Salvation - OT vs NT

[George720]

Anyway, as I understand it God’s intention since creation was divinization or theosis for man, transforming us into His image. That, I’d be inclined to think, is the ultimate state of being for man. Is there early Father commentary on the difference as you state it?

OT Saints had Theosis…
They did not have Baptism into Christ…
God became man…
So that men become gods…

Basil, I think, wrote that…
St. Basil the Great…
One of OUR Saints…
Our as in both-and…

geo

 

[fhansen]

But isn’t theosis all about men becoming gods? BTW, we try not to let geographic boundaries determine sainthood- or those we accept as our saints.

 

[George720]

But isn’t theosis all about men becoming gods?

I would dearly love to show it to you from post schism Western Saints, but I am far too un-learned, so I try to head on over to the pre-schism ones that we both can embrace without hesitation… Athanasios is another - I am more of a thinker than a scholar, so forgive me my lack of citations for you… These kinds of issues roam my brain throughout my workday…

I will leave the east-west remarks at the door - Sorry…

De Incarnatione is perhaps the best…

geo

 

[fhansen]

My question on the reception of theosis had to do with St Basil’s statement about God becoming man so that man may become gods. That seems to tie theosis directly to the New Covenant.

 

[George720]

My question on the reception of theosis had to do with St Basil’s statement about God becoming man so that man may become gods. That seems to tie theosis directly to the New Covenant.

Is theosis man becoming god?
Or is the New Man birthed in Baptism Godded?

You see, there seems overlap, yes?

And Moses became god to Pharaoh…

Yet the Godding God did with Moses was not intrinsic…

It was extrinsic…

The Godding God does with Christians is intrinsic…

THEN it becomes extrinsic (or not - mileage varies)

Hence we find far more Christians attaining extrinsic deification (Theosis) than there were Jews doing so in OT times… The Law did not generate Theosis, and most remained in their sins under the Law of Moses… Christians do a lot better generally speaking…

Perhaps that is a way to say it -
Extrinsic Deification is Theosis…
Intrinsic Deification is Baptism into Christ…

So that yes, there is a tie between New Covenant Christianity and Theosis, but there is so because of the ontological change in the person reborn in Baptism into Christ… Because of that rebirth, Christians have tons more Saints than non-Christians… Including OT Jews…

geo

 

[fhansen]

Hmm, not sure whether “divinization” is the same as theosis if this is the case. Haven’t heard about intrinsic vs extrinsic deification before either way

 

[George720]

Hmm, not sure whether “divinization” is the same as theosis if this is the case. Haven’t heard about intrinsic vs extrinsic deification before either way

The people who write about it generally do not address this feature, although we have had a great champion writing about it over the last 20 some years - Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos… Plus Bp Kallistos Ware has written some and given lectures…

It almost became a chic topic…

Most writing about it not having experience…

I have not seen a great deal written in other Confessions…

I use Divinization, Theosis, and Deification fairly interchangeably…

Am I about to find out how wrong I am to do so??

'Twouldn’t be the first time, I say!

geo

 

[George720]

Haven’t heard about intrinsic vs extrinsic deification before either way

This has been but my poor attempt to differentiate OT from NT for you…

I haven’t heard of it either…

It has a certain right feel about it…

OT Law is externally enforceable because of its externality…

NT Obedience is not externally enforceable, because it is hidden in its inwardness…

Hence Scripture records that our Righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees and Saducees…

And Christ records that the man who lusts in his heart has already committed adultery inwardly (non-enforceable), but the actual adulterer is stoned (external enforcement)…

Are you beginning to get a feel for this, or is it still just strange?

geo

 

[fhansen]

So I wrote a lengthy reply and the dumb program wiped it out somehow. I’ll try again.

None of this (theosis/divinization) is so greatly emphasized or well worked out in the west to my knowledge. But the RC catechism teaches that God wanted to deify man to begin with, but Adam wanted to be like God but apart from God. But Jesus teaches that “Apart from me you can do nothing”, and this seems to me to be the essence of the New Covenant.

We’re here to be educated, to already develop a sense that Jesus’s statement is right and that Adam was wrong so that we may finally see and agree to the need for intimate relationship with God, when it’s offered.

And God provided another step in our education with the old Covenant, where man is given an idea what godliness “looks like”, with the law, and expected/tested to achieve righteousness on his own. Self-deification could be another way to put it. God, meanwhile, knows that the law is meant to serve as a teacher, to further educate us that, in this case, man cannot achieve righteousness on his own, apart from Him, even if he knows what it should consist of, even if he hears the laws themselves. The law cannot justify IOW.

In the end I think justification and sanctification and theosis et al might be the same, or speak of a progressive work aimed at the same ultimate goal.

 

[fhansen]

Well, that part of it is pretty well understood. I’ve already mentioned it in fact I believe. But the OC method of justification is ultimately a dead end, with nothing close to theosis resulting IMO. Even Paul tells us in Phil 3 that he excelled at observance of the law as a Pharisee -but it was all garbage. And elsewhere he explains that the law, while holy and good, serves primarily as a teacher as I mentioned in my last post.

 

[George720]

We’re here to be educated, to already develop a sense that Jesus’s statement is right and that Adam was wrong so that we may finally see and agree

the law, while holy and good, serves primarily as a teacher as I mentioned in my last post.

Those two sentences contradict each other, because of the failure of the Law to educate…

fwiw, The EOC sees our efforts here not as educational, although that is a tool, but ontological - To become One with God in God with God in us… And that can and does happen in a lot of ways…

Becoming one with and in Christ is the Marriage of the Lamb… Marriage is knowing one’s spouse… It takes preparation…

geo

 

[fhansen]

The law easily educates-it tells us what should be done. It just doesn’t give us the power to do it, however, not as we should. So, again, it cannot justify us.

And that’s the real education, the truth to be learned, that we need more than the law, more than mere external observance of a moral code, no matter how right. As you said, the inside, first of all, must be clean or else we’re just whitewashed tombs, clean on the outside but still filthy on the inside. Read Rom 2, 3, & 7. This idea of the law being a teacher, ultimately teaching us that we cannot fulfill the law apart from faith, meaning apart from God, is pretty basic.

 

[George720]

Well, you had said that Christians are here to be educated, and then that the Law educated, that’s all… So there is, in those terms, no difference OT from NT - Both are educational ventures…

We do not regard our Salvation as educational, but instead as ontological…

Ontological change is definitely an education…

But the reverse is not necessarily so…

There is a huge difference between knowing about something and knowing something…

geo

 

[fhansen]

Education simply helps prepare us to want and so accept the ontological change. The pigsty educated the Prodigal, for example, so he’d end up learning of his need for the father. In terms of salvation this means we turn to God, and away from reliance on created things such as ourselves and the world, Who then accomplishes the change in us. This world is a schoolroom, properly understood. We’re not simply regenerated out of the blue as Calvinists believe. Rather God uses our experience in this world, with it’s good and evil, to prepare us, to help mold and draw us to Himself, the ultimate Good, but without force-or determinism IOW. And the OC continues or adds to that critical education, because it serves to teach humanity that being “under the Law” can never satisfy the requirements of righteousness for man. We must be “under grace” in order for that to happen.

 

[fhansen]

There is a huge difference between knowing about something and knowing something…

Yes, as I’ve pointed out.

 

[fhansen]

This idea of the Law being a teacher isn’t all that well understood by Catholics, while Protestants often understand it quite well. And yet the Catholic Church teaches it, and this teaching is very basic to the gospel:

1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin , which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart.16However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

 

[George720]

The Law disciples obedience where it can be seen and enforced…
Discipling external obedience establishes internal obedience…
Internal obedience to Christ is the Law of God…
It is discipled by external obedience…

This is the real value of the Law…
It CAN be a discipler of inner obedience…
The Pharisees were great masters, you see, of external obedience, while at the same time practicing inner lawlessness…

Christ:

Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter;
but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Observation, you see, is external…
Christ is internal…
We are hidden in Christ…
The Kingdom of the Heavens is within…

Hence the value of the Law which is external…
It disciples obedience inwardly…
It can be corrupted, and was so by the Pharisees…
Whose leaven we are to avoid: Hypocrisy…

The Law does convict us of sin…
David embraced it inwardly…
Few could do so in OT times…
Some did, but were not inwardly One with God…

And this even though saturated with God…
This saturation is OT Salvation…
It is NT Salvation as well…
But had by one hypostatically united with God…
Rather than by external circumcision…
We have tons of Saints compared to the few pounds produced by OT men…
Because we Baptize our children into Christ…
Which establishes an inward hypostatic basis in God…
Rather than a psychology of genital pain …
Psychology is a consequence of hypostasis…
Which accounts for Pharisitic hypocrisy…
Creation is external, you see…
Hypostasis in man is irreducibly internal…
Rebirth of the human hypostasis with God…
God as now a part of our hypostasis…
Hypostasis is the person…
No longer the old Greek theatrical mask…
But genuine and true…

geo

 

[fhansen]

George,
Communion or hypostasis-I believe we’re speaking of the same thing with those terms, about a real change in man, a new creation.

But your idea about OT figures experiencing theosis or about associating their saturation in grace with their salvation isn’t right IMO. I believe that certain figures were given what the RCC might consider to be “actual grace”, for God’s specific purposes in working out His plan of salvation for mankind.

Anyway, it might be worthwhile to read my post #20 at this point, not that it’s the best but I still believe that it pretty well spells out the differences between old and new covenants.

And as I’m sure you know, Jer 31:31-34, quoted in Heb 8 & 10, lays out the foundation for this covenant, for this change that God has planned to work in man since the beginning.

And we can become open to this work as we finally come to figure out that we can’t do it on our own, as we give up our pride, as we begin to sense our abject need for something more, of the lack of any real meaning in this life.

The OC plays it’s part in our coming to this realization as it teaches that we cannot achieve godliness or righteousness by our own efforts; we’ll always fail at that because we’re still autonomous from God at that point, still suffering from the wounded condition of Adam, still in our pride, not truly subjugated to God even tho we don’t realize it. Authentic subjugation is only realized to the extent that we’re united to Him, He living in and through us. However, many of us still live out our Christian faith in an Old Covenant way of thinking as I see it, with external obedience to a moral code the priority or only way in which our relationship with God is understood

 

[George720]

Gosh, I went back to your #20 - A LONG way back!

Jer. 31:33
φησὶν κύριος
Sayeth the Lord:

διδοὺς δώσω νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν
Giving I will give My laws unto their understanding…

καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς·
And upon their hearts will I write them…

καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν,
And I shall be to them unto God…

καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν·
And they shall be to me unto a people…

This tells what but not how…
We are Baptized INTO Christ, you see…
We are Sealed in the Holy Chrism…
The New Creation is Hypostatic, not Communal…

Communion is our Sustenance…
We being now God-Reborn…
Are hypostatically Sustained…
By eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood…

Communion is not Hypostasis…

Both Salvations involve Theosis - OT Saints were God Seers… They knew God…

But NT Salvation does so from Hypostatic Union with God given in Baptism…

OT Salvation is superimposed on the Old Man’s hypostasis…

That is how I am understanding the difference…

Communion is the fulfillment of Manna…

There may be a real difference in the two understandings…

That is why I came here to do this thread…

geo

 

[fhansen]

This tells what but not how…

In any case it tells us that God will now do the justifying. And this comes with and through a new knowledge (vs 34), that the least to the greatest will possess. This knowledge is the object, and the goal, of our faith. While not detailed, the basics are there.