Did St. Basil the Great get it right on Gifts of Spirit?

[BRB]

He is quoted as saying in 375 AD …“abiding in God, being made like God, ---- and, highest of all, being made God.”

We are told to imitate Christ, dwell in Christ, etc. But, …'being made God" ??

This seems a sacrilege, way over the top. Seems to me the error in past of Adam and satan … were attempting to become equal of God. Its when we try to be selfsufficient [a demigod] … that our pride is maximal.

What am I missing that Basil is saying here ?

 

[Della]

The Catechism says the same thing, with a more thorough explanation of the term:

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

 

[BRB]

might become a son of God." “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Sons of God … Yes !

Perhaps it means gods with small g. [make men gods].

Revelations doesn’t depict us as ever being equal of God. We are forever to worship the Lamb of God.

What does the Church really teach in this regard ???

 

[Della]

Sons of God … Yes !

Perhaps it means gods with small g. [make men gods].

Revelations doesn’t depict us as ever being equal of God. We are forever to worship the Lamb of God.

What does the Church really teach in this regard ???

I think the key phrase from the CCC quote is: by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship. Christ imbues us with his divinity. We are assumed into the divine nature. It does not at all mean that we are equal with the Trinity. St. Basil and the Church are talking about our nature being transformed into and by Christ, not telling us that we will become God but rather that we will share God’s nature in all its perfection, love, beauty, etc.

This is one of those “meat of the faith” things that St. Paul alluded to. One of our deep theologians here could probably explain it better than I.

 

[FCEGM]

He is quoted as saying in 375 AD …“abiding in God, being made like God, ---- and, highest of all, being made God.”

We are told to imitate Christ, dwell in Christ, etc. But, …'being made God" ??

This seems a sacrilege, way over the top. Seems to me the error in past of Adam and satan … were attempting to become equal of God. Its when we try to be selfsufficient [a demigod] … that our pride is maximal.

What am I missing that Basil is saying here ?

St. Basil is teaching what the Church reiterates through the ages in her constant teaching on the reality and the depth of our transformation in Christ. The Church puts before the faithful the depth (and height) of our transformation in Christ. (See also the writings of such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Gregory Palamas, e.g.)

A term more often found in Eastern Christianity (both Catholic and Orthodox) is theosis, deification. This word expresses the absolute transformation of oneself through the soul’s participation in God’s Divine Nature. This is not something we of ourselves have, but can only receive by grace initiated in Baptism and grown through fidelity to the sacramental life of the Church. Through theosis we take part in the life of the Most Holy Trinity; we become truly united by grace (not just de jure, but de facto) in the Divine Life which the Divine Persons alone have by their Nature.

St. John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church, in his great work The Spiritual Canticle writes profoundly about what St. Basil is expressing:

“. . .the Bridegroom [Christ] communicates Himself to the soul by means of the adornment of these virtues, He feeds on the soul, transforming her into Himself, now that she is prepared and seasoned with the flowers of virtues, gifts, and perfections, the seasonings with which, and among which, He feeds on her. By means of the Holy Spirit, who prepares the dwelling, these virtues delight the Son of God so that through them He may feed more on the love of the soul. This is the characteristic of the Bridegroom: to unite Himself with the soul amid the fragrance of these flowers.” Stanza 17, #10.

"Turn Your face toward the mountains. . .The face of God is the divinity, and the mountains are the soul’s faculties (memory, intellect, and will). This verse is like saying: Let Your divinity shine on my intellect by giving it divine knowledge, and on my will by imparting to it divine love, and on my memory with the divine possession of glory.

“The soul asks in this line for everything she possibly can ask of Him. She is no longer satisfied with the knowledge and communication of the “back” of God - which was His communication to Moses [Ex. 33:23] - and which is knowledge of Him in His effects and works; she can only be satisfied with God’s face, which is an essential communication of the divinity of the soul. This communication is not brought about through any means, but through a certain contact of the soul with the divinity. This contact is something foreign to everything sensory and accidental, since it is a touch of naked substances - of the soul and the divinity.” Stanza 19, #4

“. . .Beloved, first turn to the interior of my soul, and be enamored of the company - the riches - You have placed there, so that loving the soul through them You may dwell and hide in her. For, indeed, even though they are Yours, since You gave them to her, they also belong to her.” Stanza 19, #6

Also from the Catechism:

1726 The Beatitudes teach us the final end to which God calls us: the Kingdom, the vision of God, participation in the divine nature, eternal life, filiation, rest in God.

1812 The human virtues are rooted in the theological virtues, which adapt man’s faculties for participation in the divine nature: for the theological virtues relate directly to God. They dispose Christians to live in a relationship with the Holy Trinity. They have the One and Triune God for their origin, motive, and object

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself: [God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.

(So it’s not just a nice sentimentality that St. Paul expresses in Galatians 2:20: "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me.”)

 

[BRB]

St. Basil is teaching what the Church reiterates through the ages in her constant teaching on the reality and the depth of our transformation in Christ. The Church puts before the faithful the depth (and height) of our transformation in Christ. (See also the writings of such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Gregory Palamas, e.g.)

A term more often found in Eastern Christianity (both Catholic and Orthodox) is theosis, deification. This word expresses the absolute transformation of oneself through the soul’s participation in God’s Divine Nature. This is not something we of ourselves have, but can only receive by grace initiated in Baptism and grown through fidelity to the sacramental life of the Church. Through theosis we take part in the life of the Most Holy Trinity; we become truly united by grace (not just de jure, but de facto) in the Divine Life which the Divine Persons alone have by their Nature.

St. John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church, in his great work The Spiritual Canticle writes profoundly about what St. Basil is expressing:

Also from the Catechism:

(So it’s not just a nice sentimentality that St. Paul expresses in Galatians 2:20: "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me.”)

Very heady, romatic mystical writings by these ancients.

But, Catechism 1988 seems to say it best … grafted into the tree of life.

Branches are fully part of the tree … indeed, where the flower,
fruits, and leaves develop. Rooted into Christ … yet still in need of sunlight and oxygen … to obtain photosynthesis and growth. Sunlight coming from God the Father, and oxygen from God the Spirit. And, water (essential for life) … coming via Christ / roots.

We exist as One … in the Trinity !! The Jews always considered the son the equal of his father. Certainly Christ is the equal of God. So, if Christians are ever the equal of the Father … it would be as viewed via the eyes/graces of Christ.

Life cannot exist apart from Christ.

 

[FCEGM]

Very heady, romatic mystical writings by these ancients.

But, Catechism 1988 seems to say it best … grafted into the tree of life.

Branches are fully part of the tree … indeed, where the flower,
fruits, and leaves develop. Rooted into Christ … yet still in need of sunlight and oxygen … to obtain photosynthesis and growth. Sunlight coming from God the Father, and oxygen from God the Spirit. And, water (essential for life) … coming via Christ / roots.

We exist as One … in the Trinity !! The Jews always considered the son the equal of his father. Certainly Christ is the equal of God. So, if Christians are ever the equal of the Father … it would be as viewed via the eyes/graces of Christ.

Life cannot exist apart from Christ.

Precisely!

 

[porthos11]

The Church does not teach that man becomes God or gods, but does quote Thomas Aquinas that Jesus came and became man so that he “might make men gods.”

Taken in the proper context, this is not alarming and has no similarity at all with Mormonism or other weird stuff. We have the scriptural basis of it all in 2 Peter 1:4: we become partakers of the divine nature. In other words, we share a in God’s life itself, or in a manner of speaking, we “become” God and not just by mere imitation, but in a mystical and yet very true way.

An analogy is this. I have two dogs whom I love very much. But no matter what I do, I can never adopt them as my children and heirs. Why not? After all, Golden Retrievers and Beagles are more loyal than any human child will ever be. The best they will be to us are pets.

The simple answer is that because dogs are not human. They do not share my nature. In much the same way, we are not God; we do not possess the divine nature, and we are farther from God than dogs are from us. But because of Christ who took our nature, he made it possible for us to share God’s nature by partaking of that divine nature, enabling us to be adopted as sons, and not just mere creatures. In order to become sons of God, we need to be “divine”.

None of this takes away our human nature, and nor do we change from human to god. We will always be human, graced with the indwelling of God’s divine life.

The Easterns call this process theosis.

 

[porthos11]

One more thing, since the OP mentioned the sin of Adam.

This is actually interesting because while the sin of Adam consisted in him wanting to become like God, that sin is the reason Jesus came among us as man. So in a matter of sweet irony, it’s Adam’s sin that brought forth the possibility of something of what he wanted in the first place.

All the more reason the Church sings, “O Happy Fault! O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”

 

[BRB]

it’s Adam’s sin that brought forth the possibility of something of what he wanted in the first place.

All the more reason the Church sings, “O Happy Fault! O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”

I’m not sure I follow you.

You’re suggesting Adam wished to be wise as God, committed the sin … brought on original sin for us all. Yet today we can thank Adam for messing up … since we get the new Adam in Christ ?

I’m not sure Christ appreciated Adam’s sin. Yes, Christ brought us redemption … but, much agony came to Christ as result.

I still think it was God’s intent that Adam/Eve be faithful. And if they had of … our fates today would of been better for it. And, for those who reject Christ … clearly their fates will be the poorer for Adam/their decisions.

But, how will we ever know now ?

 

[Della]

I’m not sure I follow you.

You’re suggesting Adam wished to be wise as God, committed the sin … brought on original sin for us all. Yet today we can thank Adam for messing up … since we get the new Adam in Christ ?

I’m not sure Christ appreciated Adam’s sin. Yes, Christ brought us redemption … but, much agony came to Christ as result.

I still think it was God’s intent that Adam/Eve be faithful. And if they had of … our fates today would of been better for it. And, for those who reject Christ … clearly their fates will be the poorer for Adam/their decisions.

But, how will we ever know now ?

From the CCC:

410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.304 This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, “Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away.” And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’”

 

[BRB]

From the CCC:

OK … I see the Church’s position. Lets make the best of a bad situation ] . In Christ we can be eternal optimists.

Still, I don’t think God wanted Adam/Eve to err. For us to believe otherwise would make the temptation via satan meaningless [a predestined outcome].

But, once they did desire to become like God, things were broken to such degree they couldn’t be rehabilitated … w/o major intervention by God. Anyone touched or controlled by satan is polluted in God’s eyes.

 

[Della]

Well, it’s a bit more than making the best of a bad situation. God more than made up for the loss that Adam brought into the world–he excelled it in a way Adam (or we) could not have imagined. IOW, the benefits far, far outweigh the negatives. As St. Paul wrote:

Rom. 5:[17] If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[18] Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
[19] For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
[20] Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
[21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

He uses phrases such as “abundance of grace”, “life for all men”, “grace abounded” and “eternal life”. What Jesus did for us is far greater than what Adam did to us.

God’s plan was there from the beginning, not something he came up with after Adam sinned. It’s hard for us who are finite, who live strictly within the limits of time to comprehend how God sees everything at once, instead of reacting, as we do, to things as they come up.

We make plans but cannot be certain they will come about, but this is not the case with God. He makes plans and they do come about. That is his side of things. Our side of things is to give our wills over to his so that we will be a positive part of his plan instead a negative part.

Does this help or make any sense? If not, I take the “blame” for not being able to communicate this as well as it could be.

 

[BRB]

Does this help or make any sense? If not, I take the “blame” for not being able to communicate this as well as it could be.

yes …

But, if God had it all planned from beginning. Then predestination is the big driver of mankinds actions. Are we truly able to exercise free will ?

I know the Providence of God is at work in world and in lives of individuals. The concept of providence vs predestination is hard to get our minds around.

Protestants are big believers in predestination. Catholics tend to emphasize providence. How do we square these two ideas of God’s control of events in history ? Don’t need to answer … thats perhaps a topic for another day/time.

 

[Della]

yes …

But, if God had it all planned from beginning. Then predestination is the big driver of mankinds actions. Are we truly able to exercise free will ?

I know the Providence of God is at work in world and in lives of individuals. The concept of providence vs predestination is hard to get our minds around.

Protestants are big believers in predestination. Catholics tend to emphasize providence. How do we square these two ideas of God’s control of events in history ? Don’t need to answer … thats perhaps a topic for another day/time.

Yes, it is a complicated bit of theology that I don’t pretend to have gotten completely straight. I do know that the Church does not believe in “double predestination” (which I don’t understand at all), which is the kind embraced by some Calvinists.

Not being a deep theologian, I just go by what the Church says about it:

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

 

[FCEGM]

yes …

But, if God had it all planned from beginning. Then predestination is the big driver of mankinds actions. Are we truly able to exercise free will ?

I know the Providence of God is at work in world and in lives of individuals. The concept of providence vs predestination is hard to get our minds around.

Protestants are big believers in predestination. Catholics tend to emphasize providence. How do we square these two ideas of God’s control of events in history ? Don’t need to answer … thats perhaps a topic for another day/time.

Not answering, just linking fyi :

bringyou.to/apologetics/a83.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm

 

[porthos11]

I’m not sure I follow you.

You’re suggesting Adam wished to be wise as God, committed the sin … brought on original sin for us all. Yet today we can thank Adam for messing up … since we get the new Adam in Christ ?

In a way, yes. Hence, that clause in the Exsultet. Haven’t you attended Easter Vigil?

I’m not sure Christ appreciated Adam’s sin. Yes, Christ brought us redemption … but, much agony came to Christ as result.

I still think it was God’s intent that Adam/Eve be faithful. And if they had of … our fates today would of been better for it. And, for those who reject Christ … clearly their fates will be the poorer for Adam/their decisions.

Actually, the thought now is that our fates are BETTER because of the sin. The only reason God allows sin is because he can bring out a greater good. Because of that sin, God in his love could not allow man to perish forever, and so sent his Son to redeem man. That’s basic Christian theology. But because Jesus took on human nature, there is now humanity in the Godhead. Our relationship with God as adopted sons is way higher than what Adam was before the Fall.