Keeting goes over Palamas for a few pages and concludes that essentially his view is not incompatible with that of Aquinas. I don’t know how accurate his assessment is because I am not familiar enough with Thomas to properly explain his views. I am very familiar with the eastern conception of deification/theosis though, which I think is in line with the whole tradition from the apostles.I hope I have made some rather pointed statements about what deification IS now. I am interested in your assessment of their logical coherence.
BTW, It is my opinion that Catholicism suffers MIGHTILY from its inability to define what deification is. There is ABSOLUTELY no official Catholic stance on the matter at all. Most Catholics draft off of the Eastern Orthodox descriptions of Theosis (or deification). I think few Catholics realize that Gregory Palamas (EO usually leaned upon for Theosis) and Thomas Aquinas parted ways in their concept of the heavenly state so radically that there is a logically flaw in equating the two.
The best description of Catholic theology of deification is contained within Keatings, Deification and Grace to my recollection he does not deal with the Eastern and Western split, but he does a good job of defining what he believes without just quoting EO scholars. If you adopt his view, I would be happy to explore it with you because while it is not illogical, I think it represents a BREAK with the earliest teachings of the ECFs.
So, could you please define what YOU believe is the Catholic view of deification. What is divinity as such and how do we become divine in your Catholic understanding.
Charity, TOm
Thank you for the response.I think the view you are positing is illogical in as much as you speak of full deification. It seems that you are saying that we become exactly what God the Father is, and in the end we possess it independent of whether we are in union with Him.
It seems to me that what you mean by full deification is that we become like God in essence, rather than just energy (within the language of Palamas). I draw this from your conclusion that the teaching of Nicaea leans more toward a partial deification.Thank you for the response.
I am confused by what you assert here. Do you believe that I speak of full deification, but that I should not unless I deny that we are eternally linked to God the Father (and Son and Holy Spirit) OR do you believe that I deny that we are eternally linked to God the Father?
Please re-read what I have said and clarify for me what your “illogical” assessment is predicated upon?
Charity, TOm
P.S. I still hope to get to a few other things from Jimmy and CatholicGuy, but will need to wait for now.
Thank you, this is exactly what I said as well. And I’m glad that an Eastern Catholic has joined the discussion.Most of what you said in your original posts sounds very similar to what the Catholic Church would say.
EXACTLY. And the attribute that was important at the Council of Nicaea was being eternal (is the Son co-eternal with the Father).When the council of Nicaea spoke of Christ as homoousios with the Father it was asserting that He is eternal, uncreated, immortal and etc. These attributes belong to Him by nature, and since they belong to Him by nature He can make us partakers of them. By nature we are not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and etc. but through union with Christ it is possible that we can participate in all these attributes of God. This is through participation in the energies of God, not the essence.
Okay. Either way, a Catholic does not have to automatically accept the views of Aquinas. A Catholic is free to accept the views of Palamas, and many do (especially Eastern Catholics). My point was simply that your view that Catholics refer to Eastern Orthodox apologetics, based on the writings of Palamas, is erroneous, because Palamas is a revered saint in the Eastern Catholic churches, so there is no issue there.
- I understand that neither Aquinas nor Palamas are “Magisterium, Scripture, or Papal Infallibility.” The degree to which Aquinas has affected Western Catholic thought at the scholarly level (especially until the last 1-2 centuries) seems to make it easier for me to start with the assumption that Thomistic thought is the norm. Among internet apologists the acceptance of Thomistic thought is usually something they do uncritically and then later discover what is present. The same for Palamas.
- It should be noted that Aquinas among Catholic intellectuals is a far more universally accepted than is any single theology among LDS intellectuals. But, if you are willing to let me define what I believe, I will be willing to let you define what you believe.
No, it is not at odds with Palamas. See Jimmy’s last post. Also, to partake of the divine nature does not necessitate becoming the essence of God. Eastern Christians are able to maintain a belief in partaking of the divine nature as well as the distinction between Essence and Energies, with the Essence being transcendent.
- Your view here is at odds with Palamas thought. Not only must one experience God’s nature/essence to become homoousios with God, they must partake/adopt that nature/essence. Palamas would reject this. I maintain that Aquinas would as well but for a “dividing of the divine essence” reason rather than for the “absolute transcendence of the divine essence” reason.
Thanks, yes this is really what I’m waiting for. It really seems to me that you are confusing some ideas about what the orthodox Trinity is really claiming, especially in relation to the word translated as “being”, hence why you are calling it “neo-modalism”. I’m glad that another Catholic (Jimmy, as well as Stephen) reiterated my point that your original posts were, for the most part, compatible with orthodox Catholic teaching, so perhaps we have different understandings of what the orthodox Trinity doctrine is saying, and it seems that Stephen and Jimmy agree with me that what you describe as “social Trinitarianism” (at least in this thread) is really orthodox Trinitarianism. Again, this really goes back to how the word “being” is used in the doctrine, where it is important to realize that it is not used in the same way that we use it in everyday language (where we use it interchangeably with “person”).I hope to talk more about neo-modalism in some future post.
Charity, TOm
I don’t necessarily think what Tom said is orthodox Trinitarianism, but a lot of what he said does sound similar.to orthodox Trinitarianism. We would have to get more in depth on his understanding.Thanks, yes this is really what I’m waiting for. It really seems to me that you are confusing some ideas about what the orthodox Trinity is really claiming, especially in relation to the word translated as “being”, hence why you are calling it “neo-modalism”. I’m glad that another Catholic (Jimmy, as well as Stephen) reiterated my point that your original posts were, for the most part, compatible with orthodox Catholic teaching, so perhaps we have different understandings of what the orthodox Trinity doctrine is saying, and it seems that Stephen and Jimmy agree with me that what you describe as “social Trinitarianism” (at least in this thread) is really orthodox Trinitarianism. Again, this really goes back to how the word “being” is used in the doctrine, where it is important to realize that it is not used in the same way that we use it in everyday language (where we use it interchangeably with “person”).
Joseph Smith; History of the Church:God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,–I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form–like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
Joseph Smith; History of the Church:These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.
I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man–on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man–the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
I don’t think requirements 3 and 4 can be found in the New Testament and requirement 4 seems to be contrary to the New Testament.Requirements to be exalted:
- We must be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.
- We must receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
- We must receive the temple endowment.
- We must be married for time and eternity.
Agreed.I don’t necessarily think what Tom said is orthodox Trinitarianism, but a lot of what he said does sound similar.to orthodox Trinitarianism. We would have to get more in depth on his understanding.
I have re-read Keating on this and in light of how well I claimed to understand Williams and Bradshaw, I will acknowledge that I cannot add or detract from Keating’s position. I will also say that the PURPOSE in Palamas defining the Essence / Energy distinction AND the PURPOSE in Aquinas speaking of the partaking of though never becoming of God’s essence is the same.Keeting goes over Palamas for a few pages and concludes that essentially his view is not incompatible with that of Aquinas. I don’t know how accurate his assessment is because I am not familiar enough with Thomas to properly explain his views. I am very familiar with the eastern conception of deification/theosis though, which I think is in line with the whole tradition from the apostles.
Most of what you said in your original posts sounds very similar to what the Catholic Church would say. When the council of Nicaea spoke of Christ as homoousios with the Father it was asserting that He is eternal, uncreated, immortal and etc. These attributes belong to Him by nature, and since they belong to Him by nature He can make us partakers of them. By nature we are not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and etc. but through union with Christ it is possible that we can participate in all these attributes of God. This is through participation in the energies of God, not the essence.It seems to me that what you mean by full deification is that we become like God in essence, rather than just energy (within the language of Palamas). I draw this from your conclusion that the teaching of Nicaea leans more toward a partial deification.
Scipio337,
Hello.I believe that I did already state that homoousios was used by modalists, to equate being with person and say that the Three are all the same Person, but that the Nicene Fathers redefined it to refer to something 100% different from “person”.
Tom,I wrote much of the below and then didn’t get around to posting it. In response to real life, I developed a desire to start a thread titled, “Why Deification” or “Why not Deification,” but realizing the below was not done I thought I would do it.
“A Hoped Logically Consistent View of Deification”
This will be my attempt to offer what I believe about LDS deification thought and its consistency. I will attempt to respond to charges of illogic by explaining how they fail (assuming I do not think they are valid). I will not promise to not ALSO analogously point at a similar aspect of non-LDS theology in addition to trying to resolve the charge. While I recognize the “tu quoque” logical fallacy, I am not a LDS because I believe there are no issues with being a LDS. I am a LDS because of the great positives within the CoJCoLDS and the scarcity of issues relative to other paths I could walk with God.
Here is PaulDupre from this site denying Catholic dogma because he is so adamant in his singular type 2 conception of homoousian that he maintains Christ cannot be homoousian with mankind:Now, I am quite convinced that I am not just so polluted by anti-Trinitarian garbage that I am merely confused when I say the above three things. I am committed to letting you, CatholicGuyNY define your view of the Trinity and your view of deification; but concerning the latter I know of no Catholics who have adopted it and concerning the former few who have boldly adopted it.
That the oneness is more than mere species-oneness I do not deny. The question is what is the content of homoousian in your understanding? Soren below will acknowledge that PaulDupre does well to deny that Christ is homoousian with all mankind. While Soren’s complement acknowledges the declarations of Chalcedon, he is aware that PaulDupre’s position is a product of how consubstantial has come to be used.I believe that I also already stated that although we are homoousios with each other in a sense (which is how the Atonement was effected, since we are homoousios with Jesus in His human nature), the oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a oneness that is beyond our comprehension. It is not just a oneness of nature, but a oneness of love, will, mind, intent, purpose, etc. This is something that no three humans can experience. When the Nicene Fathers declared the Son consubstantial with the Father, they were really addressing the issue of the origin of the Son, and denied that He was a created entity. By stating that He is consubstantial with the Father, they were saying that He is co-eternal with the Father, since one characteristic of deity is being eternal. If He is of the same nature as the Father, then He is eternal as well.
the Son" (which the East has no problem with). So, based on this (as well as more recent agreements on the issue by both churches), I disagree with your definitions. The difficulty stemmed in differences between Greek and Latin words for “proceed”.Your definition of “Augustinian Trinity” does not make sense to me. If the fount of deity rests in the Father’s being and not person, then we could then say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Himself, or that the Son begets Himself, since they all are of the same being/essence (which is what consubstantial/homoousios means). Since this is of course false, I would say that the so-called Augustinian Trinity agrees with the so-called Eastern Orthodox Trinity in stating that the fount of deity rests in the Person of the Father (or the Father’s Person). When Catholics state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we are stating that He proceeds from the Son in a secondary sense. This is also clear in the allowed reformulation of “from the Father and the Son” to "from the Father through
I really do not care what we call it. Neo-modalism was not originally my term, but it is much less prevalent than I had thought it was. Social Trinitarianism is likewise not my term, and it is quite well established in theological discourse. The reason Social models of the Trinity exist (in addition to things like Modalist Trinitarianism from Barth and …) is because the threeness and oneness boxes are not near so clean as you seem to suggest. You are correct when you say God is incomprehensible. You could go so far (like many theologians once regularly did) to say we cannot say anything positive about God, only about what He is not. But, I do not think it necessary in the name of incomprehensibility to say things that do not conform to logical rules. And I do think if Augustine or Athanasius or Aquinas were pushed they would eventually assert things that lead to contradictions with respect the Trinity and logic (Eusebius or Plantinga not so much).So anyway, I still do not see my views as expressing anything contrary to the orthodox/traditional Trinity. My views on the matter come from Ecumenical Councils, the Catechism, and Catholic authors (Theology and Sanity by Sheed is excellent on clearly explaining the Trinity doctrine and showing the difference between “person” and “being” (which he refers to as “nature”, as I do). I do not see any “neo-modalism” apparent in the Trinity, except by those that misunderstand what we mean by the word “being”. Since it isn’t used as it is used in everyday language, one needs to understand that “being” is not used interchangeably with “person” in Trinity language, otherwise they will confuse the orthodox Trinity with modalism (whether “neo” or otherwise).
I seldom see Catholics claim that we could become homoousian with God. I guess when Soren says:For me, deification is the partaking of the divine nature, becoming co-heirs with and in Christ, where we become by grace what God is by nature. We are sanctified by God’s grace, and become homoousios with God, while still maintaining our human nature and the distinction from God’s essence.
He seems to be alluding to the different uses of homoousian that I keep speaking of. I hope to get to Soren’s comments when I can get to his post.Christ is homoousian with mankind, as defined by Chalcedon, but that does not carry the same metaphysical entailments as being homoousian with the Father, because mankind does not have an infinite nature, thereby demanding that he and we share an identical act of existence. Insofar as “homoousian with us” could be construed as sharing that entailment, Paul Dupre is right to reject it.