What is theosis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshrp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear brother Benedictus2,
benedictus2 said:
I don’t think we say that God is energy. THAT is newageism. So I don’t think that partaking of the divine nature means partaking of the divine energies for that reduces nature to energy.
Click to expand...
You seem to be approaching this from a purely Latin perspective. “Partaking of the divine energies” does not mean that nature is reduced to energy, for the mere fact that Eastern theology distinguishes between the Essence of God and the Energy of God. So God is not reduced to mere energy from the Eastern perspective. Hence, it is not Newageism. The Eastern Tradition believes and teaches a PERSONAL God just as much as the Latin Tradition. I don’t see how you can compare the two.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Benedictus2,

You seem to be approaching this from a purely Latin perspective. “Partaking of the divine energies” does not mean that nature is reduced to energy, for the mere fact that Eastern theology distinguishes between the Essence of God and the Energy of God. So God is not reduced to mere energy from the Eastern perspective. Hence, it is not Newageism. The Eastern Tradition believes and teaches a PERSONAL God just as much as the Latin Tradition. I don’t see how you can compare the two.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
If you refer back to the post I was commenting on my comment will probably make more sense.

The post said that to partake in the divine nature is to partake in the divine energy. The way I read that (which may not be what the writer intended) is to equate nature with energy which reduces the divine nature to divine energy.
 
benedictus2 said:
I don’t think we say that God is energy. THAT is newageism. So I don’t think that partaking of the divine nature means partaking of the divine energies for that reduces nature to energy.
Click to expand...
You clearly do not understand the issue. In the eastern understanding of theosis/deification/divinization, we partake of the divine nature exactly by participating in the divine energies, and this has NOTHING to do with newagism. The idea is more than 1,000 years old.

To say that to partake of the divine nature means partaking of the divine energies most certainly does not reduce the divine nature to energy (BTW, do you understand what energy in this sense means?) In the eastern understanding of God, the divine nature consists of both the one divine essence (which remains eternally uncomprehensible and impenetrable), and the divine energies (those qualities of God that are eternal, but are not the divine essence itself, such as love, mercy, grace, etc.) We partake of the divine nature by participating in the divine energies. In the Eastern (or at least specifically Byzantine) approach to deification, it is the only way in which we can participate in the divine nature, because the divine essence is eternally impenetrable.

Now disagree with this understanding of God if you wish. However, it is an ancient, revered understanding of God that, as I said in a previous post, can be found as least as far back as the fourth century in the writings of St. Basil the Great, who is recognized by the Catholic Church as a Doctor of the Church. Please make no further accusations of newagism concerning this beloved teaching of ours, because that accusation makes no sense whatsoever, once one understands the terminology involved and the history of the teaching.
 
I think the problem here is the word energy; it means something different in Byzantine theology than it does in common English.

In theology, energy is the activity of a thing. If something is sharp by nature, its energy is cutting. If something is alive, then living is an energy of it. So when it’s said that we partake of Divine Energy, it means that we share in the Divine Nature according to its doings, rather than becoming It.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
I think the problem here is the word energy; it means something different in Byzantine theology than it does in common English.

In theology, energy is the activity of a thing. If something is sharp by nature, its energy is cutting. If something is alive, then living is an energy of it. So when it’s said that we partake of Divine Energy, it means that we share in the Divine Nature according to its doings, rather than becoming It.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Excellent clarification!

Thank you.
 
I am a western (Latin rite ) Catholic. I have been enjoying The Philokalia for several months now. I highly recommend a thorough study with a spiritual director. Then frequent the Philokalia with prayer.

The Philokalia :
St Gregory Palamas, supporting his argument with frequent quotations from the fathers, maintains that there is a distinction-in-unity between God’s essence and His energies.
The divine essence signifies God’s absolute transcendence, and we humans will never participate in it, either in this life or in the age to come. The divine energies, on the other hand, permeate the entire creation, and we humans participate in them by grace (§§ 65, 78). Thus deification (theosis) and union with God signify union with God’s energies, not His essence (§ 75). That which the energies effect and produce is created, but the divine energies themselves are supernatural, eternal and uncreated (§§ 72-73). The energies are Trinitarian, proceeding from all three persons at once (§§ 72, 112). They are not to be identified with the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit (§ 74.). The threefold distinction within God between the one essence, the three hypostases, and the multiplicity of energies in no way destroys the divine unity, for God ‘is indivisibly divided and is united dividedly, and yet in spite of this suffers neither multiplicity nor compositeness’ (§ 81). The light which shone from Christ at the transfiguration on Tabor is not created, natural or physical, but it is the uncreated energies of God. It is this uncreated glory that the saints behold in prayer, and that will shine from Christ at the second coming. Thus, even when experienced in this present life, it is an eschatological glory, the eternal radiance of the age to come (§§ 74, 146-50).

Peace
 
Ahimsa said:
According to Maximos the Confessor, theosis isn’t simply “sharing” the Divine energies, but realizing “identity with respect to energy”.
Click to expand...
This means precisely what I said. “Identity with respect to energy” means sharing the Divine Energy with God; He has It and we have It. This is why we call Saints, who share in God’s Holiness, Holy (Sanctus), and why we depict them radiating with God’s Glory.

What do you think it means? I honestly don’t see what distinction you are trying to make between what St. Maximos said and what I’m saying. His point is that we can share in the Divine Energy, but not the Divine Essence.

Peace and God bless!
 
I could be wrong, but it would be the first time, (just kidding), but it seems that “theosis” and “sanctification” are two words for the same thing…
 
rciadan said:
I could be wrong, but it would be the first time, (just kidding), but it seems that “theosis” and “sanctification” are two words for the same thing…
Click to expand...
I would not equate theosis and sanctification. Theosis involves sanctification, but there is more to theosis than sanctification.
 
Theosis involves assimilation to God. This, of course, presupposes sanctification, since God is holy. However, in theosis, we are made to be like God in respects other than just holiness, so this is why I say that theosis includes sanctification, but that theosis is more than sanctification.
 
Greek noun theos = a diety, a God, God
Greek suffix -osis = state, condition, action
 
RyanBlack said:
Theosis involves assimilation to God. This, of course, presupposes sanctification, since God is holy. However, in theosis, we are made to be like God in respects other than just holiness, so this is why I say that theosis includes sanctification, but that theosis is more than sanctification.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate on this…?
 
This is very fundamental for Orthodoxy and why I find Catholicism belief in Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility not correct. Let me explain, do not be angry!! I only think this is important point. What Greek is theosis is обожение or обоження in Russia/Ukraina. We always believe Mother of God is sinless but that by grace all can shar divinity like All Holy Mother of God. She is a model (образец) not an exceptional type. Because of this we find such exceptionalism as Immaculate Conception not true. We believe Bishop of Rome proves his fallibility by stating immaculate conception is true. What do you think?? Obviously you disagree but this is how I believe.
 
rciadan said:
Please elaborate on this…?
Click to expand...
"God became man so that men might become gods. St. Athanasius
“God became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.” St. Irenaeus of Lyons

Is “sanctification” a term the Latin Church uses much? I’ve heard divinization used in a similar way to theosis…
 
5Loaves said:
"God became man so that men might become gods. St. Athanasius
“God became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.” St. Irenaeus of Lyons

Is “sanctification” a term the Latin Church uses much? I’ve heard divinization used in a similar way to theosis.
Click to expand...
To answer your question- sanctification is a term that the Latin Church uses. In fact, most non-Catholic Christians who come out the Reformation use the term.

I think part of the reason for this confusion is because theosis is viewed as the whole process of salvation. Whereas in Western Christianity, the process is broken down:
Code: 
                          1) Justification
                          2) Sanctification
Divnization roughly equates to theosis; although, in my experience, divinization refers more to the end result rather than the whole journey, plus the end result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top