Theosis vs. Beatific Vision

[Apotheoun]

Toche

Although, given the fact the Essence/Energies distinction came about to explain how we relate to a completely transcendent God, I wouldn’t say it is completely Western presumption; indeed, I think that at some point all Christians (and all religions, really) have to deal with explaining mankind’s dealing with the Transcendent.

The essence / energy distinction also protects God’s hetero-essentiality in relation to creation, while allowing for a real energetic participation in His divinity by creatures. To put it another way, God is essentially (and wholly) transcendent, while He is simultaneously energetically (and wholly) immanent.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

The essence / energy distinction also protects God’s hetero-essentiality in relation to creation, while allowing for a real energetic participation in His divinity by creatures. To put it another way, God is essentially (and wholly) transcendent, while He is simultaneously energetically (and wholly) immanent.

Right. I do understand the distinction, although perhaps I was using it poorly (or even wrongly) in my examples.

 

[Apotheoun]

Scripture states that we shall know Him as He is, and see Him face to face.

By participating in the divine energies, which are God as He personally manifests Himself to creation, we truly come to know Him as He is, and we see Him face (prosopon) to face (prosopon).

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

By participating in the divine energies, which are God as He personally manifests Himself to creation, we truly come to know Him as He is, and we see Him face (prosopon) to face (prosopon).

Ah. So that is how the essence/energies distinction tackles that one. Never could quite find out how it approached it before. Thanks for the clarification! As always, it is a pleasure talking and learning from you, Apotheoun!

 

[RyanBlack]

Not to be nit-picky, but it was St. Athanasius

One thing, according to eastern theology we will never, not even in heaven, be able to see and know God in his essence, but only in his energies.

Actually, it was both St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius, among others.

 

[Apotheoun]

Right. I do understand the distinction, although perhaps I was using it poorly (or even wrongly) in my examples.

My point is this, only the three persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios with each other, and so there can be no created participation (whole or partial) in the essence (ousia) of God. In fact, to see or participate in the essence (ousia) of God involves a confusion of the creature with the Creator. That said, the Eastern tradition affirms two things about the divinized man: (1) he will always be hetero-essential in relation to God, while (2) becoming one with God through His energies, which manifest God’s life and presence in created existence.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I tried my best condense the difference between Beatific Vision and Theosis in one paragraph.

Rest assured, it was NOT easy! This one paragraph took me longer to write than the entire rest of my article (on St. Palamas). Rest assured that is a gross oversimplification and if you’re really interested than this really only serves as a (very) basic starting point.

…Latin theology refers to the Beatific Vision, or being in the Presence of God; this is the ultimate joy of Heaven. Palamistic theology, by contrast, claims that we cannot see God’s true essence. Heaven is a never-ending process of theosis, or becoming more like God and understanding more of Him. This wonderful process that is the source of our ultimate joy will continue forever, since it is impossible for creatures to truly know everything about God. There is a certain beauty to the thought that humanity will never stop learning and never stop improving; in Palamistic theology, Heaven is anything but boring!

If you’re at all interested, here’s the whole article:

marcanthony.hubpages.com/hub/Saint-Gregory-Palamas

There’s a bit more in there about the essence-energies distinction as well.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

My point is this, only the three persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios with each other, and so there can be no created participation (whole or partial) in the essence (ousia) of God. In fact, to see or participate in the essence (ousia) of God involves a confusion of the creature with the Creator. That said, the Eastern tradition affirms two things about the divinized man: (1) he will always be hetero-essential in relation to God, while (2) becoming one with God through His energies, which manifest God’s life and presence in created existence.

Gotcha.

 

[Apotheoun]

“For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God.” - St. Irenaeus

 

[SonCatcher]

St. Basil the Great argues in his Epistle 235 (or maybe 234, but I’m almost positive that it was 235) that the verse from 1 Corinthians 13 certainly cannot apply to the essence of God. For if we were to know it in part, then the essence of God would be compound and not simple.

It was Epistle 235. St. Basil only refers to the earlier part of the verse, not the latter, however.

I understand and agree with St. Basil’s conclusion that knowledge on this earth is limited. My question was about the limit of knowledge in Heaven (which I presumed to be the scope of the thread).

Put more plainly: Isn’t the purpose of Theosis to make us more like God and so to enable us to share in His life? Could the Grace so imparted also include the Grace of knowledge of His Essence?

 

[SonCatcher]

I tried my best condense the difference between Beatific Vision and Theosis in one paragraph.

Rest assured, it was NOT easy! This one paragraph took me longer to write than the entire rest of my article (on St. Palamas). Rest assured that is a gross oversimplification and if you’re really interested than this really only serves as a (very) basic starting point.

…Latin theology refers to the Beatific Vision, or being in the Presence of God; this is the ultimate joy of Heaven. Palamistic theology, by contrast, claims that we cannot see God’s true essence. Heaven is a never-ending process of theosis, or becoming more like God and understanding more of Him. This wonderful process that is the source of our ultimate joy will continue forever, since it is impossible for creatures to truly know everything about God. There is a certain beauty to the thought that humanity will never stop learning and never stop improving; in Palamistic theology, Heaven is anything but boring!

If you’re at all interested, here’s the whole article:

marcanthony.hubpages.com/hub/Saint-Gregory-Palamas

There’s a bit more in there about the essence-energies distinction as well.

I think that answers my question

 

[Anthony_V]

St. Basil the Great argues in his Epistle 235 (or maybe 234, but I’m almost positive that it was 235) that the verse from 1 Corinthians 13 certainly cannot apply to the essence of God. For if we were to know it in part, then the essence of God would be compound and not simple.

I find your statement to be incredibly valuable.
As far as my own studies have gone in latin scholasticism, 1 Cor 13:12 is referring to the analogous nature of communication between man and God in this life. “Now I know in part”, not speaking of the essence of God, but of man’s own subjective understanding of him through the light of human reason. e.g. through man’s understand of created things (and thus natural) as opposed to beholding, in full, the creative power of God through the WORD/Logos (supernatural) in beatific vision. Not so much that we possess God as he possess himself, but that we God possesses us, as he possesses himself in grace.
As for how man, who is natural, can be transformed to fit a supernatural end which is infinitely above him, this is truly a mystery of God’s grace. Thanks be to God for his Love and Fidelity!

 

[Anthony_V]

Could the Grace so imparted also include the Grace of knowledge of His Essence?

This is my question as well. The proportion of the natural being to his end becomes irrelevant as we see that grace eventually envelopes the nature in it’s entirety by surrender of the individually inclined will to God. Or, at least, that’s my feeble understanding. But I am not as knowledgeable on Christian anthropology (and, subsequently, Christology) as I’d like to be.

 

[Apotheoun]

It was Epistle 235. St. Basil only refers to the earlier part of the verse, not the latter, however.

I understand and agree with St. Basil’s conclusion that knowledge on this earth is limited. My question was about the limit of knowledge in Heaven (which I presumed to be the scope of the thread).

Put more plainly: Isn’t the purpose of Theosis to make us more like God and so to enable us to share in His life? Could the Grace so imparted also include the Grace of knowledge of His Essence?

According to St. Basil (both in his letters and in his Contra Eunomium) it is impossible to know anything about the divine essence (ousia). He insists - against the teaching of Eunomius, who held that knowledge of the divine essence (ousia) was possible - that knowledge of God comes only by participation in His energies.

 

[Anthony_V]

that knowledge of God comes only by participation in His energies.

Could you explain a little bit more between God’s energies? And how are God’s energies different from his grace?

 

[Apotheoun]

Could you explain a little bit more between God’s energies?

God’s energies are the powers of His nature actualized, or to put it another way, they are God as He is known and as He exists in His creation.

And how are God’s energies different from his grace?

The divine energies (God’s life, His justice, His mercy, His glory, His goodness, etc.) are grace when they are imparted to man. As I used to tell my students, “Grace is God, that is, it is a real and living participation in His life and glory.”

 

[Anthony_V]

God’s energies are the powers of His nature actualized, or to put it another way, they are God as He is known and as He exists in His creation.

The divine energies (God’s life, His justice, His mercy, His glory, His goodness, etc.) are grace when they are imparted to man. As I used to tell my students, “Grace is God, that is, it is a real and living participation in His life and glory.”

Is grace then a substantial or essential thing? Or perhaps a movement or action? e.g. the grace of God was given to X vs. God graced X

 

[Apotheoun]

Is grace then a substantial or essential thing?

It is an enhypostatic energetic “thing” (for lack of a better word).

Or perhaps a movement or action? e.g. the grace of God was given to X vs. God graced X

Grace is active, it is an energy. In fact, all of God’s many energies, when received by man, are grace.

 

[Anthony_V]

It is an enhypostatic energetic “thing” (for lack of a better word).
Grace is active, it is an energy. In fact, all of God’s many energies, when received by man, are grace.

That’s a beautiful understanding of grace. But what types of energies are there? Perhaps a correspondence to the type of grace received?
And as for the enhpostatic energetic “thing”, is it enhypostatic in the sense that St. Maximus the Confessor defined the will against the monothelite heresy? In context, it would be easy to understand how this facet of Christology plays out into eastern anthropology.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Heres the question, in the Beatific Vision which is to see Gods essense, but is it to know what Gods essence is though participation in the Sonship by degree or at once?

If we think essence energy, then energy becomes the function or work of the essense. Somehow an extension. Course the degree of energy or Grace is also capable of changing form and degree. So then the energy is an extension of the essense to whatever degree is willed, or is there a difference? Philosophical terminology no doubt is used to define, yet its limited to human understanding then overlaps with physics with energy.

I don’t believe its possible to see this in the combined Flesh/Soul. I know we have contradiction in Scripture from OT to NT as to the individuals seeing God. I think this is resolved no different than with the Saints who happened to be Gifted with visions, dreams, etc. Extrodinary as that in itself is, I don’t see this as the Beatific Vision, but Grace or Energy willed. Thats how I see the Biblical connection yet also the Burning Bush or through Jesus words. No-one has seen the Father. Here what seems to be Biblcal contradiction makes perfect sense then.