Theosis ... and the Protestant viewpoint

[BRB]

What scriptures do Protestants use to reject the Catholic teaching/belief in theosis ?

 

[Eucharisted]

Please don’t use an argument from generalization.

 

[BRB]

Please don’t use an argument from generalization.

I am aware some Protestants accept theosis as valid concept … supported by scriptures, and basically see same scriptures supporting idea as do Catholics.

I’m interested in the scriptures used by those Protestants who deny theosis is important.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

What scriptures do Protestants use to reject the Catholic teaching/belief in theosis?

It is not so much a specific passage as it is misreading many passages and especially how they understand nature and grace.

When Protestants read passages that say things like “none are righteous” they think fallen man’s nature is corrupt like a rotten apple. This incorrect (and heretical) view of Nature and Original Sin eliminates any place for Deification/Theosis by definition.

Read Chapter 1 of the link in my signature for more info.

 

[Truthstalker]

What scriptures do Protestants use to reject the Catholic teaching/belief in theosis ?

Theosis is more of an Orthodox than Catholic teaching. Protestants tend to approach the same subject from the justification-sanctification-adoption viewpoint. Justified by faith, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, adopted by the Father. One day we will be glorified, which is something we cannot even now imagine.

No rejection, just a different framework and emphasis.

Why do you think Protestants “reject the Catholic teaching/belief in theosis”?

 

[Truthstalker]

It is not so much a specific passage as it is misreading many passages and especially how they understand nature and grace.

When Protestants read passages that say things like “none are righteous” they think fallen man’s nature is corrupt like a rotten apple. This incorrect (and heretical) view of Nature and Original Sin eliminates any place for Deification/Theosis by definition.

Read Chapter 1 of the link in my signature for more info.

He was begging the question and you fell for it.

While we are rotten apples, we will be transformed in the blink of an eye. A rotten apple is still, by nature, an apple, still made well and bearing the Master’s stamp. The rotten apple analogy is perfectly Catholic. Catholics would say God removes the rot and replaces it with good. How that differs I am not sure. It would be wiser if you did not attack Catholic beliefs simply because Protestants hold them. It would not surprise me if some CAF Catholic attacks the Trinity because it is a Lutheran teaching and so must be heretical.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

He was begging the question and you fell for it.

While we are rotten apples, we will be transformed in the blink of an eye. A rotten apple is still, by nature, an apple, still made well and bearing the Master’s stamp. The rotten apple analogy is perfectly Catholic. Catholics would say God removes the rot and replaces it with good. How that differs I am not sure. It would be wiser if you did not attack Catholic beliefs simply because Protestants hold them. It would not surprise me if some CAF Catholic attacks the Trinity because it is a Lutheran teaching and so must be heretical.

You obviously don’t understand the real issues involved here and why the Protestant view is so unScriptural and unhistorical.
Your comments show you neither understand the traditional Protestant view nor the orthodox Catholic view.

 

[BRB]

Theosis is more of an Orthodox than Catholic teaching. ?

Orthodox put more emphasis on it … teaching it as essential component of Salvation.

RCC sees it in scriptures/traditions, believes the Supersaints have incorporated theosis into their lives, and encourages the laity to seek it via prayer/meditation.

Protestants, generally speaking, think it an idealized concept which can only be obtained in our next life.

We all read the same scriptures … yet we end up with a broad spectrum of opinion on the topic.

 

[BRB]

Why do you think Protestants “reject the Catholic teaching/belief in theosis”?

Many Protestants reject the Othodox or Catholic teachings on the topic. I’m hoping some here at CAF [who reject theosis for this life] will share their interpretation, based on scriptures.

 

[Truthstalker]

Many Protestants reject the Othodox or Catholic teachings on the topic. I’m hoping some here at CAF [who reject theosis for this life] will share their interpretation, based on scriptures.

I asked you why, and you say they do. Who does?

It is true that I never heard the term theosis before I got on CAF, and I don’t know much about it, but Presbyterians have been very industrious for 400 years in rejecting Catholic theology, so maybe I can help you. Protestants don’t use the term. Maybe “total sanctification” comes close, but I think you are thinking more along the lines of divinization: God infusing righteousness into man. Man partaking of the divine nature. We leave glorification as a mystery, but I think you are asking for something along the lines of whether man can actually become good in this life, or whether there is condign merit, etc. Maybe I can come up with something, but it is something that is generally neglected, I guess.

What specifically do the Protestants you have known object to about theosis? I don’t know that I disagree with it at all.

Forensic justification gets overworked in apologetics; that sanctification and justification in Protestant theology are only notionally separated is overlooked in the heat of the debate. Sanctification = being made holy. As far as I know, no one denies that God sanctifies men.

 

[Truthstalker]

You reminded me of that recent thread on theosis, which I participated in a little bit and you as well. Does your question arise from the Protestant opposition to theosis cited as it being “New Age”? In that case maybe I can trot out some stuff on what is wrong with New Age thought.

You yourself said on that thread, a most excellent one and worthy of many re-reads, that Protestants tend to overlook theosis. I agree.

 

[BRB]

Protestants don’t use the term. Maybe “total sanctification” comes close, but I think you are thinking more along the lines of divinization: God infusing righteousness into man. Man partaking of the divine nature. We leave glorification as a mystery, but I think you are asking for something along the lines of whether man can actually become good in this life.

Theosis=divinization=deification

When Orthodox or Catholics talk of need to ‘Imitate Christ’ … many Protestants reject idea as unscriptural, or only implied in scriptures with regards to the next life.

Some reference materials/scriptures on the topic can be found @

frimmin.com/faith/theosis.php
bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html

 

[Truthstalker]

Theosis=divinization=deification

When Orthodox or Catholics talk of need to ‘Imitate Christ’ … many Protestants reject idea as unscriptural, or only implied in scriptures with regards to the next life.

Some reference materials/scriptures on the topic can be found @

frimmin.com/faith/theosis.php
bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html

I scanned these and will go back later and read them in detail. Thank you.

I can then in no way oppose what I understand of theosis: it is our calling. We are called to be “little Christs” and theosis, rather than being something alien to the theology I know, is assumed. We are called to live holy lives, to imitate Christ, to be Him to the world. While we do not use the term, the concept underlies much of what we do. “Be holy, for I am holy,” etc.

I ran across a reference to recent work Finnish Lutherans have been doing regarding divinization. If I read him correctly, Alistair McGrath is of the opinion it was very important to Martin Luther.

Maybe somebody out there opposes theosis. I can’t imagine how.

 

[Truthstalker]

I have my copy of McGrath’s, third edition. On page 225 he discusses Luther’s 1520 The Freedom of a Christian, and provides a quote in which Luther discusses the uniting of the soul with Christ. Here I quote McGrath:

This approach, while recognising forensic elements within Luther’s theology of justification, stresses its transforming aspects, especially the idea of a real, physical union with Christ. On this reading of Luther, there is a much greater degree of affinity between his theology of justification and the eastern notion of divinisation.

McGrath supplies the following in a footnote here:

On which see J. Heubach,

Luther und Theosis

, Erlangen, Martin-Luther-Verlag, 1990; R. Flogaus,

Theosis bei Palamas und Luther: Ein Beitrag zum oekimenischen Gespraech

, Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.

 

[Truthstalker]

Calvin comes close to discussing theosis in his Institutes Book III XI 10, “What is the nature of our union with Christ?”. The section is more an attack on Osiander than anything else, but Calvin here affirms a mystical union of the believer with Christ, Christ indwelling the believer, being engrafted, and becoming one with Him. It would take more learning than I have to differentiate between Calvin’s position and the doctrines around theosis. He does affirm the “partakers of his nature” passage.

In short, then, it seems these two key reformers were certainly not hostile to theosis, and possibly were all for it. I don’t know about Bucer or Zwingli or the others.

The modern Protestant critique, if there is one, may be based more on a misunderstanding than on anything else.

Sorry that I am doing such a lousy job of violently and virulently dissecting theosis from a Protestant viewpoint, but until someone else comes along, this will have to do, such as it is.

 

[BRB]

Maybe somebody out there opposes theosis. I can’t imagine how.

Yes, some here at CAF reject the idea. I won’t bring up screen names, but would like to read their apologetic defense.

There are Protestant clergy who speak out against theosis.
I used to view it a theoretical concept, and furthermore, pointless to aspire to. My take was that scriptures were simply demanding perfection … to used only to point up our universal, hopeless sinful condition and inescapable need for grace.

You know the other side of scriptures on topic … Jesus [as the God-man] replying to rich young man “Why do you call me good, none is good but God alone”. And Paul calling himself the ‘chief of sinners’… at some post-conversion date.

Some Protestants may reject theosis as works-based salvation, and desire to emphasize grace, faith-based salvation.

However, majority of scriptures in Gospels/Epistles seem to unequivocally support Jesus teaching theosis via beatitudes, parables, etc, as an essential post-conversion concept.

 

[Truthstalker]

McGarth, in the forementioned work, discusses the theory that Calvin based his view of justification and sanctification on theosis. I found that last night.