Theosis

[ChristIsTheWay]

Hi,

I’ve posted this thread over in the Eastern Catholicism forum, too, as I am not quite sure where it belongs. I hope I am not violating any rules. Anyways, I’m trying to better understand this doctrine from a Catholic point of view. I don’t have a lot of material to go on. I am wondering if someone could point me in the right direction. I also read a source that claims we begin theosis and become infant gods at our baptism and remain so as long as we are in state of grace. Is this correct? Thanks.

Has anyone here read Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating? I was thinking of starting there, since it is a specifically Catholic book.

 

[wanabesaint]

You got something against us religious nuts?

 

[1ke]

I also read a source that claims we begin theosis and become infant gods at our baptism and remain so as long as we are in state of grace. Is this correct?

No, that is not correct.

Has anyone here read Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating? I was thinking of starting there, since it is a specifically Catholic book.

Not I.

In the East, it is termed Theosis. In the West, Divinization.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

No, that is not correct.

Why not? Do we not become gods because we participate in the divine nature? Do we not participate in the divine nature even now because of God’s indwelling Holy Spirit? It seemed like one of the more interesting aspects of this doctrine.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

 

[1ke]

Why not? Do we not become gods because we participate in the divine nature? Do we not participate in the divine nature even now because of God’s indwelling Holy Spirit? It seemed like one of the more interesting aspects of this doctrine.

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by become gods. We do become partakers in the divine nature. We do not become divine, i.e. a god.

 

[Anthony86]

I’ll repeat what I posted in the other thread. The orthodox and catholic doctrine needs to be clearly distinguished from the temptation by the serpent in the garden: “and you shall be as Gods…” (Genesis 3:5). We do not become separate gods, but through faith and self-sacrifice we are united to the one God and thus come to partake of His divine nature through grace: “By whom * He [God] hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4). We thus become like Christ, i.e. truly Christian: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

Talking about saints as ‘gods’ or ‘infant gods’ is all too easily misunderstood in all sorts of spiritually dangerous ways, even when the intended meaning is orthodox; I’d therefore avoid such terms, especially around people who are not properly educated in the doctrine regarding theosis.*

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by become gods. We do become partakers in the divine nature. We do not become divine, i.e. a god.

The Catechism would appear to disagree with you when it says “those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.” It would appear we become gods by participation, even in this life.

Also, do you deny we become gods, by participation, in the afterlife?

 

[Vouthon]

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by become gods. We do become partakers in the divine nature. We do not become divine, i.e. a god.

1ke,

You are surely aware that this is the choice of words used by Saint Athanasius and most subsequent mystics in describing theosis/deification?

From the Catechism:

Here is the paragraph:

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.”

Here are the notations on the quotes within CC 460:

“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” 80

***- St. Athanasius , De inc.54, 3: PG 25, 192B ***

“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.” 81

***- St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57:1-4 ***

Just because people can get the wrong end of the stick doesn’t mean that we should be embaressed to properly define a doctrine of our faith.

I agree that “infant gods” might make one think of the Mormon doctrine of “godhood” rather than the orthodox teaching that we become divine by grace as He is by Nature. However “gods” is still a legitimate word to use in describing this. It is not heretical, far from it.

 

[Vouthon]

I’ll repeat what I posted in the other thread. The orthodox and catholic doctrine needs to be clearly distinguished from the temptation by the serpent in the garden: “and you shall be as Gods…” (Genesis 3:5). We do not become separate gods, but through faith and self-sacrifice we are united to the one God and thus come to partake of His divine nature through grace: “By whom * He [God] hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4). We thus become like Christ, i.e. truly Christian: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).

Talking about saints as ‘gods’ or ‘infant gods’ is all too easily misunderstood in all sorts of spiritually dangerous ways, even when the intended meaning is orthodox; I’d therefore avoid such terms, especially around people who are not properly educated in the doctrine regarding theosis.*

I agree with this

However understood in its proper theological context ‘gods’ is an orthodox choice of words.

 

[1ke]

1ke,

You are surely aware that this is the choice of words used by Saint Athanasius and most subsequent mystics in describing theosis/deification?

Yes. I surely am.

1ke
Just because people can get the wrong end of the stick doesn’t mean that we should be embaressed to properly define a doctrine of our faith.

I don’t believe I indicated any embarassment. I simply stated that we do not become infant gods. That is not even remotely what St. Athanasius is saying.

I agree that “infant gods” might make one think of the Mormon doctrine of “godhood” rather than the orthodox teaching that we become divine by grace as He is by Nature.

We do not become divine. We become partakers in the divine nature. An important distinction.

However “gods” is still a legitimate word to use in describing this. It is not heretical, far from it.

I think the way he worded it-- infant gods-- is not acurate.

 

[Anthony86]

However understood in its proper theological context ‘gods’ is an orthodox choice of words.

I agree with you. Given how little most people understand of Christian theology, I’m a bit wary of using the term ‘gods’ though; the proper theological context is often just not known by the audience. There’s thus a danger of prideful interpretation. Speaking of ‘sons of God’ and ‘partaking of the divine nature’ instead of ‘infant gods’ or ‘gods’ is less likely to cause misunderstanding, and has more precedent in Scripture.

 

[Vouthon]

We do not become divine. We become partakers in the divine nature. An important distinction.

1ke,

I never said we become “divine” ipso facto without qualifiers. I said we become divine by grace as He is by Nature, meaning through a union of wills, becoming one spirit with God or to use Eastern language to unite with the “energy” and not the “essence” of God. We do not lose our distinct individual, creaturely essence.

One of the valid translations of Saint Athanasius goes:

“…For He became man that we might become divine;
and He revealed Himself through a body
that we might receive an idea of the invisible Father;
and He endured insults from men
that we might inherit incorruption…”

From* Robert W. Thomson, ed. and trans., Athanasius: Contra Genies and De Incarnatione (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). *

Athanasius in his Letter to Adelphius wrote about the importance of Jesus’ Incarnation saying, “that he (Jesus) might deify us in himself.” Athanasius went on to say in his famous treatise On the Incarnation that Christ “was made man that we might be made God.”

“God”, “gods”, “divine” - these are all valid expressions if properly understood as not meaning some kind of independent “godhood” akin to Mormonism or a monistic loss of creaturely identity in the Divine Essence but rather a union with God through grace.

I am being even more careful by adding the qualifier “by grace” than many of our Church Fathers and approved mystics, yet it still troubles you

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

That is not even remotely what St. Athanasius is saying.

I believe he is.

We do not become divine. We become partakers in the divine nature. An important distinction.

No one said otherwise.

I think the way he worded it-- infant gods-- is not acurate.

You’re entitled to your opinion but from what I’ve read, nothing seems to indicate I am wrong.