Theosis

These are two comments made on another thread. The topic they open is large enough to warrant a new post with separate comments.

Hajiburton said...

Dear PF,

I'm interested in your comment about theosis. Where does it come from? It reminds me of what might be a parallel concept in monastic theology, which lies at the heart of early western mysticism (i.e., non-visionary, non-passion obsessed, associated with Gregory, Augustine, and Bernard). It is the concept of "deification," (lat. deificare), which is not becoming God, but becoming one in willing and affection with God- it is the experience of Union which "consummation" epitomizes as regards the individual soul, and which all true Christian mystical experiences prefigure here below. I encountered it in Bernard, but he received it from Gregory (I think). You might look for it in Bernard's Sermons on the Song of Songs 71.9.

Ecumenically,
Sir R.F. Burton


Pauper Frater said...

St. Athanasius of Alexandria said, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God." Right of the bat, you can see that the Incarnation will play a much larger role in Orthodoxy. In their conception, the Incarnation was not needed because we fell. It would have happened anyway. God didn't just want to return us to our pre-Fall state. He wanted to do something more, and had planned that something from the beginning.

So how do we "become God" without becoming God, as it were. Palamas made a distinction between God's Essence and His energies. We cannot become one with God in His Essence. Rather, we become one with His energies.

Thus, we must struggle in addition to our faith. We struggle to attain that union. In the terms I grew up with, it's more about Sanctification than Justification. The latter is kind of a by-product of the former. But the common conception of Sanctification is not sufficient to describe Theosis. It's much more. My guess is that most Protestants would be quite uncomfortable with it.

Ecumanaically yours,
Me