Luther and Calvin is heretics to EO?

[Justin-H.S.]

This seems...almost like a soft pantheism. It's one thing to participate in the life and nature of God, it's another to claim you are becoming god.

It's called Weak Panentheism:

 

[ArmyMatt]

Technically, elohim. And it's a bit....spiteful(for lack of a better word.)

true, but He still makes the point that in the OT which they claimed to follow, humans are called gods.

 

[Fervent]

It's called Weak Panentheism:

Panentheism doesn't posit that things are God, but that God sustains everything. What was stated had the appearance of an ontological reality. Everything is within God in panentheism, but it is still distinct from God. And I'm not saying theosis is pantheistic, but that the statement of that poster appears pantheistic.

 

[Fervent]

true, but He still makes the point that in the OT which they claimed to follow, humans are called gods.

Sure, but so are idols.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

And I'm not saying theosis is pantheistic, but that the statement of that poster appears pantheistic.

We don't believe that we become the universe when we die. Maybe Neil DeGrasse Tyson does, but he ain't Orthodox. "We're all just star dust" and all that.

The video I posted (which is made by some sort of non-denominational Protestant apologist) explains the unity we mean when describing Theosis around ~7:27.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sure, but so are idols.

so it’s not pantheism

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Yes. I think so. But this seems different than what @ArmyMatt is saying.

They sound the same to me. Fr. Matt just doesn't mince words.

 

[Fervent]

so it’s not pantheism

Never said it was, simply that the post that I quoted bordered on pantheism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Never said it was, simply that the post that I quoted bordered on pantheism.

yeah, relooking at that post I can see it

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Right. I myself am a panENtheist but not a pantheist.

Panentheism doesn't posit that things are God, but that God sustains everything. What was stated had the appearance of an ontological reality. Everything is within God in panentheism, but it is still distinct from God. And I'm not saying theosis is pantheistic, but that the statement of that poster appears pantheistic.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

They sound the same to me. Fr. Matt just doesn't mince words.

I took you to mean something closer to what Roman Catholicism teaches. Namely, that Protestants are members of the Roman Catholic Church albeit imperfectly. I understand Matt to say that Protestants are not members of the body of Christ at all but can be.

 

[Fervent]

yeah, relooking at that post I can see it

To be fair, since I have some background knowledge I do think I understand what he was saying as I would assume he makes a distinction between becoming God in His soul and becoming God in his body maintaining that our natures do not become the divine nature but are...dissolved(can't think of a more appropriate word)...within it

 

[ArmyMatt]

To be fair, since I have some background knowledge I do think I understand what he was saying as I would assume he makes a distinction between becoming God in His soul and becoming God in his body maintaining that our natures do not become the divine nature but are...dissolved(can't think of a more appropriate word)...within it

in Orthodoxy it’s more like iron in a fire, which takes on the properties of fire without fully becoming fire

 

[Fervent]

in Orthodoxy it’s more like iron in a fire, which takes on the properties of fire without fully becoming fire

That's more or less how I understand salvation. The only area I tend to disagree with EO theology(at least in my encounters so far) is ecclesiology(and by extension sacramental).

 

[Nathaniel Red]

This seems...almost like a soft pantheism. It's one thing to participate in the life and nature of God, it's another to claim you are becoming god.

Well i did say that I was saying it more emphatically than most orthodox in order to make a point, but we do believe we are becoming god. Its not a perfect analogy, but a nail in a fire becomes red, becomes hot, and becomes bright. In the same way we become god. We become truth, we become love, we become goodness. But we don't become the fire.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's more or less how I understand salvation. The only area I tend to disagree with EO theology(at least in my encounters so far) is ecclesiology(and by extension sacramental).

sure, and one reason might be that we don’t divide the two. ecclesiology for us is inherently theology.

 

[Fervent]

sure, and one reason might be that we don’t divide the two. ecclesiology for us is inherently theology.

That's not necessarily something I disagree with, there is no division within theology or dividing theology from practical living. My divergence is that the Spirit has not led me to view a particular church as "the" church of Christ(yet), and from my studies of the fathers and history in general I see the distinct claims of EO develop and become increasingly institutional. If ever there was a "one, true church" in the institutional sense it has long since been compromised. In the west through wielding secular power, and in the East from living under the shadow of Islam.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I took you to mean something closer to what Roman Catholicism teaches. Namely, that Protestants are members of the Roman Catholic Church albeit imperfectly. I understand Matt to say that Protestants are not members of the body of Christ at all but can be.

I wasn't even thinking about Protestants or Roman Catholics. I was imagining the cannibals of the Amazon and the like. Those completely outside of Christendom. The salvation of those ignorant ones is between them and God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's not necessarily something I disagree with, there is no division within theology or dividing theology from practical living. My divergence is that the Spirit has not led me to view a particular church as "the" church of Christ(yet), and from my studies of the fathers and history in general I see the distinct claims of EO develop and become increasingly institutional. If ever there was a "one, true church" in the institutional sense it has long since been compromised. In the west through wielding secular power, and in the East from living under the shadow of Islam.

what are examples of Orthodoxy being institutional, especially because of Islam?

 

[Fervent]

what are examples of Orthodoxy being institutional, especially because of Islam?

When I say developing and becoming institutional, I'm talking about within the antenicenes. Historical evidence of the early church in Ephesus and Rome shows a councilory governance, Corinth a congregational governance, and the episcopal model present within EO being something that these churches moved towards from the pressures of persecution. The interpretations of Matt. 16 appear more to be after-the-fact rationalizations rather than actually belonging to the apostolic era and the clerical/laity divisions are more developments of the early 3rd through 4th centuries. The sacramental theology that the church centers on also is something that developed in relation to crises and were practical solutions. The notions of tradition within the EO contain more of a mythical picture of history that only arises with distance and revision which is then read into the words of the fathers rather than fitting the historical picture the evidence alone paints.