the world UNTIE!

[Owen Jones]

I really can't engage with a Presbyterian on these kinds of topics, no matter how sincere he might seem. It is really fruitless. Because one false premise leads to another and you have to go down the list and it becomes never-ending.

I wonder, though, how he would treat Augustine's sermons that are replete with the doctrine of deification? This is simply a rhetorical question. Look, the doctrine of deification or theosis is at the core of Orthodoxy. It does not dispense with the need for some illumined understanding of atonement for sins. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't study ancient Israelite understanding of the symbol, "Son of Man, or Son of God," It doesn't mean that we reject the symbol that we too are sons of God, not by nature but by adoption. That's because all of these various theological symbols are not mutually exclusive. But leave it to a Presbyterian's cold logic to insist that they must be mutually exclusive.

The whole purpose of the Christian life is to become God-like, regardless of what terminology we use. Which is what makes it so unique and powerful. You and me can become God-like! We do not have to be a member of a priestly or royal class, or be the Pharoah or emperor.

And what does it mean to become God-like? This is quite unique and different as well because the image we have of God is one of extreme humility, suffering injustice, etc., and not some personage issuing edicts from Mt. Olympus. It is a God who takes on physicality, who is then glorified in his physical body, which points to our own glorification.

What is this state or condition? Is it some theory espoused by transcendental monks ca 1200 AD? No, all we have to do is look at Acts to see how God's light not only shines on us but shines from within us.

[Rick H.]

I really can't engage with a Presbyterian on these kinds of topics . . .




I appreciate what you have said, Owen, but this is why I didn't want to quote him by name . . . this is why I don't quote some others by name in my posts--sometimes it just shuts everything down. But, seriously, whether the guy is a Presbyterian, or a Weslylan, or a Mormon, or a UU, or even an Anglican . . . either what he is saying in the following is true or it isn't:

1.) "Gregory of Nazianzus was the first to use the word 'theosis' to describe this, and he used it very infrequently.

2.) The doctrine and terminology of theosis kicks into gear with Pseudo-Dionysus, the hesychast controversy, Palamas and Maximus the confessor.

3.) It is thus linguistically anachronistic to claim that the early fathers have a doctrine of 'theosis.'

4.) With the hesychast controversy, not only the terminology but the doctrine changes.

5.) Instead of a strongly soteriological understanding of deification, theosis develops in a mystical context, and is worked out by Palamas and others through the distinction between the essence and energies of God, a distinction that has no place in the earliest doctrine of deification."


And, I've gone about has far as I can with this for now, but hopefully, as I come to a fuller understanding of the distinction that is being drawn here we can continue.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

PS Herman, I think what he is saying is not that the concept didn't exist originally; but that it has changed.

[Herman Blaydoe]

1.) "Gregory of Nazianzus was the first to use the word 'theosis' to describe this, and he used it very infrequently.

OK. So what? How many times is "Trinity" used in Holy Scripture? Even less than "infrequently"?


2.) The doctrine and terminology of theosis kicks into gear with Pseudo-Dionysus, the hesychast controversy, Palamas and Maximus the confessor.

Um, yeah. OK. So what?


3.) It is thus linguistically anachronistic to claim that the early fathers have a doctrine of 'theosis.'

Actually, sorry but no matter how many times I read this, it means nothing. Is he actually and poorly trying to say that the early church did not believe in what we currently define as "theosis"? If so, he is wrong. His reasoning is ably refuted by St. Gregory Palamas, who bases his argument on what? Oh yeah. Holy Scripture. The Church believes that St. Gregory did not invent theosis, he merely defended it. So I guess this Presbyterian is simply Barlaam 2.0.


4.) With the hesychast controversy, not only the terminology but the doctrine changes.

Well, since he obviously has (at best) an incomplete concept of what theosis really is, how can we accept that "doctrine" has changed?


5.) Instead of a strongly soteriological understanding of deification, theosis develops in a mystical context, and is worked out by Palamas and others through the distinction between the essence and energies of God, a distinction that has no place in the earliest doctrine of deification."

Big words, eyes glazing over, nap time.


And, I've gone about has far as I can with this for now, but hopefully, as I come to a fuller understanding of the distinction that is being drawn here we can continue.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

I don't see how it needs to go any further, I think I've gone as far as I can, and now {yawn} it's nap time.


PS Herman, I think what he is saying is not that the concept didn't exist originally; but that it has changed.

Well he can say that all he wants, but I don't think much of a case has been made.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Rick H.]

Dear Herman,

I have found that some whole grains in the diet will help to regulate blood sugar and help out with the highs and lows! :)

And, I realized reading your last post that I did not make it clear that the person I am having this conversation with is a different person than Liethhart (the man who wrote the above piece that you just "interacted" with). I included the Liethart piece becuase he is basically saying the same thing. So, I can see how you would think what you have as you compare the two. The person I am having the conversation with is attempting to get permission from his priest to reprint an article his priest did on this subject. I am interested in this.

But, let's not be so quick to do a slice and dice job on what is being presented. Maybe as we look at this a little closer, as a whole, it will hold water--or maybe it will fall apart pretty quick, and then you can throw it up in the air and I'll be the first to give it a blast with my shotgun. But, think how it would be if everyone who was first exposed to Orthodoxy would start chopping and hacking at what is presented in the first 60 seconds of the conversation? They wouldn't have much of a chance of understanding anything let alone the issues!

In Christ,
Rick

[D. W. Dickens]

I've always understood the sharing in the divine nature in the magnetic field on metal or more traditionally fire on sword sort of sense. In fact, I sort of assumed that this was really the linchpin of the entire line of thinking about God's energies. Uncreated, unknowable God essence is out of our reach permanently, however His energies--which are still fully God--are communicable and sharable. These energies are infinite themselves in variation (love, justice, etc). What Paul and Peter talk about in sharing God's nature is these energies.

OK, so where does the hesychast controversy of Uncreated Light fit in? Is the light not "one" of God's energies? or is it being presented as essence?

To my thinking all the Western theology goes off not from scholasticism itself (though I like that straw man as good as anyone does) but on the trap, the theological dead end of God's simplicity. Without the energies, God cannot move and we cannot share in God in any meaningful sense (only metaphorically) which seems to be this theopoiesis. This also seems to deny the eastern understanding (and I believe the Patristic understanding) of what the Incarnation was (ala the Athanasius quote in previous posts).

Am I confused beyond repair?

[Owen Jones]

Having gone through what seems at times like interminable repetition today of Biblical references and ancient hymns that attempt to describe the death of Christ's body, one thing is clear. The Church's teachings are based on figures and types that represent heavenly realities. From an outsider looking in, Orthodox theology would seem to be only that which is found in extended Patristic treatises. But without the context of our worship, the arguments about these things are, as Jesse Jackson would say, a pretext. I am particularly struck today about the passages relating Moses' encounter with God in the wilderness, not as equals, but as intimately sharing something in partnership with each other, not just the same goal, but some intimate, close connection. It is a prefiguration of our sharing in Christ's body, and also in the qualities of his Divinity.

So, yes, I have a problem with a Protestant scholar trying to cherry pick certain doctrinal issues within Orthodoxy to make an argument. And let us all be aware that there is an argument lurking there somewhere. Otherwise, a scholar who has chosen to examine the Patristic witness would simply become Orthodox. That is why his Presbyterianism is so relevant.

[Rick H.]

And let us all be aware that there is an argument lurking there somewhere.




Dear Owen,

I agree, both starting points and agendas do matter just as one's theology can get in the way of one's understanding. And, I allow much room for what you have said above about what may be lurking in the shadows. But, in the case of Leithart who is interacting with the work of Carl Mosser of Eastern College, it seems to be more of a search for the Truth than anything else which is the driving force. And, I can appreciate that for what it is very easily. If anything, as it relates to the starting points of the Protestants on this, there is a distinction being drawn not for the purpose of dividing; but, uniting as well as promoting a greater awareness in the West. But, as they are promoting a view of deification as an ecumenical doctrine, taught in some form by everyone from Irenaeus to Wesley and beyond, and theosis as a distinctly Orthodox development . . . words start to get in the way somewhat. And, in this group they are attempting to suggest that "theopoiesis" is the best way to describe the general, ecumenical view of the church, of which theosis is a uniquely Orthodox variation. So, I guess we should pull off of that for now and this has served what little use it could have by way of an introduction to what my Coptic friend in Canada is sharing with me.

And, I am still hoping to get a copy of his priest's article which is touted as being thorough and well researched, in order that we might at least gain a toehold on this--as it relates to this 'controversy' that none of us here seem to have ever heard of.

But, in the meantime, as we may move away from the Protestant/Western views of this distinction, and more towards an Eastern approach to this, the only other piece I have to share is this statement:




I will further note that theopoiesis was part of the Alexandrine tradition and passed on into the OO traditions while theosis was out of the Cappadocian fathers then became part of the Antiochene tradition and finally the Byzantine and EO tradition.



While this is somewhat embarrassing to continue here in a way because we still don't really understand the issues . . . I am under the impression that what is alien to us, what seems barbaric to us, is common knowledge in Oriental Orthodoxy.

So, here as well, I wonder what may be found moving in the darkness that can be brought into light.

In Christ,
Rick

PS DW, possibly when we get a better grasp on this, then we can determine who or what is in good order, and who or what needs repair . . . now for some reason, I'm hearing this Winnie the Pooh voice saying, "If it's not broke, don't fix it!" ;)

[Owen Jones]

That there were different trends or schools in theology, for example, between what we might term Syriac and Greek, is nothing new. So I am still wondering, what is the issue here? Is there a problem?

[Rick H.]

Dear Owen, and Others:

This might be a short conversation here on this topic, and it is awkard because I do not have the answers. I was hoping that the big guns here could bring me up to speed on this. But, as it relates to the 'so what?' and 'issues/problems?,' I would think the ramifications of what is being presented would be pretty obvious.

I'll try to be as clear as I can in what has been presented to me in the following:




I. Theopoiesis and Theosis are two completely different doctrines

A.) The Alexandrian usage of the word theopoiesis is used to describe an ancient doctrine of the Church which goes back to the beginning, the roots of Christianity.


B.) The Byzantine concept and usage of the word theosis represents a concept which is alien to the early fathers, the early Patristic tradition.



It seems that none of us have ever heard of this here in the Monachos Discussion Community, but supposedly it is not an obscure doctrine with some like the Copts.

I guess I will need to research this further, through independent studies, to see it this is something that does hold water or is good for only target practice and pot shots.

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Owen, and Others:

This might be a short conversation here on this topic, and it is awkard because I do not have the answers. I was hoping that the big guns here could bring me up to speed on this. But, as it relates to the 'so what?' and 'issues/problems?,' I would think the ramifications of what is being presented would be pretty obvious.

I'll try to be as clear as I can in what has been presented to me in the following:

I. Theopoiesis and Theosis are two completely different doctrines

Except that they aren't different doctrines as far as the knowledge of this particular Orthodox Christian goes of the Orthodox understanding.


A.) The Alexandrian usage of the word theopoiesis is used to describe an ancient doctrine of the Church which goes back to the beginning, the roots of Christianity.

maybe yes, maybe no, except we really don't see this particular word bandied about that much. Where, exactly is this specific word used again by the "roots of Christianity"?


B.) The Byzantine concept and usage of the word theosis represents a concept which is alien to the early fathers, the early Patristic tradition.

I gotta go with this being a false statement. I don't see where the case has been made, except that I agree that this might be true for the incomplete and otherwise erroneous DEFINITION of theosis originally put forward (which is not in accord with the accepted Orthodox definition AFAIK).


It seems that none of us have ever heard of this here in the Monachos Discussion Community, but supposedly it is not an obscure doctrine with some like the Copts.

I guess I will need to research this further, through independent studies, to see it this is something that does hold water or is good for only target practice and pot shots.

In Christ,
Rick

Sorry not many "big guns" have chimed in, but this little bear with little brains and no guns whatsoever has said more than his due.

Herman the Pooh

[Owen Jones]

Let's try to take a dispassionate look at the issue on its merits. The doctrine of theosis is first and foremost Biblical. "Ye are gods," says the OT, which Jesus Himself affirms.

It is stated as a doctrine quite explicitly as early as Irenaeus and Clement. That they may not have used the term theosis hardly seems to matter. A rose by any other name...

It is a concept that was developed by Plato, to be sure, which is probably one of the objections by those who are looking for any evidence that Christianity has absorbed "paganism."

[Rick H.]

Dear Owen, Dear Herman,



Let's try to take a dispassionate look at the issue on its merits. The doctrine of theosis is first and foremost Biblical. "Ye are gods," says the OT, which Jesus Himself affirms.

It is stated as a doctrine quite explicitly as early as Irenaeus and Clement. That they may not have used the term theosis hardly seems to matter. A rose by any other name...

It is a concept that was developed by Plato, to be sure, which is probably one of the objections by those who are looking for any evidence that Christianity has absorbed "paganism."




A dispassionate look sounds great, in fact this approach is the only chance this conversation has to get going and possibly come to anything resembling a conclusion, one way or the other.

However, as I am currently beginning to come to grips with this, unfortunately all I have are broad brush strokes at the present which will probably be viewed as being inflammatory more than anything else. But, possibly, we could look at this as a painting coming into view which begins with the usage of broad brushes and then as the picture comes into view, the smaller brushes come into play. So, there is no playing of games here, and a degree of patience is required here, all things considered . . . and, who knows, we might just learn something. But, here is what I have come to understand since my last post as it relates to the above quote:

--The doctrine that deals with "Ye are gods" is considered to be both Biblical and Patristic as it relates to the doctrine of theopoiesis and the doctrine of theosis. The question here is what does this mean--"Ye are Gods?" There is full agreement between theopoiesis and the doctrine of theosis in the importance of the Incarnation, but there are some differences which make the two irreconcilable.

--Regarding the doctrine that deals with "Ye are gods," in the doctrine of theopoiesis, a very strong appeal is made to what is stated explicitly by Irenaeus and Clement. In fact, it is thought that Irenaeus' teaching provides the nucleus for the doctrine of theopoiesis.

--As a consideration of "Ye are gods" takes place in theopoiesis, you are correct, there is some room allowed for both a consideration of Hellenized Jews and Hellenized Christian thinkers; however, this does not seem to be one of the main buttresses in the framework of what is being presented at all. In fact, from my reading so far, this seems to be an unnecessary feature.


But, possibly for now, I can share that the works of Gregory of Nazianzen are referenced as being a turning point, for the lack of a better word. And, in an effort to be as clear as possible, I'll try the outline form again in an effort to communicate what I am seeing come into view:


I. Gregory Nazianzen coined the term theosis and his concept of theosis went far beyond his predecessors.

A.) No Christian theologian employed the term theosis (or the idea contained in term) with as much consistence and frequency as he did; both terminologically and conceptually Gregory went far beyond his predecessors in his application to theosis.

B.) It is through and after Gregory that this theme of theosis (in distinction with theopoiesis) would become a core of the development of the theoloogical and mystical tradition of the Christian East.

C.) As Gregory developed theosis, this is an idea not to be found in any of the early fathers.

D.) As Gregory developed the idea of deification, this was a new concept that none of the early fathers espoused, and what he has done is called "Speculative Theology."

In Christ,
Rick

PS Herman, I forgot to mention that it is considered by some to be an unfortunate thing that both theopoiesis and theosis are translated by the English word deification, which gives the illusion the the two terms mean the same concept--it is considered unfortunate, by those who differentiate between the Alexandrian doctrine of theopoiesis and the Byzantine doctrine of "theosis," that the two words and the two concepts are treated as one and the same

[Eric Peterson]

This seems to me to be a demonstration of how "theologians" end up in hell. Textual analysis is not true theology and broadcasting one's wacky ideas based on "research" has bad consequences--like that article some deacon regrettably wrote and was regrettably published some years ago in the Antiochians' "The Word," which stated that Adam actually wanted to kill God. This spreads confusion and increases scandal and temptation. These false theologians will have to answer for this.

[Rick H.]

This seems to me to be a demonstration of how "theologians" end up in hell. Textual analysis is not true theology and broadcasting one's wacky ideas based on "research" has bad consequences . . .



Dear Eric,

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here, or if you have even read more than the last post in this thread; however, we are considering the Alexandrian usage of the word and concept of theopoiesis. This is a little slow going, because no one here seems to be famliar with this. But, this is a discussion community here, and from what I am reading at the present it is presented from Church History and the History of Christian Thought.

Possibly, you are more informed on this doctrine of theopoiesis and can contribute something of substance?

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

Dear Mr. Henry,

You are all over the mental map here. Irenaeus and Clement have clearly, explicitly stated a doctrine of deification. It is hardly even possible to imagine that St. Gregory the Theologian could have brought it to a "new level." That doctrine is clearly Biblical from both Old Testament and New Testament accounts.

That there have always been differences in focus and emphasis between "schools" of theology -- e.g. between Alexandria and the Greek world is not in doubt, is the subject of countless books, studies, etc. This does not mean that they are not both in accord on essentials.

That present day Copts may not ascribe to a doctrine of theosis would surprise me, but I am not informed on the subject, and would hate to speculate on it based on what you are hearing from one person.

To say that the phrase, sons by adoption, contradicts the idea of theosis is a complete red herring, in my opinion. They are two means of saying the same thing -- a distinction without a difference.

[Rick H.]

Dear Owen,

I know this sounds like it couldn't be true (maybe a little crazy), and this does sound inflammatory, but if we can continue with our dispassionate look at this . . . yes, this is exactly what is being asserted viz. Irenaeus and Clement's doctrine of deification has been added to and changed by Gregory . And, I have a 30 page paper that I am working through now in an attempt to understand why this is said, what supports these assertions. The author of this paper is a Coptic priest who interacts with the work of others on this, and who doesn't want to be quoted here . . . as if things weren't hard enough.

But, I will read this paper and share what it says and possibly we can actually have something concrete to deal with as it relates to our topic.

I am not informed about the Copts view of theosis either, but it seems that to have an answer to this question would be helpful.

So, I will see if I can offer something more clear here in terms of what these broad sweeping statements are based on, and hopefully you can stick around to see what you think. You know more about Orthodoxy than I probably ever will, so I am inclined to defer to you on this at this point . . . but again, let's see how this shakes out as I have time to share the train of thought behind this and put some meat on these bones.

At least we will understand the issues.

In Christ,
Mr. Henry :)

[Rick H.]

Dear Owen,

I'm not exactly getting to the meat and potatoes here with this post . . . this piece that I'm reading begins building on page one and it works towards a complete thought unit that ends on page thirty two. It's hard to find a point of entry for our discussion that would be fair to all concerned.

And, this post might just be a big bunch of nothing; but, while I work on an overall outline of what is being presented, it occurs to me that regarding certain topics, in areas where I am well read, I can sometimes pick someone off, at a distance, by who they interact with and who they cite in their work. So possibly I can share some of this with you, for your review, remembering that:

--The author's purpose in writing is to show that theopoiesis and theosis are two totally different doctrines.

--Regarding the intended audience, this was meant to be read by Coptic clergy (namely deacons/preists)

The author feels there is some confusion among present day clergy as well as lay people about this. As a Coptic deacon has shared with me recently, he feels that in recent years theosis has entered Coptic theology in the light of dialogue between their tradition and Eastern Orthodoxy; but, he feels that many in his tradition, today, who do not want to appear ignorant of what seems to be an important doctrine and who do not want to appear less sophisticated in terms of theology, have mistaken theosis for theopoiesis.

***So, this statement by the deacon is interesting to me because we seem to be ignorant of theopoiesis and the implication is that the Copts are ignorant of theosis.

And, I can see how the mere listing of saints and fathers below may not be very helpful at all; but possibly the list of four authors below could be of some help.

In this he attempts to demonstrate what the doctrine of theopoiesis is by interacting with the OT and NT and:

Justin Martyr

Irenaeus

Clement

Athanasius

Cyril

In an attempt to demonstrate what the doctrine of theosis is, he interacts with:

Gregory of Nazianzus

Basil

Gregory of Nyssa

(as well he brings the above five men into this section to compare and contrast)


There is also an ongoing interaction with the work of the following men in this from beginning to end:


Robert Payne author of The Holy Fire

Norman Russel author of The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition

Vladimir Kharlamov author of Partakers of the Divine Nature

J. A. McGuckin author of The Strategic Adaptation of Deification


Possibly, as well I can share a presupposition in what is presented . . . while a heavy appeal is made to Clement and Irenaeus in theopoiesis, and there is the knowledge that it is in a consensus of the views of the fathers in which we can find the truth:

--In the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the standard which they measure any Patristic writings is the writings of the "two pillars" who are St. Athanasius and St. Cyril. The feeling here is that they both agree with each other as well as with the early fathers that preceded them.

In Christ,
Rick

[Anna Stickles]

Theosis is becoming God by ascension through meditation and spiritual elevation and appears to include sharing in the divine substance when we finally reach full communion with God in Heaven. In theosis we become one with God by becoming a part of God.

In Christ,
Rick

This sounds like a complete misunderstanding and twisting of the teachings of the more mystically oriented Fathers.

Red flag words in this: "becoming God" "becoming part of God" Certainly if we define theosis and theopoiesis in the way stated in your first post, Rick, they are two different doctrines. No brainer here. And it certainly would not be hard to argue that 'theosis', as defined above, is a corruption of the 'ancient teaching'.

The real question to me is do the two St Gregorys and St Basil really teach this? And it seems to me maybe there is a misunderstanding of the Cappodocian Fathers going on here?

[Herman Blaydoe]

This sounds like a complete misunderstanding and twisting of the teachings of the more mystically oriented Fathers.

Red flag words in this: "becoming God" "becoming part of God" Certainly if we define theosis and theopoiesis in the way stated in your first post, Rick, they are two different doctrines. No brainer here. And it certainly would not be hard to argue that 'theosis', as defined above, is a corruption of the 'ancient teaching'.

The real question to me is do the two St Gregorys and St Basil really teach this? And it seems to me maybe there is a misunderstanding of the Cappodocian Fathers going on here?
Yes! Exactly! This is what I have been trying to say all along. The argument that Theosis is a flawed teaching arises from a flawed or distorted understanding of Theosis.

[Vasiliki D.]

A secret my Elder (from Mount Athos) has taught me about reading is to never start a book unless I enquire about the author and his/her background.

As such, may I ask Rick .... who is the author and what credentials and background do they have?

That way, we can establish what their point of view is and be able to better understand where you are coming from.

[Rick H.]

The Ancient Teaching of the Early Church?

Dear Anna, Dear Herman,

Anna, don't you ever get tired of being sharp as a tack?

Yes, does Gregory really teach this and is there a misunderstanding (or twisting) by the Copts of the teachings of the mystically oriented fathers/saints?

As well what do the Copts mean by their received doctrine of theopoiesis "being made into a god" as opposed to their understanding of the Cappadocian understanding of theosis which they refer to as "to become God?" This matters.

Herman, I think what you have been saying all along has been pretty clear. But, as I am coming to terms with the issues more here as I continue to read about this in the first section, which speaks to what theopoiesis is, I think I am seeing that even if when we look at Anna's question above . . . and, hypothetically, even if we see that there is a misunderstanding by the Copts of what Gregory has written about (viz. new terminology; but, not new concept), then they would still keep going with their assertion that theosis today is a corruption of the ancient teaching of theopoiesis.

And, again, this is inflammatory, but what is being presented is that nowhere in Gregory's (Nazianzus) pronouncements on theosis is grace mentioned, but rather ascetic practices are in the front line of achieving theosis. And, this would still be line of division as it relates to a post I made earlier, which contained Herman's favorite pharse, I mean phrase: ;)




2.) The doctrine and terminology of theosis kicks into gear with Pseudo-Dionysus, the hesychast controversy, Palamas and Maximus the confessor.

3.) It is thus linguistically anachronistic to claim that the early fathers have a doctrine of 'theosis.'

4.) With the hesychast controversy, not only the terminology but the doctrine changes.

5.) Instead of a strongly soteriological understanding of deification, theosis develops in a mystical context, and is worked out by Palamas and others through the distinction between the essence and energies of God, a distinction that has no place in the earliest doctrine of deification."



And, also again, I don't care about the thinking by the Alexandrian Copts about who freed Christianity from the shackles of Greek philosophy . . . or if Christianity was even shackled by Greek philosophy as it relates to this topic. It just doesn't matter, this is an unecessary feature.

But:

1.) I do care, and I would like to have your questions answered Anna as it relates to our understanding [and the Coptic understanding] of the teaching of Gregory (Nazianzus).

2.) And, I do want to understand the assertion that in the doctrine of theosis, through Gregory, there has been a moving away from the Grace and the gifts of Grace which are received passively, as taught in the "ancient doctrine" in lieu of the art of ascetism which provides wings to the soul in order to rescue it from the world and give it to God.

And, in this second point Anna, possibly you recognize something as it relates to two approaches that you are familiar with. There is an aspect of Protestantism, which I think can be viewed as a frenzied activism, but there is another aspect which is more inline with the holiness writers which speak of a more passive way.

But, regardless, what I am seeing so far is that even if one takes away both the charges of speculative theology/new terminology/new concept from Gregory and the charge of an Hellenistic influence (as well as a charge of Origenism which hides as well). . . both in theory and in practice, there is still a strong line of division and it is still a no brainer that these are two different doctrines and approaches.

And, the question at hand remains, is one the 'ancient teaching' and another foreign to the early church fathers?

In Christ,
Rick

[Eric Peterson]

We don't gain anything from adopting a blasphemous perspective, looking down from some artificial height of our own pride and reason on the teachings of the Fathers and trying to dissect them. Orthodox people don't read the Fathers this way, as analysts or critics. The read the Fathers as disciples.

[Rick H.]

Dear Eric,

While I do wish you would take you last two posts and start a new thread on these topics (so we can talk more about this there) . . . part of what you write about does apply to the thinking being presented in the writing I have referenced.

As you wrote:




The[y] read the Fathers as disciples.



The view shared by those who are presenting "a blasphemous perspective," as you say, includes the following:




Reading the fathers can be confusing, since sometimes they contradict each other and sometimes they even contradict themselves. So, where do we go from here? The first thing is that we have to realize that the fathers are not infallible, and that some are more fallible than others. So it is in the consenseus of their views that we can find the truth.



And, I guess, as long as the moderators allow it, you can continue to hammer the entire Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria for measuring any Patristic writing by the two pillars of Orthodoxy, as they say, Athanasius and Cyril . . . but again, possibly another thread would be a place to express your opinions?

In Christ,
Rick

[Robert Fortuin]

Rick,


And, the question at hand remains, is one the 'ancient teaching' and another foreign to the early church fathers?It appears this question remains a "question at hand" for you alone.

I am going with the advise of the Elder from Mt. Athos.

[Rick H.]

Dear Vasiliki,

I just noticed your post there a minute ago, sorry I must have missed it. And, after reading Robert's last post, I'm starting to suspect that not many folks are really reading this thread. . . but just kind of popping in, popping off, and then popping out.

I think I have mentioned once or twice that I am asking if anyone has heard of this distinction which seems to be coming from the Coptic Orthodox Church? Initially, I was informed of this by one person. As I looked into this further, the opportunity presented itself for me to get a copy of a paper that explains more about the distinction being presented here. This is written by a Coptic Orthodox priest who doesn't want to be quoted here (smart guy!) :0) . . . and it was written to be read by other Coptic clergy, namely deacons and priests. The author feels there is some confusion among present day clergy as well as lay people about this. As a Coptic deacon has shared with me recently, he feels that in recent years theosis has entered Coptic theology in the light of dialogue between their tradition and Eastern Orthodoxy; but, he feels that many in his tradition, today, who do not want to appear ignorant of what seems to be an important doctrine and who do not want to appear less sophisticated in terms of theology, have mistaken theosis for theopoiesis.

So, far it seems like no one has heard of this distinction here on monachos, lest some of the big guns are sandbagging! Actually, I don't know why I'm still in this thread because I was hoping to be brought up to speed on this, but . . .

I guess, there can still be a good return on the investment if the sharpies here can look at this issue as it unfolds and then possibly, say . . . yes, some of this does hold water, or possibly after those more informed than me look at this and help interpret this, then we can all get out are machine guns and let loose!

I think it's time to grind some coffee beans now though for the afternoon latte!

In Christ,
Rick

[Eric Peterson]

Apparently, you think that Coptic theology has some sort of bearing on Orthodox theology.

[Andreas Moran]

I fail to see how the nonsense quoted in post No. 1 - 'what is being presented' - can the basis for any meaningful discussion.

[Rick H.]

I fail to see how the nonsense quoted in post No. 1 - 'what is being presented' - can the basis for any meaningful discussion.



Dear Andreas,

This (snotty) attitude is exactly why this is such a small discussion community with few actual contributors.




Apparently, you think that Coptic theology has some sort of bearing on Orthodox theology.



You know for that matter, there is no comparison between the attitudes of the OO's and Copts I know and the EO's that I know. The EO's are represented more than not by the most recent posts in this thread . . . defensive, confused and belligerent (the latter when combined, two signs of dimentia). The OO's in a word are represented more than not by a theology of Love. Some folks you don't need to ask "how's that workin' for you?" in terms of their religion because it's very obvious.

In Christ,
Rick

[Anna Stickles]

Dear Rick,

Mostly this attempt at differentiating theosis and theopoiesis seems like some political move to me. If people come to the Fathers and read them with a point to prove or a position to defend rather then spending the effort to really come to grips with what they are saying... These kinds of doctrinal politics have been going on in the Church since the time of the Apostles... what's new. Personally I really don't see that it is our business to get involved. God's chosen prophets and teachers invariably get recognized over time and these issues of doctrinal politics get left behind - and of course new ones come up... and so it goes.



there has been a moving away from the Grace and the gifts of Grace which are received passively, as taught in the "ancient doctrine" in lieu of the art of ascetism


I haven't read St Gregory of Nazianzus so I can't say anything about this, but it seems St Gregory of Nyssa is put in a category of teaching the same thing as his brother's friend, and St Gregory of Nyssa certainly did not teach that the gifts of grace are received passively, nor that asceticism is good simply as a mechanical practice. He teaches cooperation with grace, and he teaches that the ascetical practices must be undertaken within a whole life of striving for the virtues - obedience, kindness, gentleness, humility etc. and participation in the life of the Church.

But St Justin, St Cyril, and St Ireneaus don't teach that the gifts of grace are received passively either... at least as much as I have read of them -so far as I can tell they all teach basically the same thing as St Gergory of Nyssa.



Anna, don't you ever get tired of being sharp as a tack?


I do... I am sure I would be much better off if I was more like a pillow.

Your friendly neighborhood cactus, Anna

[Owen Jones]

This is a statement by the Coptic Pope on the subject at hand:


Theosis is definitely an intrinsic part of OO soteriology. Theosis is, as EO's probably agree, the soteriological presupposition underlying the Church's resistance to the major Christological heresies: Arianism, Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, Nestorianism. As Robin Darling notes in his dissertation on St Severus of Antioch, it was also the soteriological presupposition underlying the OO resistance to the Council of Chalcedon.

The Fathers of the OO Church, being more inclined towards the Alexandrian tradition, whether of the Church of Alexandria or the Church of Antioch, were very strong on theosis. Syrian Orthodox writers from the sixth century onwards used the term metallhanuta, a passive formation from a verb allah "to divinise", which was their equivalent to the Greek theosis. Syrian Orthodox liturgical texts are replete with the term metallhanuta, particularly the long prose prayers known as the Sedre prayers.

One particular modern Syrian Orthodox writer, the late and great Paulos Mar Gregorios, was very heavy on theosis in his works. I highly recommend his work Cosmic Man, which I have in fact quoted a passage from in the 'Wisdom of the OO Fathers' thread here.

I am not very well acquainted with Armenian Orthodox texts, but I recently purchased H.H. Aram I's "For a Church Beyond its Walls", and though its main focus is ecumenism and ecclesiology, it does mention theosis.

With regard to the Coptic Church, certain contemporary heirarchs are struggling over the issue, purely because of a lack of proper theological education, particularly with respect to patristics--both pre-Chalcedon and post-Chalcedon patristics--and hence a lack of familiarity with proper theological terminology. Nevertheless, despite the unfortunate ignorance of some, many Coptic heirarchs advocate and promote theosis nevertheless. One of the most recent works by a Coptic heirarch on the matter can be downloaded from the parish website of St George Coptic Orthodox Church in Sydney: http://www.saintgeorgechurch.org.au/Deification.pdf

The above referred to work isn't anything special, but it at least demonstrates an awareness and acceptance of patristic teaching on the matter.

HG Bishop Youssef of the Southern Diocese of the United States advocates theosis on the official Southern Diocese website. In his article "Baptism: Crowning Back into the Original Glory", His Grace states:

Quote
By adoption, we all become sons of God through the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Through this adoption, we have become everything God is, except for His Divine nature. Retaining our human nature, we can still become members of His family through Grace. The process of growing in the knowledge of the Lord and His Word is called deification. Deification simply means growing in grace; according to what God is by nature. According to the Churchs teachings, to grow in grace one must believe in and be faithful to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Source: http://suscopts.org/resources/literature/290/baptism-crowning-back-into-the-original-glory/


In the Q and A section of that website, His Grace responds to a query on theosis:

Quote
Theosis or Deification means "union with God" taken from the Greek Theos - God, and the word Enosis - union. Our Lord Jesus Christ asked God the Father "They also may be one in us" (Jn 17:21). He also gave us the command of Theosis "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect" (Mt 5:4, our goal in life is to accomplish perfect union with God through the grace of the Holy Spirit. Man was created in the image and likeness of God, and then sin created a gap between God and mankind, causing damage to our souls. All Christians through baptism receive the seed of Theosis, which is not only to the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation and justification, but also a restoration of God's image. The sinful inclination of our human nature should not govern our behavior anymore; instead we should strive to live a holy life looking towards Jesus Christ the author of our faith, and growing in His knowledge and sonship. The restoration and sanctification of Theosis brings us back into relationship with the Creator. St. Athanasius' presentation of Theosis was summarized 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 the Lord Jesus 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."

Our full union with God is a union with the "energies" of God. These energies, while an extension of God, are not to be confused with the "essence" or "substance" of God, which is unknown by humans and is shared only by the Holy Trinity. Our union with God will not make us gods but will make us partners in the Divine nature in works not in essence. We will not acquire the unique characteristics of God such as being the Creator, the Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, but it will make us partners with Him in building the Kingdom by our own salvation and by winning the souls of others to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Source: http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=649&catid=383


Furthermore, a contemporary Coptic Orthodox priest of the United States, Fr Matthew Wahba, wrote his thesis on "The Doctrine of Sanctification in St. Athanasius’ Paschal Letters" (the foreword of this published work was actually written by Bishop Kallistos Ware). Fr. Matthew Wahba discusses theosis in Chapter 6 of that work.

[Owen Jones]

Apparently that was not a statement by the Coptic Pope. It's a little confusing as to who wrote it. At any rate, it, as well as an interesting discussion by Copts on the topic of theosis is to be found here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=12652.0

Apparently one problem is that the term theosis which has been used by the Coptic Pope and is part of their tradition, has some serious problems when translated to Arabic, which then comes across as blasphemous. Recently, some Copt or other has been writing stuff that claims that we also share in God's essence, and this has created some strong reaction. So I think one has to be very careful on this subject to know what is actually percolating within and among the Copts before knowing what this is all about.

[Owen Jones]

My advice to Rick is to try to calm down a bit intellectually and just enjoy being Orthodox and soak it up like a sponge. Focus on that which you like, understand, love, are attracted to, and let the controversial stuff in your mind take a pass for a while.

[Rick H.]

Mostly this attempt at differentiating theosis and theopoiesis seems like some political move to me.







So I think one has to be very careful on this subject to know what is actually percolating within and among the Copts before knowing what this is all about.




Dear Anna, Dear Owen,

Thank you both for your posts very much. And, thanks for the quotes/links Owen, yes that is interesting. It seems the person who wrote the above holds the title of "Guru" as he styles himself as the OrthodoxChristianity.net "Guru" in his signature.

But, it is interesting to me that you both have considered the politics and what is actually percolating with the Copts with only my few comments about this. Because as I read the whole thing this has occurred to me as well. I used to be an outside sales rep in another life, and when it comes to well crafted/contrived presentations that are designed to overcome objections while the presentation is being made, this has some elements of that in it. To be honest, the first time I read this piece, I thought it was a contrived piece of 'trash.' But, I kept picking it up and running through it, until I decided to get out my pens and markers and really try to become one with what is being said. And, in the end here, mostly due to my ineptness with Patristics I cannot seem to come to a clear conclusion.

In the end, regardless of whether this is something that was crafted (for whatever reason) and is a contrived thing . . . or if it is the product of a very sincere individual and does represent the views of the many in the Coptic Orthodox Church . . . this is so antithetical to theosis in the EO Church that there can only be a dismissing of one view in the end. I do not see any room to juxtapose or harmonize these two systems.

And, where we are at now with this is the thinking that one would have to be somewhat of an "insider" in and among Coptic Orthodoxy today in order to really come up with some answers here.

Or, maybe there is one last shot at this . . . how about if I offer this paper to two people here, you both (Anna and Owen), if you both agree to not use this priest's name and agree to not quote him directly? If you are willing to take a look at this send me your email address in a PM and I'll send you this as an attachment.

Otherwise, in light of the quotes at the top of this post, we have probably taken this as far as we can here.




My advice to Rick is to try to calm down a bit intellectually and just enjoy being Orthodox and soak it up like a sponge. Focus on that which you like, understand, love, are attracted to, and let the controversial stuff in your mind take a pass for a while.




Thanks for this advice, it sounds like good advice and is well received. I do get fired up, and there is a little bit of crayfish action going on my last few posts here . . . but this frustration is not a result of intellectual pursuits but it is directed along the lines of what Anthony was speaking about during his departure from monachos (viz. 'a willingness to discuss' and the lack of this . . . 'otherwise the whole idea of an Orthodox discussion board would be a bit problematic'). There is a fatigue that requires a period recuperation when one is putting energy into a question/search and the return on the investment is the privilege of going a few rounds with the fundy mindset. And, one is moved to the ragged edge, like Anthony, at times when things seem to be pointless and a waste of time. There is a man, whom I respected and who gave his students permission to 'pursue truth wherever it might be found.' The thinking here with him was not so much "to cautiously go where everyone has gone before." Not too Orthodox I guess. But, this man was a celebrative , hopeful scholar. Not without his foes (who seemed gloomy and pessimistic to me), but he was celebrative and hopeful and he did seem to soak up the being more than the knowing overall. But, as it relates to 'the larger picture' . . .yes, like a sponge, as you say :) . . . thanks for the good advice, worded well and well received.


In Christ,
Rick

PS Let me know if either of you want to take a look at this writing by the priest?