Does God intend man to become gods?

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course we maintain our personality, because we are human persons. We are human persons with a human nature. Through Grace, we recieve the divine nature, and are made god as all the fathers said. It is a mirror of Christology. Christ became man and assumed the whole of human nature, yet he remains a divine person. We, who have a human nature and person, recieve the divine nature through Christ, yet we remain human persons. The person is a broader concept than nature. The fathers spoke of the human nature as being enhypostasized by the person of Christ. It is similar with us. The divine energies/Grace is enhypostasized within the individual human person.

No matter how you frame it, no matter what the Fathers said, we do not become god. True, the Beatific Vision does mean that God is immediately present to us, But the teaching of the Church is that we will become like God. That is, we will resemble God as close as our particular natures and merits will allow. In the Holy Eucharist we receive Christ, the Second Person. Yet, we do not become Christ. The teaching of the Church takes precedence over any teaching of the Fathers. It is a well known fact that some of the Fathers had a tendency toward Gnosticism. They were still in the process of creating a fullly formed Theology.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am curious how you think this “Tradition” was handed on? You are willing to ignore the fathers, and then say you are following tradition? They are the bearers of tradition, and there is no tradition without them. They are quire clear on the matter. If the CC contradicts the fathers, they contradict the tradition of Christianity. And if they contradict the tradition they are in clear error.

I never said to ignore the Fathers whole sale. Indeed the Bishops handed on the Tradition they received from the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, through the authority of Apostolic Succession. Philip Hughes has a terrific History of the Catholic Church you should read. And he explains that in the first centuries of the Church, whenever appeal was made to Rome, Rome invariably responded with the constant teaching of the Church, which the Church had received form the Apostles. It invariably avoided basing its decisions on Philosophical reasonings of the Fathers.

He also makes the point, that even as late as Origen, some of the Fathers had a tendency toward Gnosticis, not full blown, but a definit influence.

And this : " If the CC contradicts the fathers, they contradict the tradition of Christianity. And if they contradict the tradition they are in clear error " is not clear. If you mean the teaching and sayings of the Fathers trumph the teaching of the Catechism, that is a heretical statement. The Catechism takes precedence over the teaching of any one Bishop or Theologian. Period. Case closed.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is not tradition, which you are advocating, but magisterial positivism. Two very different things.

And that is one of the differences between Catholicism and the Orthodox. I am Catholic, I do not accept your interpretation. I invite you to read the History of the Catholic Church by Philip Hughes.

Linus2nd

 

[EIF5A]

Can one be conferred with a divine nature but not be a god?

There seems to be an assumption that having a nature that is divine means becoming a god…

But as I understood the Orthodox position, it just means having some “qualities” of God, not having the power of God, which is of course infinite and not understandable by finite beings…

But I may just be confused…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is not tradition, which you are advocating, but magisterial positivism. Two very different things.

No, it is the Traditional Faith as it has been entrusted to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I suppose by " magisterial positivism, " you are implying that this is one of a set of Magisterial teachings which are new and were not part of the Tradition of the Faith.

If that is so, that is certainly something dreamed up by someone who doesn’t understand that the Magisterium is not in the habit of creating new Truths. It is devoted to making the Tradition known and better known. Someone has obviously interpreted this particular point as a " new " teaching. On the contrary, it has ever been the teaching of the Church. Nothing new about it at all.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Can one be conferred with a divine nature but not be a god?

There seems to be an assumption that having a nature that is divine means becoming a god…

But as I understood the Orthodox position, it just means having some “qualities” of God, not having the power of God, which is of course infinite and not understandable by finite beings…

But I may just be confused…

Can God be just a little bit God? Neither can you be a " little bit " God. You are 100% human and always will be and God is 100% God and always be. You share and participate in God’s goodness, love, etc by becoming more like Him in these qualities. But our nature and God’s nature will never be mixed in any way. Period.

Linus2nd

 

[Cavaradossi]

I never said to ignore the Fathers whole sale. Indeed the Bishops handed on the Tradition they received from the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, through the authority of Apostolic Succession. Philip Hughes has a terrific History of the Catholic Church you should read. And he explains that in the first centuries of the Church, whenever appeal was made to Rome, Rome invariably responded with the constant teaching of the Church, which the Church had received form the Apostles. It invariably avoided basing its decisions on Philosophical reasonings of the Fathers.

He also makes the point, that even as late as Origen, some of the Fathers had a tendency toward Gnosticis, not full blown, but a definit influence.

And this : " If the CC contradicts the fathers, they contradict the tradition of Christianity. And if they contradict the tradition they are in clear error " is not clear. If you mean the teaching and sayings of the Fathers trumph the teaching of the Catechism, that is a heretical statement. The Catechism takes precedence over the teaching of any one Bishop or Theologian. Period. Case closed.

Linus2nd

It is, frankly, preposterous that one should imply that so many revered saints and teachers of the Church, saints like St. Augustine (reckoned by your church to be a doctor of the Church), St. Basil (also reckoned by your Church to be a doctor), St. Gregory the Theologian (also a doctor), St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John of Damascus (also a doctor), St. Hilary of Poitiers (also a doctor), St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Athanasius (also a doctor), et al. were a bunch of crypto-gnostics who were all in doctrinal error concerning such a central theological teaching. The blessed will become god and become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) in truth by virtue of their participation in the attributes of God, but without coming to have identity of substance with God. What God has by nature (holiness, life, incorruptibility, etc.), the blessed shall have by grace but without becoming God by a transformation of our substance or nature.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is, frankly, preposterous that one should imply that so many revered saints and teachers of the Church, saints like St. Augustine (reckoned by your church to be a doctor of the Church), St. Basil (also reckoned by your Church to be a doctor), St. Gregory the Theologian (also a doctor), St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John of Damascus (also a doctor), St. Hilary of Poitiers (also a doctor), St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Athanasius (also a doctor), et al. were a bunch of crypto-gnostics who were all in doctrinal error concerning such a central theological teaching.

" That we will become God, " has never been a doctrine of the Church, nor was it ever a central theological teaching of any Father.

I did not say that the Fathers were Gnostics, I said some of them had Gnostic tendencies. If you knew anything about the history of the Church you would know that. Further, the Church has never relied on the philosophical arguments of the Fathers to determine the Truth of Faith and Morals. These were always taken from the Tradition of the Faith as transmitted from the Apostles and Disciples of Christ down through the line of Apostolic succession.

Therefore any reference the Fathers made which seemed to say " We will become God, " must be rejected because that is not a part of the Tradition handed on by the Apostles. Further, such overly exuberant exclamations by the Fathers are contrary to reason. To think that our being and substance will be mixed with God’s very substance is akin to Pantheism, which has been condemned by the Church. It is also akin to Mormonism, which is heretical.

Your problem is that you have rejected the teaching of the Catholic Church because you do not recognize Apostolic succession as residing in the Pope of the Catholic Church. You are in no better position than the Protestants who also appeal, quite illogically, to the Fathers as well. How can one appeal to the Fathers, all of whom, without exception recognized Apostolic succession, and the Tradition of the Faith as residing in the Roman Pontif, and who invaribley appealed to him to resolve doctrinal, even disciplinary difficulties?

The blessed will become god and become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) in truth by virtue of their participation in the attributes of God, but without coming to have identity of substance with God. What God has by nature (holiness, life, incorruptibility, etc.), the blessed shall have by grace but without becoming God by a transformation of our substance or nature.

O.K., I see your point, but nether Peter nor any of the Apostles ever implied that this meant we would become God. It only meant that we can be said to " participate " in the Divine Nature by becoming more and more similar to the Goodnes, which is His very nature. That is why we are called " adopted sons " as opposed to Christ, Who was His real Son by Nature.

Your problem is that you take things too literally. And by the way, it is the Church who determines the meaning of the Truths of Scripture, because all of Scripture is derived from the Tradition of Oral Teaching flowing from the Apostolic Preaching. And this has been handed over to the Church by Apostolic Succession and guraranteed by the Holy Spirit. Tradition came first, then the Scriptures. But the Scriptures do not contain the entirety of Tradition.

Linus2nd

 

[EIF5A]

It seems people are conflating “becoming God” with “having God-like qualities by grace via adoption”…

As I understand, the Orthodox view of theosis is the latter…

 

[Cavaradossi]

It seems people are conflating “becoming God” with “having God-like qualities by grace via adoption”…

As I understand, the Orthodox view of theosis is the latter…

In the Orthodox view, they are the same, because we do not participate in God-like qualities, but we participate in the very attributes of God, and thus we become god. We remain distinct, however, because we don’t become God by identity of substance.

 

[jimmy]

Linus, you need to read the fathers because you are ignorant of their teachings. Theosis is central to all the fathers teachings from atleast the time of Irenaeus, who makes the same claim as Athanasius and all the other fathers. They don’t say that man will become like God, they say man will become god. And they were very literal about it. Even to the point that it was the basic argument for the defense of the divinity of Christ. As I have already pointed out, Athanasius’ and the other fathers defense is based around the argument that if he isn’t homoousious with the Father, then theosis is impossible because He can’t give what he doesn’t have. If you don’t possess the divine nature then you can’t give it to others. Arius would have been very happy to hear your argument. Since theosis isn’t literal, then Athasius’s arguments are false. The homoians or homoi-ousians theology was just as acceptable. Since we don’t recieve actual divinity, it is sufficient that Jesus have a similar nature as the Father. And he is only god by analogy or by honor, not literally.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Therefore any reference the Fathers made which seemed to say " We will become God, " must be rejected because that is not a part of the Tradition handed on by the Apostles. Further, such overly exuberant exclamations by the Fathers are contrary to reason. To think that our being and substance will be mixed with God’s very substance is akin to Pantheism, which has been condemned by the Church. It is also akin to Mormonism, which is heretical.

Just because it is said that “we will become God” or “gods” does not mean that this is the same as the Mormon view. Belief in theosis, that, explicitly, “we will become God”, “gods”, does not require a Mormon understanding, just because someone uses that phrase. The LDS understanding of theosis, which is called “exaltation” has fundamental differences from the Orthodox/orthodox view. Firstly, Mormons believe that we are co-eternal with God, since we have a core “intelligence” that has always existed and was never created. Secondly, they believe that we are all literal children of God the Father (and Heavenly Mother). We are therefore of the same species (substance) as God. Such a notion is obviously not found in the traditional theosis doctrine. Mormons many times also believe that through exaltation, we will become exactly like God the Father, including the possibility of creating worlds and having spiritual offspring.

So, while both orthodox Christianity and Mormons may say “we will become God” or “we will be gods”, as the Fathers clearly state, each understands those phrases differently, coming from different theological perspectives and premises. Perhaps you should understand what the Fathers meant by these phrases and words, then you’ll see why everyone else is disagreeing with your understandings.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Don’t know if this has already been given, but I always refer to the Orthodox Wiki page on Theosis:

orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

 

[LivingWaters7]

" That we will become God, " has never been a doctrine of the Church, nor was it ever a central theological teaching of any Father.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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."

Whoops!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.”

Whoops!

Yes, see the CCC, paras 1020-1029. It is clear that will retain our own personality but that we will be enlightend by the Beatific Vision, God will make Himself immediately present to our intellects. Thus we will not become Gods.

" II. Heaven

1023 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face:596

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ’s holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.597

1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called “heaven.” Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

1025 To live in heaven is “to be with Christ.” the elect live "in Christ,"598 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.599

For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.600

1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has “opened” heaven to us. the life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.

1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him."601

1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. the Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory “the beatific vision”:

How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God’s friends.602

1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God’s will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him "they shall reign for ever and ever."603

Whoops!!! Even though this is the Church’s teaching on what we will be like in Heaven, not once does it say we will be God. Throughout, it uses terms like " with Christ, " " like God, " " see God, " " in communion with Jesus and the elect, " etc.

Your examples are metaphores for being similar to Christ in goodness, etc. Such metaphores should not be taken literally. It is most unfortunate they appear in the Catechism, since many are being led into heresy because of them.

Linus2nd

 

[LivingWaters7]

Yes, see the CCC, paras 1020-1029. It is clear that will retain our own personality but that we will be enlightend by the Beatific Vision, God will make Himself immediately present to our intellects. Thus we will not become Gods.

-No one ever said that because of theosis, that we become God/gods, as the Catechism and multiple Church Fathers have explicitly taught, we don’t retain our own personality. No one has ever claimed such a thing, nor is that an implication of what everyone is saying, if properly understood. Those in Heaven that “become God” through His grace retain their individual identities (similarly, the Trinity is defined as three distinct Persons).

-Yes, we are enlightened by the Beatific Vision, and God makes Himself immediately present to our intellects, since we are in His immediate (i.e. unmediated) presence. Again, no one is claiming otherwise.

-Yes, we will become gods, as the Catechism and multiple Church Fathers teach (in addition to the Biblical support). The problem I see after reading this thread is that you don’t understand, or don’t want to understand and admit your error, the explanations others are giving for why your understanding of this is erroneous, and not in harmony with the historic and doctrinal teachings of the Church. Which is fine, since I think it’s safe to say that most here would rather align ourselves with the teachings of the Fathers, and not your erroneous understanding.

 

[LivingWaters7]

" II. Heaven

1023 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face:596

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ’s holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.597

1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called “heaven.” Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

1025 To live in heaven is “to be with Christ.” the elect live "in Christ,"598 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.599

For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.600

1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has “opened” heaven to us. the life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.

1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him."601

1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. the Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory “the beatific vision”:

How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God’s friends.602

1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God’s will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him "they shall reign for ever and ever."603

The doctrine of Theosis, becoming God, does not contradict any of that. Thanks for sharing.

Whoops!!! Even though this is the Church’s teaching on what we will be like in Heaven, not once does it say we will be God. Throughout, it uses terms like " with Christ, " " like God, " " see God, " " in communion with Jesus and the elect, " etc.

The Church actually says we will become God here:

---

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.”*

Further, the Church has taught throughout its history the same thing. You can find the same teaching discussed in other Church documents, saying things like we “partake of the divine nature” (which is also what the Bible says), we participate in the life of the Trinity, we become by grace what God is by nature, etc. The Fathers are consistent in saying the same thing that you are rejecting.

Your examples are metaphores for being similar to Christ in goodness, etc. Such metaphores should not be taken literally. It is most unfortunate they appear in the Catechism, since many are being led into heresy because of them.

Linus2nd

No one in this thread has said anything heretical. The problem, again, is that you are reading things into what others are saying, and we don’t agree with your interpretations of our, or the Church’s, words, and your eisegesis is simply not supported historically. But I don’t fault you, since unfortunately, the doctrine of theosis has not been as explicitly taught in the West as it has been in the East.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The doctrine of Theosis, becoming God, does not contradict any of that. Thanks for sharing.

The Church actually says we will become God here:

---

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.”

Further, the Church has taught throughout its history the same thing. You can find the same teaching discussed in other Church documents, saying things like we “partake of the divine nature” (which is also what the Bible says), we participate in the life of the Trinity, we become by grace what God is by nature, etc. The Fathers are consistent in saying the same thing that you are rejecting.

No one in this thread has said anything heretical. The problem, again, is that you are reading things into what others are saying, and we don’t agree with your interpretations of our, or the Church’s, words, and your eisegesis is simply not supported historically. But I don’t fault you, since unfortunately, the doctrine of theosis has not been as explicitly taught in the West as it has been in the East.

No, we will not become God, we will become mirrors or imitators of His Divine perfection to the degree our achieved perfection will allow. Period. Even the spiritual way of Theosis verifies this. Nowhere in this Spirituality is it taught that we will become actually One with God, except in heretical cults which interpreted this spirituality literally.

From Wikipedia:

Divinization[edit source | editbeta]St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, “For He was made man that we might be made God”.[5] His statement is an apt description of the doctrine. What would otherwise seem absurd—that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy—has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: as it is not possible for any created being to become God ontologically, or even a necessary part of God (of the three existences of God called hypostasis). As a created being can not become Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit nor the Father of the trinity.[6]

Most specifically creatures (created beings) can not become God in his transcendent essence (called ousia), hyper-being (see apophaticism). Such a concept would be the henosis or absorption, fusion into God of Greek pagan philosophy. However, every being and reality itself is considered as composed of the immanent energy (Energeia) of God. As energy is the actuality of God (his immanence), from God’s being or ontology, it is also the activity of God. Thus avoiding pantheism while partially accepting Neoplatonism’s terms and general concepts (but not the actual philosophy see Plotinus).[7]

St. Maximus the Confessor wrote, “A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God himself became man… Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the divine nature, and will raise it up for his own sake to the same degree as He lowered himself for man’s sake. This is what St Paul teaches mystically when he says, ‘…that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace’ (Eph. 2:7).”(page 178 PHILOKALIA Volume II)

As far as it goes, I agree with all this. It confirms what I have said. The only point I would disagree with is that this is a superior path of spirituality. Degustibus non disputandum est applies here. It is a matter of taste or opinion that this is a superior spirituality. But that has always been a side issue, it is not a matter of Faith in any way.

Linus2nd