Split - "Still Spinning"

[Ovedya]

Apothanein Kerdos:

Hmmmmm. You may have a little bit of an argument with we Pentecostals on one ground, and with the Eastern Christians on other grounds! How do you feel about the Eastern doctrine of theosis?

Respectfully, but firmly we do not become gods, we are transformed into the image of Christ but in no way equal...For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Romans 8:29 NKJV

Theosis does not teach that we become gods (little gods) equal in status and authority with God, but that we become God in life and in nature. Look it up

[David from New Bern]

Apothanein Kerdos:

Hmmmmm. You may have a little bit of an argument with we Pentecostals on one ground, and with the Eastern Christians on other grounds! How do you feel about the Eastern doctrine of theosis?

Respectfully, but firmly we do not become gods, we are transformed into the image of Christ but in no way equal...For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Romans 8:29 NKJV

Theosis does not teach that we become gods (little gods) equal in status and authority with God, but that we become God in life and in nature. Look it up

While brevity is certainly polite, since you brought it up and have a more contemporary definition than its church history origins please educate me with your working definition. Even though we may be digressing from CharlieC's current thread. And please understand I am genuinely interested in a productive converation and am humble enough to admit if I am wrong and enjoy the challenge to think outside my opinion. I hope you are participating with the same potential. May I call you brother?

[apothanein kerdos]

Apothanein Kerdos:

Hmmmmm. You may have a little bit of an argument with we Pentecostals on one ground, and with the Eastern Christians on other grounds! How do you feel about the Eastern doctrine of theosis?

Maybe I'm not understanding Eastern theosis, and if I am I wouldn't be suprised because I haven't studied it that much. Anyway, to me it's not completely accurate. We cannot become holy as God is holy, even through Christ, because His holiness is part of His ontology, something that even theosis states we cannot achieve. We are to strive to be like God (perfect in all that we do) but, even in the new, perfect world, we will not hold the same level of holiness that God holds. Furthermore, I do not believe we can become "more like God" than Adam and Eve were....sanctification is a process to bring us back to who we were before the fall. To me, this becomes a form of dualism; seeking out the spiritual solution in order to achieve a state of being that is higher than we were originally physically created to be.

[Leonard]

Do you think Adam and Eve were meant to be in spiritual stasis? I think they were capable of growing spiritually. And whereas theosis does not suggest we 'become gods' (al`a the Mormons' neopaganism), it does suggest we can and should take on a deeper and deeper infusion of His divine Nature. I think you have both a good grasp of what theosis is, and the excesses sometimes associated with it. Ever read in the Philokalia?

[David from New Bern]

It is pretty apparent to me participating and spectating in this thread, that it is semantical. But, thanks to all of you for challenging my mind. Like most of these theological debates that I have participated in through the years in the classroom, dorm, or coffee shop. People insist on using a word that bothers you or that people develop sudden amnesia concerning the roots of historical argument. In such cases I insist we return to the simple terminology based on good hermeneutics. We were created in God's image. This meant we were compatiable with God in that we have an intelligence but finite compared to his omniscience. We are definitely emotional creatures as God, but His emotions are always led by His flawless character. Our emotions follow our ego driven lives. As God has a will man has a will, but again character separates us. Man was not comparable to God's qualitity but created with the capability to relate or have fellowship with God in these areas. Intimacy with God was possible, but lost in Genesis 3 when distrust was introduced by the serpent. In an instant, sweet intimacy was destroyed between man and God and man and woman. Cast out of the garden as the result of the selfish ego that preferred self promotion over intimacy with God, the resulting sinful tendency becomes the rest of human history up to this point. The Bible is the story of God's redemptive plan to restore the innocence man had at creation. It is then through sanctification (bringing man to the image of Christ) that we explore the superior character of God and we learn of His loves and His hates which promotes and restores the intimacy lost in the garden. A man with his Creator in transparent fellowship. When redemptions plan is complete He gives us total victory over this inferior flesh. Then we will live in perfect compatibility the way He designed. A superior with a subordinate in an environment of no competition or rebellion.

In the development of the doctrine of theosis, or in any sectarian take or interpretation, if it disagrees with this original state, developing plight, or restoration plan. It is my opinion in error. If someone believe that sinless perfection happens this side of the grave, I believe that they have closed their eyes to reality. I think a lot of bad doctrine developes from missing this understanding of the "image of God" and the "image of Christ".

Edited February 25, 2006 by David from New Bern

[Ovedya]

I disagree with the premise that the current "working understanding" of a certain theological viewpoint is undermined by it's original source or root. While some of the adherants of theosis might have taken their theology to an unhealthy extreme (ie. that theosis leads to an absolute transformation of the believers into minor deities) the truth concerning theosis need not be irreparably damaged by those persons.

God created man with a specific intent, purpose, and with a goal. That goal, according to the entire revelation of the Scriptures, is to have a group of people created in His image, and with His likeness, to be filled with Him as life (Zoe) to be built up into a corporate expression of Himself. The process by which God imparts His divine life into His redeemed and regenerated sons, transforming them and conforming them to the image of the Firstborn, Jesus Christ, and finally glorifying them in resurrection to become the New Jerusalem (Which is the bride and wife of Christ in eternity) is called theosis.

It is important, I think, when one discusses theosis to include the very important distinction between "god" in life and nature and "God" the Person. When Athanasius wrote, "God became man in order that we may become gods" he was essentially simplifying Irenaeus' formula, "The Word (became) man...and the Son of God (became) son of man so that man... might become a son of God." However, when one reads that familiar Athanasian phrase one tends to cringe a bit because he is unaware that Athanasius was referring to the nature of God not to the Person of God. Theosis does not teach that through the impartation of God's divine life and nature men become "gods" in the sense of becoming deities, but that we become God in life and nature, newly created beings composed both of the renewed and transformed old creation and God's uncreated interminable, and indestructable life.

[David from New Bern]

Ovedya...I accept your disagreement as that a disagreement about church history. I will even grant you that they are viable subjective reads of what you quote. But, for my benefit is there any disagreement with this explanation....Does this offend your understanding of Theosis?

We were created in God's image. This meant we were compatiable with God in that we have an intelligence but finite compared to his omniscience. We are definitely emotional creatures as God, but His emotions are always led by His flawless character. Our emotions follow our ego driven lives. As God has a will man has a will, but again character separates us. Man was not comparable to God's qualitity but created with the capability to relate or have fellowship with God in these areas. Intimacy with God was possible, but lost in Genesis 3 when distrust was introduced by the serpent. In an instant, sweet intimacy was destroyed between man and God and man and woman. Cast out of the garden as the result of the selfish ego that preferred self promotion over intimacy with God, the resulting sinful tendency becomes the rest of human history up to this point. The Bible is the story of God's redemptive plan to restore the innocence man had at creation. It is then through sanctification (bringing man to the image of Christ) that we explore the superior character of God and we learn of His loves and His hates which promotes and restores the intimacy lost in the garden. A man with his Creator in transparent fellowship. When redemptions plan is complete He gives us total victory over this inferior flesh. Then we will live in perfect compatibility the way He designed. A superior with a subordinate in an environment of no competition or rebellion.

In the development of the doctrine of theosis, or in any sectarian take or interpretation, if it disagrees with this original state, developing plight, or restoration plan. It is my opinion in error. If someone believe that sinless perfection happens this side of the grave, I believe that they have closed their eyes to reality. I think a lot of bad doctrine developes from missing this understanding of the "image of God" and the "image of Christ".

[Ovedya]

No, actually it does not. Essentially I believe that theosis goes further than simply restoring fellowship, but places us in the position of receiving God's very divine life (Which is imparted through close intimate fellowship, of course), which was lost in the garden. In His creation of man, God breathed into Him the breath of life. He then set that man in the midst of a garden, at the center of which was the tree of life. So although man was complete with body soul and spirit, he still lacked the divine life of God, which was represented in that tree. It is through the sacrifice of Christ that access to that tree is restored. God's righteousness and His holiness (represented by the cherubim & sword) have both been satisfied by the shed blood of Christ and now man can freely partake of that tree. Of course, the culmination of that which is taking place in the lives of God's people will not be realized until the resurrection.

[Fiosh]

No, actually it does not. Essentially I believe that theosis goes further than simply restoring fellowship, but places us in the position of receiving God's very divine life (Which is imparted through close intimate fellowship, of course), which was lost in the garden. In His creation of man, God breathed into Him the breath of life. He then set that man in the midst of a garden, at the center of which was the tree of life. So although man was complete with body soul and spirit, he still lacked the divine life of God, which was represented in that tree. It is through the sacrifice of Christ that access to that tree is restored. God's righteousness and His holiness (represented by the cherubim & sword) have both been satisfied by the shed blood of Christ and now man can freely partake of that tree. Of course, the culmination of that which is taking place in the lives of God's people will not be realized until the resurrection.

I ask this out of sheer curiousity, since I've never heard this before: Can you explain why you imply that man was not allowed to eat of the tree while he walked in fellowship with God?

To maybe clarify my question a bit...you state that the tree represents the "divine life of God". Why did God withhold that from Adam & Eve? Not sure I follow you.

Thanks,

Fiosh

[Ovedya]

No, actually it does not. Essentially I believe that theosis goes further than simply restoring fellowship, but places us in the position of receiving God's very divine life (Which is imparted through close intimate fellowship, of course), which was lost in the garden. In His creation of man, God breathed into Him the breath of life. He then set that man in the midst of a garden, at the center of which was the tree of life. So although man was complete with body soul and spirit, he still lacked the divine life of God, which was represented in that tree. It is through the sacrifice of Christ that access to that tree is restored. God's righteousness and His holiness (represented by the cherubim & sword) have both been satisfied by the shed blood of Christ and now man can freely partake of that tree. Of course, the culmination of that which is taking place in the lives of God's people will not be realized until the resurrection.

I ask this out of sheer curiousity, since I've never heard this before: Can you explain why you imply that man was not allowed to eat of the tree while he walked in fellowship with God?

To maybe clarify my question a bit...you state that the tree represents the "divine life of God". Why did God withhold that from Adam & Eve? Not sure I follow you.

Thanks,

Fiosh

Sorry if my statements were a little unclear. It is not that man was not permitted to eat of the tree of life or that it was withheld from him prior to the fall. In fact, that man take freely of the tree life was clearly God's intention. However, man partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil first so therefore, it was necessary that God cut off the way to the tree of life:

"Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life." (Gen. 3:22-24)