The official forums of the Coptic Media Network, focusing on Coptic hymns, Orthodoxy, spirituality, friendship, and member experiences.
posted on Jun 11, 2009 - 06:28 AM
+
Hey Everyone,
I have heard that our church is against the doctrine and teaching of theosis or deification, and that His Holiness Pope Shenouda III has written against it in one of his books. Is this true? If so, what are the reasons for which we are against it?
Thanks and GBU.
Mike
posted on Jun 11, 2009 - 07:05 AM
Part of the issue is how theosis is translated into arabic, which could lend itself easily to being understood as apotheosis.
The writings of the fathers mention the concept frequently, figures largely in St. Gregory Nanzianus among others. For the fathers divinization is achieved through unity with God. Made possible through the incarnation of Christ. St. Gregory Nanzianus believed that even if man did not fall the Word would have become incarnate to complete us allowing for theosis.
Part of H.H.s writings are to clear up misconceptions address the issue of apotheosis. Part of it has to do with certain issues.
posted on Jun 11, 2009 - 07:08 PM
From hearing his lectures, H.H. tries to make clear that we don't partkae "IN the divine nature" (which would put us on the divine level, i.e. apotheosis), but that we are partakers "OF the divine nature" 2 Peter 1:4
Although I try to stay away from Wikipedia, this sentence seems to sum up what H.H. teaches:
"Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: it is not possible for any created being to become (ontologically) God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy)."
In other words, we don't partake in the nature of the Holy Spirit, we partake of the energies of the Holy Spirit. That's another expression of it.
The recent dispute has to do with Fr. Matta el Meskeen taking it beyond this as some EO theologians tend to do. As for Fr. Matta el Meskeen, it seems that his imagination was bigger than his knowledge. Has written some pretty "interesting" things.
posted on Jun 11, 2009 - 07:53 PM
Thanks for answering, guys.
So how does our understanding of theosis differ from that of the Eastern Orthodox?
I have heard that Fr. Matthew (the Poor) wrote much about it and that he did not see eye-to-eye with His Holiness on certain issues, so might that have something to do with why His Holiness is against it? I'm not insinuating that His Holiness would be against theosis primarily on political grounds, but if the Church Fathers wrote a lot in support of the doctrine, why would our Church be so opposed to it?
Forgive any bluntness on my part,
Mike
_________________
Mi,ayl Henri
posted on Jun 11, 2009 - 08:32 PM
From mikehenry:Thanks for answering, guys.
So how does our understanding of theosis differ from that of the Eastern Orthodox?
I have heard that Fr. Matthew (the Poor) wrote much about it and that he did not see eye-to-eye with His Holiness on certain issues, so might that have something to do with why His Holiness is against it? I'm not insinuating that His Holiness would be against theosis primarily on political grounds, but if the Church Fathers wrote a lot in support of the doctrine, why would our Church be so opposed to it?
Forgive any bluntness on my part,
MikeThe two views really do not differ.
TO a certain extent your assessment is correct, a large part of the issue arises from various disagreements between Fr. Matthew and His Holiness. (its what I meant by other issues in my original posts)
_________________
“While the theologians are searching these abstruse
matters, many simple-souls will have slipped into the
Kingdom of God” - H.H. Pope Shenouda III
"If you wish to be a theologian then follow the commandments." - St. Gregory Nanzianus
posted on Jun 11, 2009 - 09:18 PM
In my opinion, the views do differ.
As for "political" issues, keep in mind that that is the easiest assertion to be made and it is ALWAYS made. Really? Pope Shenouda III, who thinks our blood will be asked of him on judgment day is going to teach certain theological issues because of political disagreements? The response will be, "well, no, he doesn't mean to do it, it just might happen." We're talking about the most educated Pope in Coptic Church history, this man doesn't think things on whims. All you have to do is listen to some of his sermons. Many times I find myself thinking, "H.H., it's great that you're giving us 20 verses on the subject, but maybe 10 would've been enough."
As for quotes from Church Fathers, be EXTREMELY careful about translations and quoting things out of context. All one has to do is look to our long lost brethren in Rome to see what they do with quotations to see what could happen. It's very easy to read things into statements that are just not warranted.
As to the "harsh" responses by H.H. and H.E. Bishoy and other Bishops, it's not a matter of a dislike for Fr. Matta el Meskeen, it's that they know, and anyone who knows Church history knows, it is the teachings by INFLUENTIAL people that cause most of the problems. Whether it be Arius or Nestorius. One was a priest, the other was an archbishop. It was in their teaching capacities that one said "there was a time when the Son was not" and the other said, "Christotokos not Theotokos."
posted on Jun 12, 2009 - 03:02 AM
Agape,
You can't say that the Coptic Church is against theosis, as that would imply that it's against the incarnation of God.
The theology of the Fathers is clear: if the Coptic Church is one in spirit with St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, and the Cappadocian Fathers, then it affirms along with them: God became human, so that the human may become God.
Denying theosis is denying the incarnation.
The issue is, as someone mentioned, is that IN TRANSLATION, theosis sounds like we ourselves become the God - as though our natures will change to be eternal and creators, as God is. However, we become God by the grace of God, not by nature. As with the incarnation, there was no change and confusion of natures, so likewise in theosis, there is no change and confusion of natures. The human nature remains human, but unites with God through his own grace.
_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).
"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.
In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member
+ To Protect and Preserve +
HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!
Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!
posted on Jun 12, 2009 - 07:31 AM
Ok Bishoy,
That sounds like a very good summary of what patristics tells us about the matter. So then what exactly is the problem of our current church hierarchy with the concept?
I havent read or heard H.H Pope Shenouda talk about the issue, all the information I have is reported to me through various people and sources. So is Pope Shenouda's issue only with the translation of the issue and its implications as allegedly extended by Fr. Matta and some Eastern Orthodox theologians? Or is it against the entire doctrine from beginning to end, no concessions or room for compromise? If so, why and how?
_________________
Ramez
St. Cyril of Alexandria COC
posted on Jun 12, 2009 - 03:27 PM
Pope Shenouda's objection comes in saying we partake in the Divine nature as if the divine nature has become a part of us instead of dwelling in us but apart from us. The problem with saying it's a part of us is that then we become God since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.
We partake of the energies of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the "fruits," and each one partakes of it according to his own holiness infront of God. The simple fact that we can all sin shows that we do not partake IN the Holy Spirit but partake OF the Holy Spirit.
It doesn't come down to translation because from hearing his lectures (in which in one of them he has an objector stand up and argue with him), he knows the difference, and even I can know the difference and my Arabic isn't theologically-tuned.
posted on Jun 12, 2009 - 04:53 PM
From Truth.Seeker:
The simple fact that we can all sin shows that we do not partake IN the Holy Spirit but partake OF the Holy Spirit.
isn't that just another way of saying that:
From Biboboy:Agape,
"we become God by the grace of God, not by nature. As with the incarnation, there was no change and confusion of natures, so likewise in theosis, there is no change and confusion of natures. The human nature remains human, but unites with God through his own grace."
????
posted on Jun 12, 2009 - 06:14 PM
Let me put it this way:
Those who take this doctrine too far seem to think that there is so much grace, that through it, the Holy Spirit becomes part of our nature.
The problem with Fr. Matta el Meskeen is that he writes too much and inserts his theologoy subtley into his writings. The simple-minded then think that there are people out to get him because they don't see "the problem" as they're not very knowledgeable about what they're reading. Then they start talking about political issues. Pope Shenouda has nothing better to do than to waste time reading the books of an imaginative theologian because of something that happend over 20 years ago and to respond to it in detail? Is this the Pope Shenouda we've known for 38 years? Fr. Matta thinks that the last part of Mark shouldn't be there, and that the "divorce" talked about due to adultery was inserted so as to please the the audience of the Gospel. Maybe the Gospel writers were just responding to politcal issues too.
Case-in-point: if you ever heard Pope Shenouda or Metropolitan Bishoy talking about his writings, they always: 1) read the statements form his book, 2) keep asking people if they understand what's going on. At one point Pope Shenouda jokingly said, "do you understand this ... it's better that you don't."
I've read on a website that Pope Shenouda has been "accused of using things that are verbatim from Nestorius." Well, that's inflammatory. And if an atheist says that "the Sun looked pinkish today," then John Doe said, "the Sun looked pinkish today," John Doe is "using things that are verbatim from an atheist." A ridiculous attack on our hierarchy. WHAT IF what Nestorius was using to heretically describe our Lord Jesus Christ is used rightly to describe our union with the Holy Spirit? What if the website is completely fabricating the story?
Pope Shenouda (when he was Bishop Shenouda) didn't even want to write a report to Pope Kyrillos about some of the writings from Fr. Matta so as to keep him from getting ecclesiastically punished. When Pope Kyrillos inquired about the lack of the report, Bishop Shenouda told him jokingly, "if he was a bishop, he wouldn't say all of this." Pope Kyrillos smiled as he got the point - the report wouldn't have been very pleasant.
This is the same Pope Shenouda who's accused of unjustly attacking Fr. Matta.
posted on Jun 13, 2009 - 03:15 AM
St. Athanasius:
"As Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee, that they may be all one.’ Moreover, using the word ‘as,’ (Jn 17: 21) <b>He signifies those who become distantly as He is in the Father; distantly not in place but in nature; for in place nothing is far from God, but in nature only all things are far from Him.</b> And, as I said before, whose uses the particle ‘as’ implies, not identity, nor equality, but a pattern of the matter in question, viewed in a certain respect.
Indeed we may learn also from the Savior Himself, when He says, ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’ (Mt 12: 40) For Jonah was not as the Savior, nor did Jonah go down to Hades; nor was the whale Hades; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was bidden. Therefore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term ‘as,’ but one thing and another; and it shews a certain kind of parallel in the case of Jonah, on account of the three days. In like manner then we too, when the Lord says ‘as,’ neither become as the Son in the Father, nor as the Father is in the Son. For we become one as the Father and the Son in mind and agreement of spirit, and the Savior will be as Jonah in the earth; but as the Savior is not Jonah, nor, as he was swallowed up, so did the Savior descend into Hades, but it is but a parallel, in like manner, if we too become one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him; for He and we are but parallel. For on this account is the word ‘as’ applied to us; since things differing from others in nature, become as they, when viewed in a certain relation.
<b>Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without any condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by nature; but for us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed an image and example, that He may say of us, ‘As Thou in Me, and I in Thee.’ ‘And when they shall be so perfected,’</b> He says, ‘then the world knows that Thou hast sent Me, for unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of them had been perfected, but one and all had remained corruptible…
We then, by way of giving a rude view of the expressions in this passage, have been led into many words, but blessed John will shew from his Epistle the sense of the words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, and will teach how we become in God and God in us; <b>and how again we become One in Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us,</b> and will stop the Arians from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said to them, ‘Thou art a man and not God,’ (Iz 28:2) and Stretch not thyself, being poor (Pv 23: 4), beside a rich man.’ John then thus writes; <b>‘Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.’ (1Jn 4: 13) Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us; and since it is the Spirit of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father; <u>for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And the Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Radiance;</u> <i>but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not ours, but is the Spirit’s which is in us and abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve it in us, John again saying, ‘Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God.’ (1Jn 4:15) </i></b>
What then is our likeness and equality, to the Son? Rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? and especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct came to be Himself also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word."
Discourses Against Arians, discourse III, Ch 25 par 19, p.406-407.
posted on Jun 13, 2009 - 03:36 AM
FAR from being partakers IN the divine nature, St. Athanasius teaches that our union with God is based on our "participation of the Spirit" Who abides in us, and we only preserve Him in us "by the true confession," i.e. "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God." (1 John 4:15).
It is known that one cannot change what he is by nature, that's the very definition of nature. If we can unite ourselves to God by confessing Christ or break off that union by fleeing from Him, then we do not partake IN the divine nature, since we can lose the Spirit through our actions.
St. Cyril:
Therefore we mount up unto dignity <b>above our nature for Christ's sake, and we too shall be sons of God, <u>not like Him in exactitude</u></b>, but by grace in imitation of Him. For He is Very Son, existing from the Father; we adopted by His kindness, through grace receiving I have said, Ye are gods and all of you are children of the Most High (Ps 82:6). For the created and subject nature is called to what is above nature by the mere nod and will of the Father; but the Son and God and Lord will not possess this being God and Son, by the will of God the Father, nor in that He wills it only, but beaming forth of the Very Essence of the Father, He receives to Himself by nature what is Its own Good. And again He is clearly seen to be Very Son, proved by comparison with ourselves. For since that which is by Nature has another mode of being from that which is by adoption, and that which is in truth from that which is by imitation, <b>and we are called sons of God by adoption and imitation: hence He is Son by Nature and in truth, to Whom we made sons too are compared gaining the good by grace instead of by natural endowments. </b>
Now, we can selectively quote one line from a number of Church Fathers, and build a doctrine around them (like some "anonymous priest" who made a document), while ignoring their explanations of their abbreviated descriptions, or we can try to fully understand what they meant.
St. Irenaeus said "the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." Well, St. Cyril says, "Therefore we mount up unto dignity <b>above our nature for Christ's sake, and we too shall be sons of God, <u>not like Him in exactitude</u></b>, but by grace in imitation of Him." So, we could take St. Irenaeus absolutely literally, in which case he would be refuted by St. Cyril, or we could take what he meant to say spiritually. He was refuting Valentinus and his followers - those who thought that Christ's body was just for "show" but not real. In that context, in the preface of his fifth book in his "Against Heresies" he said the previously quoted text. Now, did he mean we will become as Christ or did he mean that as a real Man, who did not sin, we now have an Example to imitate as to how we should live?
Our hierarchs don't teach out of thin-air folks.
posted on Jun 13, 2009 - 04:24 AM
As for -
"we become God by the grace of God, not by nature. As with the incarnation, there was no change and confusion of natures, so likewise in theosis, there is no change and confusion of natures. The human nature remains human, but unites with God through his own grace."
Christ's one composite nature was unchangeable. The analogy fails because our union with the Holy Spirit is no where near the miaphysitic union of Christ's divine and human natures, since, as I've said, and I'm sure you agree, we can estrange ourselves from God through any subsequent lack of faith or actions on our part. Just read a passage two days ago in The Paradise of the Holy Fathers where a monk that was counted worthy to perform miracles and cast out demons fell into fornication a FEW DAYS after the thought started hitting him.
If you can say, about yourself, "my humanity has never departed from the Holy Spirit for a moment or for a twinkling of an eye" then you can say what you said. By saying that, you would be saying that you have not sinned since your baptism. Of course, Fr. Matta extremely downplays the significance of sin - it's all connected. Interesingly, this goes into "saved in a second" theology - once a person becomes Christian, it's a done deal, will go to heaven no matter what. Obviously the Holy Spirit will not abide in hades or hell, that means anyone who is as united with the Holy Spirit as Christ's humanity is united with His divinity can never go to hades.
Of course you will say, "well, it's by grace and grace can leave me if I'm unworthy." Well, yeah, that's the whole point. That possibility never existed in Christ, hence, bad analogy. It sounds good on its surface, once we delve into the implications, we find insurmountable obstacles.
So long as we start our prayers with the Thanksgiving Prayer and Psalm 50, in which we say, "do not remove Your Holy Spirit from me," we should keep our level in mind and not try to go higher than we are worth.
posted on Jun 15, 2009 - 03:38 PM
Agape,
TruthSeeker, the quotes you got from the Church Fathers supports what I wrote (and what the Church teaches) about theosis: that we become God through God's grace, not by our own nature. I'm not sure if you thought that those quotes would contradict what I wrote, but they don't - they support it.
As for your last post, you're mistaken. Theosis finds its fulfillment after the resurrection of the dead and the judgement. I don't suppose you think that we could sin again after resurrection of the dead?
_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).
"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.
In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member
+ To Protect and Preserve +
HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!
Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!
posted on Jun 15, 2009 - 07:09 PM
Define "become God," and don't just tell me you mean it like St. Athanasius meant it, because he didn't expand on that one sentence 
. Theosis finds its fulfillment after the resurrection, but those who teach the doctrine teach it as it operates <i>now</i>.
posted on Jun 16, 2009 - 05:16 AM
Agape,
When St. Athanasius wrote about theosis, he didn't have to explain it because it was understood by his audience. His concern was the battle against the Arians: the issue of the divinity of the Son and salvation through the incarnation of the Word of God. His arguments focused on: how could we become God unless God himself becomes human to save us and perfect us by renewing his image and likeness in us?
So it's not wise to turn to St. Athanasius to find out what he means by theosis, because he focused on the incarnation. For theosis, you'd have to look at the later Church Fathers (like the Cappadocians), who in their time had to develop theological anthropology and what theosis meant.
The best language used to explain theosis was the biblical language of "image of God" and "likeness of God." The distinction was made by the Fathers (except St. Athanasius) to indicate that we are in the image of God since our creation, and the goal in our life is to become the likeness of God. The Fall interrupted the growth into the likeness of God, and Christ's incarnation restored the process once again (and washed away sin). St. Basil, for example, said that the goal of human life is "to become like God, as far as this is possible for human nature" (On the Holy Spirit, p. 16 in St. Vladimir's publication). In the same book he says that the Holy Spirit does the following to the human person who is baptized: "distribution of wonderful gifts, heavenly citizenship, a place in the choir of angels, endless joy in the presence of God, becoming like God, and, the highest of all desires, becoming God" (p. 44).
What would you say to what St. Basil says here?
There's one more thing about your post: theosis is fulfilled in the resurrection. YOu mention those who talk about it as operating in the present, but you neglect to accept that theosis is a process in this life that comes to be fulfilled in the resurrection. You have to fight the good fight and continue to perfect yourself in this life, until you get the crown in heaven. That's the analogy used by St. Paul.
_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).
"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.
In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member
+ To Protect and Preserve +
HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!
Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!
posted on Jun 16, 2009 - 04:30 PM
I'd say we should focus on "to become like God, as far as this is possible for human nature," as the reality of what we undertake and "distribution of wonderful gifts, heavenly citizenship, a place in the choir of angels, endless joy in the presence of God, becoming like God, and, the highest of all desires, BECOMING God" as the DESIRE for which we try to achieve (knowing, full well, we will never achieve it).
"but you neglect to accept that theosis is a process in this life that comes to be fulfilled in the resurrection." If I have neglected to accept it, I hereby declare that I accept it .
My problem is with those who think their nature is united with the Holy Spirit IN nature.
posted on Jun 16, 2009 - 08:24 PM
From Truth.Seeker:"participation of the Spirit" .
I have never heard of the distinction between participation of the Spirit and Participation in the Spirit before. My understanding of theosis is that we participate in the uncreated energies of God, while his essence remains unknowable to us. some quotes that come to mind include: "God is known in the Holy Spirit" (St. Silouan the Athonite). Noone can say jesus is Lord except in the holy spirit. etc..
lowly
posted on Jun 16, 2009 - 08:38 PM
there is something about the text below that's making me wonder:
"For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word."
Is the above orthodox? I would have thought that what the Spirit Hath, he hath from the FATHER.
any help on this is greatly appreciated.
lowly
From Truth.Seeker:St. Athanasius:
"As Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee, that they may be all one.’ Moreover, using the word ‘as,’ (Jn 17: 21) <b>He signifies those who become distantly as He is in the Father; distantly not in place but in nature; for in place nothing is far from God, but in nature only all things are far from Him.</b> And, as I said before, whose uses the particle ‘as’ implies, not identity, nor equality, but a pattern of the matter in question, viewed in a certain respect.
Indeed we may learn also from the Savior Himself, when He says, ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’ (Mt 12: 40) For Jonah was not as the Savior, nor did Jonah go down to Hades; nor was the whale Hades; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was bidden. Therefore there is no identity nor equality signified in the term ‘as,’ but one thing and another; and it shews a certain kind of parallel in the case of Jonah, on account of the three days. In like manner then we too, when the Lord says ‘as,’ neither become as the Son in the Father, nor as the Father is in the Son. For we become one as the Father and the Son in mind and agreement of spirit, and the Savior will be as Jonah in the earth; but as the Savior is not Jonah, nor, as he was swallowed up, so did the Savior descend into Hades, but it is but a parallel, in like manner, if we too become one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not be as the Son, nor equal to Him; for He and we are but parallel. For on this account is the word ‘as’ applied to us; since things differing from others in nature, become as they, when viewed in a certain relation.
<b>Wherefore the Son Himself, simply and without any condition is in the Father; for this attribute He has by nature; but for us, to whom it is not natural, there is needed an image and example, that He may say of us, ‘As Thou in Me, and I in Thee.’ ‘And when they shall be so perfected,’</b> He says, ‘then the world knows that Thou hast sent Me, for unless I had come and borne this their body, no one of them had been perfected, but one and all had remained corruptible…
We then, by way of giving a rude view of the expressions in this passage, have been led into many words, but blessed John will shew from his Epistle the sense of the words, concisely and much more perfectly than we can. And he will both disprove the interpretation of these irreligious men, and will teach how we become in God and God in us; <b>and how again we become One in Him, and how far the Son differs in nature from us,</b> and will stop the Arians from any longer thinking that they shall be as the Son, lest they hear it said to them, ‘Thou art a man and not God,’ (Iz 28:2) and Stretch not thyself, being poor (Pv 23: 4), beside a rich man.’ John then thus writes; <b>‘Hereby know we that we dwell in Him and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.’ (1Jn 4: 13) Therefore because of the grace of the Spirit which has been given to us, in Him we come to be, and He in us; and since it is the Spirit of God, therefore through His becoming in us, reasonably are we, as having the Spirit, considered to be in God, and thus is God in us. Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father; <u>for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives from the Word. And the Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Radiance;</u> <i>but we, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God, and by the participation of the Spirit we are knit into the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not ours, but is the Spirit’s which is in us and abides in us, while by the true confession we preserve it in us, John again saying, ‘Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God.’ (1Jn 4:15) </i></b>
What then is our likeness and equality, to the Son? Rather, are not the Arians confuted on every side? and especially by John, that the Son is in the Father in one way, and we become in Him in another, and that neither we shall ever be as He, nor is the Word as we; except they shall dare, as commonly, so now to say, that the Son also by participation of the Spirit and by improvement of conduct came to be Himself also in the Father. But here again is an excess of irreligion, even in admitting the thought. For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word."
Discourses Against Arians, discourse III, Ch 25 par 19, p.406-407.
posted on Jun 16, 2009 - 09:11 PM
"My understanding of theosis is that we participate in the uncreated energies of God, while his essence remains unknowable to us."
That's right on.
"I have never heard of the distinction between participation of the Spirit and Participation in the Spirit before."
I didn't make that distinction, nor do I think St. Athanasius was making it. The distinction I'm making is that some think we partake in the nature (essence) of the Holy Spirit, which is completely flawed, like you pointed out. In other words, they think our human nature is, in essence, united with the Holy Spirit.
"For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word."
I think in the context of his discourse against the Arians, St. Athanasius was signifying that the existence of the Son is essential for the existence of the Spirit. If you read his argument, he's arguing against the Arians saying that the Son increased in the Spirit - that's what he was refuting. This is not to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (which is what I think you're getting at), this is to say that without any one Person in the Holy Trinity, there would be no Divine essence. He focuses on the Spirit because of the nature of the Arian's argument.
In short, far from the Son growing in the Spirit, there would be no God without the Son (just like there would be no God without the Father or without the Spirit), i.e. Triune God or nothing.
At least that's my understanding.
posted on Jun 17, 2009 - 04:20 AM
Agape,
Truth.Seeker, I suppose then that we're both in the same page...
Theosis is becoming God through God's grace, and it doesn't mean that we become God ontologically - we're always contingent creatures.
_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).
"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.
In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member
+ To Protect and Preserve +
HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!
Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!
posted on Jun 17, 2009 - 06:15 AM
Allow me to interrupt, but I have a feeling there still might be a distinction between the positions of Truth.Seeker and Biboboy (who I tend to agree with a bit more here). I think what Bishoy is saying is that the Fathers point out that there really goes on a deification of our nature, not only on the moral level, but really on the ontological level, and I really believe that too. I mean, what then does it mean that we receive glorified bodies in heaven? What does it mean that in God's incarnation, humanity united with the Divinity? Let''s not downplay the Power of Christ's incarnation, it was immensely powerful, and through it the entire universe is transformed, including us humans, not only morally, but also ontollogically.
Of course we don't become God in the Absolute sense, since we began somewhere, and He didn't, but I think we do become gods. Our entire existence (our essence) changes to become deified. We won't ever be completely and perfectly united to the Divinity as Christ was, but we will borrow from God the Divinity as much as is possible for us. Anchorites are able to travel and be at two places at a time, not only because of the Holiness they attained, but because of that union with God, taking from His Omnipresence. In being in heaven, we take part in God's Eternity. We become transformed into gods, and our human nature really is deified.
For us, morality and being are inseparable, the closer we are to God's moral nature (His Love, Patience, Purity etc), the closer we are to God's ontological and Spiritual nature (Eternity, Omnipresence, Omnipotence). Of course, the difference is we take, He gives. He is the Source, the Origin. By becoming more related to God's nature, we move from being His mere creation to sons of the Creator, of course never in the Absolute sense as Christ is to the Father.
I don't know maybe we all mean the same thing, unless someone disagrees with what I just said.
God Bless
posted on Jun 17, 2009 - 06:16 PM
Question:
Can the most religious Orthodox become the most blasphemous atheist? If your answer is "yes," then how can a nature that has ontologically changed to holiness do this? If grace has acted upon it before and then left it, then the nature never ontologically changed. Look at it as a timeline;
X is Orthodox in 1955
X is more Orthodox in 1957
X is even more Orthodox in 1958
X is a blaspheming atheist in 1959
How can the ontologically united with the Holy Spirit nature of X in 1958 start blaspheming? If grace left X, it must have been because X became bad, but how could X become bad if his nature was ontologically united with the Holy Spirit? Grace would have to leave him before he started becoming bad ... but if he hadn't become bad, why would grace leave him?
posted on Jun 17, 2009 - 06:20 PM
After death it's a whole new issue. Our natures do change, we definitely can't sin anymore, hence, I have less of an issue with the matter. Will everyone be at one set state of holiness (each one being at a level that was warranted by his faith and deeds on earth) or will everyone start at a different set point but increase in holiness? I don't know, pure speculation at this point. I think the EO are almost uniform in teaching that we increase in deification ... maybe. Other theologians think that we will all be taken up into God ... I don't think so.
P.S. righteous people were called gods a long time before the Incarnation of the Word ... and the Incarnate Word pointed this out to the Pharisees .
Return to the Forum Index
Powered by the coptichymns.net Network of Coptic Hymns and Coptic Orthodox Sites.
| Total | Daily | ||
| Topics: | 7767 | 2.49 | |
| Users: | 6195 | 1.99 | |
| Posts: | 64631 | 20.74 | |
516 unlogged users and No registered users online now.
Already a member? Log in above.
Not a member? Register your unique identity to participate more fully in our site!