Hang-up #1: Theosis
July 10, 2007 by kevinburt
“Theosis” (or, “deification” or “divinization”): In brief, it is the primary Orthodox understanding of what it means to “be saved” (or at least the primary goal and end result of salvation). But, many non-Orthodox Christians believe that it oversteps the biblical scope of salvation. St. Athanasius’ well known phrase — “The Son of God became man so that man might become God” — is considered by some even to be blasphemous. Recently, I heard it suggested by one concerned non-Orthodox Christian that St. Athanasius was actually repeating the same lie that the Serpent used in the Garden to ensnare Eve (”You shall be like God…”).
First, what is theosis?
It is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamártía (“unholiness”), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting.
(from OrthodoxWiki)
Theosis, then, simply put, is becoming like God, becoming united with God, and even, in the language of the Fathers, “becoming god.” In Orthodoxy, it is the end goal of salvation, or redemption. It is God bringing humanity back to its intended place in His life.
Theosis necessitates, in part, understanding two pairs of words: image/likeness and energies/essence. First, humans were created “in the image of God,” but must, through a life of prayer and obedience, grow “into his likeness.” Even when fallen, humans retain the “image of God” imprinted upon their souls. But, this is not a state of “theosis.” Being “divinized” requires, and is, the restoration of our whole persons, which bear the image of God, into the likeness of God.
Secondly, it requires an Orthodox understanding of God’s “essence” and “energies.” God’s essence remains ineffable and unapproachable; but He has come down to us in his “energies,” which are God Himself. Through this understanding (spoken of by early Fathers such as St Basil the Great), we can see how “no man can see God and live,” and yet how Moses was said to “see God” on the mountain. One Father even spoke of how God’s face (essence) was hidden from Moses, but as God passed by, his back (energies) were visible to Moses. The main point is simply that there is an essence of God that, being eternal, is simply not able to be grasped or understood or seen by man: his essence. But, by his grace, he has revealed himself to us in such a way that we can have true union with Him; this revelation is, to use patristic language, the “energies” of God, which are God himself (and not only actions carried out by him but separate from Him). This union with the energies of God, is what we call “theosis.”
Both of those pairs I have explained woefully inadequately, I know, but hopefully well enough to give a brief perspective sufficient enough to begin to consider “theosis.”
As I have pursued links, explored related topics, I have discovered that theosis is a very complex and multifaceted topic. To grasp it, one must also have some understanding of the fall of man and its consequences, the mission of Christ, the implications of such events as the Transfiguration, and the understanding of creation and humanity itself. Due to the complexity (I’ve spent the last week finding out how little I knew about the topic), I’ve decided to simply post one more excerpt and then a few of the most pertinent and helpful links I could find, as well as a few comments about the idea that this is simply a repetition of Satan’s lie in the Garden of Eden.
Here is Bishop Kallistos Ware on Theosis:
The aim of the Christian life…can equally well be defined in terms of deification. Basil described the human person as a creature who has received the order to become a god; and Athanasius, as we know, said that God became human that we humans might become god…. For Orthodoxy our salvation and redemption mean our deification.
Behind the doctrine of deification there lies the idea of the human person made according to the image and likeness of God the Holy Trinity… The saints, as Maximus the Confessor put it, are those who express the Holy Trinity in themselves. This idea of a personal and organic union between God and humans — God dwelling in us, and we in Him — is a constant theme in the Epistles of St Paul, who sees the Christian life above all else as a life ‘in Christ’. The same idea recurs in the famous text of 2 Peter: ‘Through these promises you may become partakers of the divine nature’ (i,4). It is important to keep this New Testament background in mind. The Orthodox doctrine of deification, so far from being unscriptural (as is sometimes thought), has a solid Biblical basis, not only in 2 Peter, but in Paul and the fourth Gospel.
The idea of deification must always be understood in the light of the distinction between God’s essence and His energies. Union with God means union with the divine energies, not the divine essence: the Orthodox Church, while speaking of deification and union, rejects all forms of pantheism.
Closely related to this is another point of equal importance. The mystical union between God and humans is a true union, yet in this union Creator and creature do not become fused into a single being. Unlike the eastern religions which teach that humans are swallowed up in the deity, Orthodox mystical theology has always insisted that we humans, however closely linked to God, retain our full personal integrity. The human person, when deified, remains distinct (though not separate) from God… Nor does the human person, when ‘becomes god’, cease to be human: ‘We remain creatures while becoming god by grace, as Christ remained God when becoming man by incarnation’.
(from The Orthodox Church, by Timothy Ware. A must read.)
This entire chapter of Ware’s book deals with creation, the fall, redemption, deification, etc. If you want a single source synopsis, it’s one of the best I’ve found. You can buy this book and support an independent bookseller here.
Bishop Ware goes on to list six important points to remember about deification, or theosis:
First, deification is not something reserved for a few select initiates, but something intended for all alike…. it is the normal goal for every Christian without exception.
Secondly, the fact that a person is being deified does not mean that she or he ceases to be conscious of sin. On the contrary, deification always presupposes a continued act of repentance.
In the third place, there is nothing esoteric or extraordinary about the methods which we must follow in order to be deified. If someone asks ‘How…?’ the answer is very simple: go to church, receive the sacraments regularly, pray to God ‘in spirit and in truth’, read the Gospels, follow the commandments. The last of these items — ‘follow the commandments’ — must never be forgotten. Orthodoxy…firmly rejects the kind of mysticism that seeks to dispense with moral rules.
Fourthly, deification is not a solitary but a ’social’ process. …. a person cannot love God if he does not love his fellow humans. Thus there is nothing selfish about deification; for only if he loves his neighbour can a person be deified…. ‘From our neighbour is life and from our neighbour is death’, said Antony of Egypt… Humans, made in the likeness of the Trinity, can only realized the divine likeness if they live a common life such as the Blessed Trinity lives…
Fifthly, love of God and of our fellow humans must be practical: Orthodoxy rejects all forms of Quietism, all types of love which do not issue in action. Deification…. has a very down to earth aspect. When we think of deification, we must hink of the Hesychasts praying in silence and of St Seraphim with his face transfigured; but we must also think of St Basil caring for the sick in the hospital at Caesarea, of St John the Almsgiver helping the poor at Alexandria, of St Sergius in his filthy clothing, working as a peasant in the kitchen garden… These are not two different ways, but one.
Finally, deification presupposes life in the Church, life in the Sacraments. Theosis according to the likeness of the Trinity involves a common life, and it is only within the fellowship of the Church that this common life of coinherence can be properly realized. Church and sacraments are the means appointed by God whereby we may acquire the sanctifying Spirit and be transformed into the divine likeness.
(from pages 236-
The following links go much deeper into the topic than I have or could. They provide plenty of extra reading for most people. If you want to read even more, see your local Orthodox priest or bishop. 
- Bishop Hilarion Alfayev on theosis (currently offline; I will fix this link asap)
- Theosis: Deification as the purpose of man’s life (an excellent compendium of information)
- Deification: The Restoration of Humanity (a longer, scholarly paper)
- Spirituality (a short description in the context of Orthodox Spirituality)
- Patristic quotes on deification
- Theosis: Achieving Your Potential in Christ (Fr. Anthony Coniaris - a prolific Orthodox writer/theologian, Fr Coniaris’ talks are easily understandable by all laypeople, even with little theological training)
The lie of Satan?
Finally, is theosis simply a parroting of the Satanic lie given to Adam and Eve in the Garden? “The Serpent” said to Eve in Genesis, “You will be like God, knowing good and evil.” I think it’s helpful to point out that, throughout Scripture, we are commanded to “be like God.” We are called to be “holy, just as He is holy.” “Godliness” is a frequent injunction in Scripture. And, knowing good from evil is a good thing, too, the result of all Christian catechesis. In the eternal kingdom, it is said that we will have “perfect knowledge,” and that we will “know even as we are now known.” So, being like God and knowing truth is not something to shun (and this is precisely what theosis is); what then, was the lie of Satan?
The lie of Satan, according to the Fathers and Orthodox thought, was that humans could become like God apart from God, without keeping His commands, and on their own initiative, ingenuity, and timetable. It has been said that there is no resurrection without a cross; Easter does not come except after Good Friday. Similarly, Theosis cannot occur without a life of obedience, suffering, prayer, and growth into God’s life in God’s way. When we seek to sidestep all that, to find our own shortcuts, then we are prideful. We care more about our own wants, rather than God’s purpose and way of life. Apart from God, there is and can be no theosis; that was the lie of Satan, and still is.
St. Augustine of Hippo said this in his commentary on Genesis 3:
The conclusion is that the devil would not have begun by an open and obvious sin to tempt man into dooing something that God had forbidden, had not man already begun to seek satisfaction in himself and consequently to take pleasure in the words “you shall be as gods.” The promise of these words, however, would much more truly have come to pass if, by obedience, Adam and Eve had kept close to the ultimate and true source of their being and had not, by pride, imagined that they were themselves the source of their being… Whoever seeks to be more than he is becomes less. Whenever he aspires to be self-sufficing, he retreats from the One who is truly sufficient for him.
And further:
Through [Christ] a pattern of life has been given us, that is to say, a sure path by which we may come to God. For we who have fallen through pride could only return to God through humility. Thus was it said to the first creature of our race: “Taste, and you shall be as God.” As I was saying, our Savior has himself condescended to exemplify in his own person that humility which is the path over which we have to travel on our return to God. For “he did not think it robbery to be equal to God but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave.” Hence, the Word through whom all things in the beginning were made was created man.
One sees in St Augustine precisely that the lie was not “being like God,” for had man remained with God, this would have happened even more gloriously than Satan could have promised. The lie was that this could happen by eating the fruit, by a means other than that appointed by God, by a means other than reality, which is God Himself. Only by uniting himself to God can man find ultimate union, or theosis, within God. It is not to be found outside of God, or by our own initiative or on our own abbreviated schedule.
nice overview kevin. I hadnt seen the Steenberg and Bishop Hilarion resources before!
This was excellent and quite helpful. I really needed to hear some of this today.
So when is your Catechism going to be published? Seriously, we should just read your post tonight for the gathering.
Great Post.
This isn’t a post to be digested quickly. Didn’t I say I was going to “listen”. Because here I go “talking”.
I could toss off “being like Christ” as an admonition simply to obey the Father as He did and not something metaphysical.
Metaphor and spiritual reality are hard to discern in these waters. It’s one of the reasons I have such a hard time grasping at Orthodoxy.
Like salvation in the discussion of the visible church in your last post. “Unity” with God can be a great many things. It cannot be the surface problems with vocabulary, but meaning that I confront here.
If I take theosis as union with God’s energies and that appears closer to my understanding of purpose than being, I might begin to bridge a gap here.
This is what I must read about.
There might be some problem here with transitivity as well. The Trinitarian view the church holds might necessitate Christ’s prayer in John 17 mean something different than I understand it to mean. If Christ is praying for a spiritually “literal” unity and not a metaphorical unity of purpose, then I’m up a creek without a paddle.
Since I’ve never been strictly Trinitarian in the Orthodox sense, but rather more Modalistic (I reject any notion of the non-eternal nature of the modes and I certainly don’t believe in anything that could be called Patripassianism), I don’t read J17 in a mystical sense. This is helped by my emphasis on substitutionary atonement over Cristus Victor (which I know we’ll discuss later).
Since substitutionary atonement requires the separation of Son from the Father in our place so that we don’t have to endure that separation, then I can’t be nailing the Father on Calvary.
Anyway, this is far to fast a response, I’ll consider this more when I have some time later (it might take me a couple of days). Besides, I haven’t begun to fully “listen” yet.
David,
Where does metaphor strike off spiritual reality? (how does one speak about God without metaphor? or about the “Other”?)
Is union with God just the union of “wills” in your understanding then?
Is this not a reductionistic view of union with God? what does it mean in the Pauline language to be “in Christ”?
What do you mean by Modalistic?
What do you think Christ is praying for in John 17?
Alot of your language leaves me completely lost. You don’t ever seem to really develop what you are saying because the very next sentence is off on a completely different topic.
I hope I am wrong in this and that I am just not keen on the way you talk about theology.
If you could briefly state what are your main concerns with theosis that would help greatly.
Now that I’ve had some time to think, I’d like Kevin to delete my last comments if he would be so kind.
Maximus, the trouble your having reading my posts is that both of them were made in haste while reading (or listening, in the case of the podcast).
Think of it this way. When listening to a lecture or during a business meeting have you ever brain-stormed notes to yourself all over a piece of paper? The sort of “thought cloud” not “outline” type?
That’s sort of what happened. I was spontaneously reacting (and frankly poorly) to the material.
I need to learn to listen to be sure I understand what the Orthodox church’s understanding is. If I’m to learn, I need to turn off the debating spirit in me and rejuvenate the curiosity that compels me to seek out God.
Kevin asked me about my hangups, so I offered them. Now I need to listen to resources he points me to. I need to see if there’s a bridge from where I am to where Orthodoxy is. I’m not looking to convert per se. I’m looking to learn and grow closer to God.
This will lead to some “scattered” responses on my part. It might seem random sometimes to you, but it’s a process of testing ideas presented to see if I can connect my own thinking to them.
It’s rather like crossing a very cold but shallow river by finding your way on small stones. I’m not really worried about some terrible error, but I have fancy footwork ahead if I’m to test and prod at each stone to see if it is stable and if I can reach it with a step.
As for your questions let me offer some incomplete but possibly helpful answers.
Metaphor vs Spiritual Reality (mysticism)
I just don’t know where the line is. But it’s the elephant in the room every time believers from different traditions discuss theology. When Christ says “pluck out your eye” rather than sin, he doesn’t mean it literally but metaphorically we are to remove that which draws us to sin. One might say, an alcoholic shouldn’t go to a bar.
Union with God
Yes. I currently believe that the only union two distinct beings can have is in “purpose” or “will”. However, I recognize something is wrong with this view. I recognize that God sustains life. My very being depends on God’s will for sustenance. So in a sense God’s power is somehow “in” me. The scriptures also clearly teach that Christ lives “in” me, but I believe that “in” could be translated “through”. That is we exemplify Christ as Christians, not that Christ “possesses” us.
“In Christ”
If I can read “in” as “through” in the previous point, I can read “in Christ” as “in alignment with Christ”. Again, denying the mystical interpretation for the metaphorical.
Modalistic
I don’t like the traditional Modalism (Sabellianism). The idea that God has masks (prosopa) is silly. Rather I think of God as having offered us three “modes” of relating to Him. I am husband to my wife. I am employee at my job. I am a father to my son. God offers us three ways to understand His nature. God may have many ways we might someday related to Him, but these three He has revealed at this time for His own good purpose.
John17
First, Christ prays for the protection of His apostles while He is away from them. And then He prays for all who believe to be one, I believe, in purpose: a unity of spirit (little “s” as we would say “the American Pioneer spirit”). Not a unity of Spirits as if souls would intermingle in substance.
I’m sorry my thinking was scattered. As I said, I wasn’t arranging my thoughts meaningfully. I hope this is more helpful. Again, I hope Kevin doesn’t mind deleting the old posts.
David,
I’ll delete your old post if you really want me to. But, I don’t think it needs to be. I think you fired off some thoughts, like we all do frequently, and they have stimulated some discussion. Your more recent comments have clarified, and I’d like to leave the whole discussion intact. But, I’ll be happy to delete if you truly wish. No harm, either way. Just let me know!
Kevin
I’ll leave it to your judgment. In this matter, I can’t be the best judge of the quality of my communication.
I suppose a man must stand by his own words, no matter how revealing of his pathology they be.
David,
I think your communication is fine, even if it seems a bit disjointed at times (that is, as you noted, the nature of communication when you’re responding to a podcast as you’re listening to it, e.g.). I frequently have to go back and rework stuff I write when I realize (after it’s been online a few days) how disjointed some of it is. If you want to reword anything you’ve written, just pass it along to me and I’ll replace earlier comments with it.
Now, to the substance. I sense in your thoughts that you tend to draw a distinction between things that might ought not be drawn. For instance, you speak frequently of “metaphor” vs. “literal,” or “unity of will” vs. “unity of being,” or being “literally in Christ” or just “in alignment with Christ.”
Being a fellow 21st century pilgrim, I can understand these distinctions. But, knowing that the Church was began by 1st century pilgrims (who also wrote all the founding documents), I can’t say that I feel good about these distinctions. The fact is, the premodern world and mindset simply did not draw these distinctions as you are doing (and as I long have, also).
Your understanding of “Trinity” and “mysticism” and “being” and “sustitutionary atonement,” etc., are not exactly aligned with how Orthodoxy understands and explains those things. I think your perspective has been very heavily shaped by our background (which itself was heavily influenced by the Scottish “Common Sense” school as well as over reliance upon Enlightenment and Modern and Secular views of the world), rather than the patristic mindset, or “phronema,” of the Church.
Do remember that St Paul and St Irenaeus and St Ignatius and St Peter were premoderns. They did not mean the same thing by the word “in” as you or I might. They were not bounded and tripped up by modern physics and secular dualism in their thinking. And I truly think St Paul would read your comments and query, “Why don’t you just believe what I say, instead of quantifying and categorizing it all?” (He’d probably say that to me on plenty of things, too, like “Why don’t you stop sinning so much!” haha).
I still cannot grasp how it is possible for you — who are obviously more of a thinker than many in your circle of congregating — to hold so tightly to Scripture, but only or at least primarily from your 21st century perspective, and while discounting everything else as “helpful,” at best, but thoroughly subject to review and editing. Upon what grounds can we so readily trust St Paul, and bend over backwards to avoid seeing contradictions and heterodoxy in his writings, but so readily pick apart anything written that Zondervan has not seen fit to publish in their Study Bibles? Even if we do not see the Patristic corpus as inspired, can we not see that similarity in philosophy and mindset of the early Fathers with the Apostles (and even with Christ)?
You have come up with, apparently, your own nuanced Modalism. The bottom line, though, is that this views is heterodox. The Trinity, as understood by the mind of Christ’s Church, His Body, for 2000 years now, is almost blithely tossed aside as antiquated, the brilliant minds of the Cappadocians as inconsequential. To say that God is not three persons, but has only “revealed himself in three ways “at this time,” is, by almost any account of historical theology, heterodoxy. And to think that this doesn’t really matter, is almost even more concerning. The conclusion is that God may have many more ways (or many less one day?) of “relating to us.” Thus, the Trinity is booted for a purely pragmatic version of God the Cosmic Convertible. The Trinity ceases to be Truth; it ends up being only useful, and only for now (or, have we possibly already outgrown it?). Without the Trinity, the Church has told us that we do not have Love, and therefore, do not have salvation.
Anyway….. wrote more than I meant to, again.
What a wonderful and insightful AND civil exchange. Kudos to all!–
As I have said to Kevin. I have a hard time with any Christology based on “THE FALL” when science has shown ( as well as textual contradictions) have rendered the Genesis account of mythic interest only.
there are better ways to understand God than endlessly chewing over other people’s words.
I tend to believe that the contemplative mystics who have most deeply dedicated their lives to God for the last 2000 years ( Christianity) and 2500 years ( Buddhism) and 4000 years ( Hinduism) and 1000 years ( Sufism) must have a handle on something when they all come up with experiences of merging with a God that has definite Trinitarian manifestation, and living conscious union thereafter.
Most see us as part of Christ/Logos ( or equivalent of a different name) from our very creation as individual. Our journey to our fully humanness leads to the falling away of our ignorance and self will, and union with the divine will of God Manifest ( Christ / Logos/ Ishwara/etc)
As John said, “He must grow greater as I grow less”
And that is the journey. Eventually it leads to a well described state of Union wherein our will cannot differ from Gods will, and the rest of our lives are in full service and constant awareness, love, and surrender.
The works of St John of the Cross and the anonymous Cloud of Unknowing are guidebooks to this state. The writings of Bernadette Roberts are very helpful. She was a Carmellite nun who recorded her experiences on this well trodden ancient path.
As to what is orthodox and heterodox, well, I think that only the Catholic and Orthodox churches can lay claim to the uses of those yardsticks. Protestants are heterodox by definition, unless the definitions are changed post reformation.
That said, I am afraid some orthodoxy is just plain wrong, but I do have to let them define orthodox as it was an early Church formulation which the broken lineage churches can’t claim as an inheritance.
Craig,
I may be talking out of my league here. I believe Orthodoxy would say that Christology is based on God the Father, not on “the Fall.” Also, for myself — and I suspect for many other Orthodox — the mythic character of Genesis does not negate its truthfulness. Thankfully, less people are hung up on a literal interpretation of every detail in Genesis; many are beginning to see the theological implications of this VERY theological treatise attributed to Moses.
“Myth” does not equal untrue, as I suppose you’d agree; one has only to remember days with coffee in one hand and Tolkien in the other… to know that sometimes truth is best conveyed by “myth” (a dear friend of mine once told me he was saved by Tolkien….. remember?
).
I think you might enjoy reading this essay: “Speaking the Truths Only the Imagination May Grasp”
As to better ways to understanding God…. I agree. It’s one of the things I liked so much about Bishop Ware’s description of theosis, and how to attain to it. None of his points included theological arguing, did they? Sheesh…. steps on my toes.
peace.
David,
Thanks for responding. I hope my post wasn’t taken offensively. I don’t mind posts that are done in a note-like style; I just had a hard time following your last post. Your next one I could follow a little better.
You said, “I’m not looking to convert per se. I’m looking to learn and grow closer to God.” Is not the process of learning and growing closer to God a conversion? Is not conversion a repentance and turning away from our thoughts, delusions, and desires and into God’s wisdom, truth, and love?
I will continue by following the pattern you used in your previous post.
Metaphor vs. spiritual reality.
I didn’t really follow where you were going with this one. The problem in discussion between two different traditions is not the problem of metaphor as much as the problem of language. When an Orthodox speaks to a Protestant there are a lot of assumptions and jargon not shared by both and this is the problem.
Spiritual realities must always be mediated through metaphor or analogy, we can never really describe a “reality” without the words that fabricate it. What we can do when we run into interpretive differences is to turn to the text and discuss how the interpretations differ. Understanding someone else takes patience and a lot of empathy. Let us pray that we can do both.
Regarding Union with God
Do you really believe the only way that two beings can have union is solely by sharing wills? Is your union with others just the sharing of wills? I will use “purpose” as a definition of will as you seemed to use both interchangeably. Union with God is not just the union of purpose or wills. Union with God is the entire alignment of a person’s will, desires (affections), and love with the “Other”. To speak analogously, a union between a man and his wife is not just the unity of wills. It can be the union of desires (which is different than will), the union of love, the union of imagination, etc. Following this analogy St. Paul draws lessons to be learned about the relationship between the Church and Christ. Union with God is more than just the submission of man’s will to God’s will. It is a much more integral and intimate union.
Whether or not you can read “in” as “through” does not mean that is a correct interpretation. I will use the example of St. Paul. When Paul uses “in Christ” in Ephesians there are multiple ramifications. To be “in Christ” is to be a part of the mystical body of Christ, the fullness of all things.
Your interpretation is not a denial of the mystical for the metaphorical. Mysticism is not something that is completely other worldly. Our relationship with Christ is not a logical relationship in which we just exchange static ideas within us for other static ideas. Or our relationship is not just the aligning of wills (which is a part of union with Christ). Being “in Christ” is to partake of the reality of the Incarnation, when God became Flesh and drew near to mankind in a way He had never done before. To partake of the riches of God and the inheritance in store for us, is to partake of the glories of the Resurrected Christ. To be “in Christ” is to be a part of His body that has a secure hope in their own resurrection. This is more than just a intertwining of the human and divine will, it is the intercommunion of the finite man with the infinite God. Our physical bodies will share in the rewards of the Resurrection, not just our wills. I hope this example from St. Paul makes sense.
You are right to say that God sustains life. We are contingent creatures in every sense. Because God sustains life by his Holy Spirit does not mean by necessity that we share within the Divine life. The idea of Theosis is that man will return to the state of communion with God and partake of the life of God through the divine energies. This return is done through the realignment of our wills, desires, hopes, dreams, and love towards God in Christ. The future state of our life with God will include our bodies, which have been since the beginning “good”. I might be overshooting the point and missing what you’re really grappling with, but I pray I am not.
Regarding Modalism
I share your disregard for Modalism and Sabellianism. But I don’t share your way of describing how God relates to us. God does not offer three ways to relate to himself. When we pray, we pray to the Father in the Son through the Holy Spirit. This is, in my understanding, the biblical way of speaking about the Trinity. God does not relate himself to us as Father without relating to us in the Son through the Holy Spirit. God the Father is only shown to us in the face of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. There is no time that we can relate to “God” by just the Holy Spirit, or just Christ, or just the Father. We may only correctly say the “Our Father” in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Our relation to the Triune God is based upon a certain economia, or way of saving us. This is the economia of the Trinity, we are adopted as Sons in Christ through the Holy Spirit and are then turned with open hearts and hands to the Father. The Holy Spirit will always turn us to Christ, and in turn Christ will turn us in prayer to the Father.
I think it is dangerous to speculate on how God will relate to us differently in the future. God’s nature does not change, and therefore in the future his relations with us will not change. What does change is our state in relation to Him (i.e. our state now will be far different than the state we will live with Him in the eschaton).
Your analogy of the three different ways we relate had an inherent flaw. You posited yourself in the place of God and then chose three completely different circumstances in which you display different aspects of your person. When we talk about God we are talking about the particular events of salvation that occur in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. God is not relating Himself to three different situations or three different types of people. God is relating Himself through his Three Persons to mankind. God offers us only one way to understand his nature as Father that is in the face of Jesus Christ, which we may behold only in the Holy Spirit.
Regarding John 17
Unity with God is not predicated upon the intermingling of substances or just the unity of wills. Unity of the Church is not based upon just the unity of will. Part of the unity of the Church is dependent upon the uniting of the will of humanity with the predetermined will of the Father displayed in Christ His Son. But that unity is preserved through patience, love, and forgiveness.
How is your reading of John 17 not mystical? And how does substitutionary atonement have anything to do with a mystical reading of Jn 17? How does one have communion with an ascended Christ if it is not mystical in some sense?
I think underlying all of this is a basic assumption. Which if I am wrong please direct me to a better understanding of your position. Your concept of unity is based only on the sharing of wills. When I say unity, and I presume when Orthodox say unity, I mean something a lot deeper than just the unity of wills. My union with Christ and His Church is a unity directed by the will of God but substantiated by love. Mystical union with Christ is not an intermingling of our essences and a confusion of man and God. Mystical union with God is a personal union, which is assuming that we are discussing persons, not a robot or just substances. This is the aim of Theosis to become divinized is not to confuse God and man. There is a stark contrast between God and man. But despite this contrast between the infinite and the finite, the wise and the ignorant, and the strong with the weak, there is the love of God that is so over abundant that He desires to share His own life with us. So we are in-graced with the Divine Image in order to be able to share with God His wisdom, love, and life. In a way man thinks God’s thoughts after God thinks them. Man as a contingent being lives with the Triune God by grace.
I hope this in some way helps, I tried to be succinct, but as you can see I have failed.
So much reading I must do!
So much to learn. So a long way to walk. Blessed be the light that guides my steps on the path.
I’m going to have to think deeply about these points. It’s amazing how even attempting to take one “hang-up” at a time, we find in each thought a thousand branches each of which would be profitable to explore.
A lifetime could be spent exploring each nuance. For some this might seem daunting, but for me it is a promise. I look forward to an eternity as CS Lewis would say, “going higher up and further in”.
I’ll try to pick a couple of items to explore more about this in the next day or so.
Kevin,
That was an awesome essay and beautiful reply.
Yes, myth may be true. The best case is Tolkien’s Eucatastrophe, where myth and truth coincide in the Resurrection.
I have spent my life hunting God in words. Now I wait for Him in silence.
Aren’t we lucky that He is unfailingly there, even of our words and doctrines get a bit jumbled. We are loved.
Craig
Craig,
I like this: “I have spent my life hunting God in words. Now I wait for Him in silence.” I’ve read this exact phrase in slightly different wording, so many times in the Holy Elders and Desert Fathers. They all discovered the same thing. It also reminds me of what N.T. Wright said in a sermon once: “In the beginning the Word became flesh, but we have turned that flesh back into words…”
I read this today and thought of this post:
“Athanasius’ argument against the Arians is sometimes reduced to the well-known point that, if salvation is a partaking of divinity (theosis, ‘deification’), the Word cannot deify if he is not God; and it has been said by some that a theology for which ‘deification’ is no longer important will find this superfluous. But it is of first importance to bear in mind that ‘deification,’ for Origen, Athanasius and their successors, did not mean a sharing in the divine ’substance’, a quasi-physical participation, but enjoying the divine relation of Son to Father, sharing the divine life. In this sense, it could be argued that any Christian theology worth the name will need a doctrine of ‘deification’ and it is hard to see how Athanasius’ point can be put by.”
– From Williams’ The Wound of Knowledge in his discussion of the Arian Crisis. Great read.
And then, thinking of the modalist theme, together with some of the other points brought up in this discussion, I thought of this:
(In regard to the 4th century Arian Eunomius’ assertion that “only one name could truly be predicted of God, the name agennetos, ‘ungenerated’ [not simply agenetos, ‘without a source’, and that this was literally all that could be known of god even by himself.”
“Thus the response to Eunomius concentrates upon the inadequation of our concepts and words to the reality being spoken of. Knowledge of God cannot stop at a definition, a label; indeed, Eunomius’ opponents go on to say, knowledge of anything at all is something which goes beyond definitions, because it finds itself incapable of halting and summing up its investigations (Gregory of Nyssa). And this is most true of our knowledge of ourselves, of the mystery which, for convenience, we call ’soul’, even though it is impossible to say what we mean by such a term. Words and names change, necessarily, as our relations to things or persons develop. Changes in language may not alter the nature of an object, but the function of speech is nonetheless to articulate a changing relations as ‘the understanding makes contact with things’. Nor, in speaking of God, can we avoid analogies from the material and human world. There can be no ‘privileged’ concept of God with assured priority over the language produced by Christian life and common experience. The one truth of which we can be sure is that God escapes all definition in his freedom; and if we come to know God in the flesh and in the sufferings of Christ, we are not to conclude from this that God is naturally vulnerable, but should wonder at the power of God to make himself weak and identify himself with a life not his own. His limitation in Christ becomes a sign of his sovereign freedom from all limitation, from the tyranny of concepts.” — a couple pages later.
Yes friends, there is a reason that people conveniently translate genitives such as “in” and “through” based on their theological presuppositions. This is one reason why the NIV bothers me some. It seems to frequently choose “wishy-washy” genitives. “In Christ” definitely carries more with it than “through Christ”. I am afraid that English has shaped our theology more than folks know, and our reductionism of the good news becomes all too easy…
[...] A great beginning reference on theosis, if you are interested, is found here: http://kevinburt.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/hang-up-1-theosis/ [...]