Theosis: becoming more like God.

[seekingpurity047]

Hello everyone!

I was discussing the chief end of man with a friend of mine who recently converted to the eastern orthodox faith and I asked him what the chief end of man was. He told me that it was "to become more like God." Now, I understand this concept, and indeed it makes sense. However, why should we become more like God? Who said it was the chief end of man? Why is it the chief end of man?

I would just like to better understand.

Thank you for your replies,

To the glory of God,

Randy

[buzuxi02]

Jesus said, Be perfect like your Father in heaven is Perfect. (paraphrase Matt 5.48)
The perfection of God is infinite, we can always grow towards that divine perfection without ever becoming God, simply we become more god-like.(2COR 7.1)

St. Paul teaches in (2 COR 8.9)- "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that you thru his poverty may become rich".

St. Basil the Great expanding on this says, "God became man, so men may become gods."

2 PET 1.3-4 teaches "His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, thru the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue. By which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that thru these you may become partakers of the divine nature having escaped the corruption that is in the world..."

Salvation is not static, but an ongoing transformation (2 cor 3.18)

[Orthosdoxa]

Yeah, what Buxi said.

I was also just going to add, that when I was converting, it helped me wrap my head around it to realize that theosis is simply becoming what we were meant to be in the first place, before the fall and before sin bungled everything up.

While juridical language does have a place in the east, we do not focus primarily on Christ becoming man so that He could take God's wrath so that we could be "innocent" instead of "guilty". Instead, He was the new Adam, offering us a chance to return to the Garden. He took on all that we are so that we could become all that He is.

And lest you freak out over that becoming gods line ;), it's not in the sense that the Mormons or other groups promote it. It is referring to becoming partakers of the Divine Nature, to become by grace what God is by nature. It is the return to that Adamic state - becoming True sons of God, in true communion with Him.

For further understanding, read Bishop Ware's "The Orthodox Way". It's not a long book, but it was what truly helped me begin to understand theosis (also called deification).

LK

[seekingpurity047]

And lest you freak out over that becoming gods line ;), it's not in the sense that the Mormons or other groups promote it. It is referring to becoming partakers of the Divine Nature, to become by grace what God is by nature. It is the return to that Adamic state - becoming True sons of God, in true communion with Him.

LK

AnonyKat, thank you for your reply.

I understand the concept, but for some odd reason, I can't seem to understand this whole idea of becoming "True sons of God, in true communion with Him." Because, as it says in John 1:12-13, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." It appears to me that those who receive Him then become the children of the living God. So, I don't understand the whole idea of becoming closer to our Adamic state when it says that those who receive Him, He gave the right to become children of God.

But, unfortunately, although I may be very thankful for your reply that has clearly been quite rapid (i appreciate that), my initial question has not been fully answered.

Why must we become more like God? Like, I understand that we are commanded to "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." But... why? Why would Jesus command us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven? Why? (I am sorry that this is starting to sound ignorant of me... but I'd really like to better understand this).

To the glory of God,

Randy

[seekingpurity047]

St. Paul teaches in (2 COR 8.9)- "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that you thru his poverty may become rich".

Thank you Buzuxi02 for your rapid reply. Unfortunately, however, I fail to see how this verse completely relates to become more like God. Like, I can understand that point of view, however, this verse appears quite vague to me. Like, we can ask the question... "Rich in what, Paul, rich in what?"

St. Basil the Great expanding on this says, "God became man, so men may become gods."

Isn't this said by Athanasius rather than Basil the Great? I dunno... I guess it doesn't really matter. lol...

To the glory of God,

Randy

[buzuxi02]

Dear Seekingpurity,
Dont understand it, it has never meant to be a dogma or something you "study". Its meant to be experienced!

Of course that is easier said than done. Putting theosis into practise isnt easy, not because it requires one to be a mystic or some guru, its meant for all. Rather in our secular society where temptation is all around, not to mention stress with family and jobs and social lives etc. We slip up way too much!

P.S.- It may have been said by St Athanasius im using memory.

[Theophorus]

It appears to me that those who receive Him then become the children of the living God. So, I don't understand the whole idea of becoming closer to our Adamic state when it says that those who receive Him, He gave the right to become children of God.


The thing I would consider is, what does it mean to "receive Him".


Why must we become more like God? Like, I understand that we are commanded to "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." But... why? Why would Jesus command us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven? Why? (I am sorry that this is starting to sound ignorant of me... but I'd really like to better understand this).

To the glory of God,

Randy

Because Jesus is God and we are to follow Christ.

Welcome seekingpurity047. :wave:

[Orthocat]

Why must we become more like God? Like, I understand that we are commanded to "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." But... why? Why would Jesus command us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven? Why? (I am sorry that this is starting to sound ignorant of me... but I'd really like to better understand this).


Let's suppose you are supposed to be....an apple pie. Something deep inside you knows you are supposed to be an apple pie. But currently you're still busted up into pieces - an apple, some dough, some sugar. The baker has selected you to be his finest apple pie.
The baker is right in front of you. You would do everything you could to get into his hands to become that pie - to complete what you were supposed to be. Now...that baker, in putting you together to complete you, will cut away any bad parts to make you a perfect pie. And depending upon the ingredients he has to work with, some pies may take longer to bake to perfection than others....

mmmm...apple pie :yum:

That's my very bad existential type analogy :)

[Orthosdoxa]

Why must we become more like God? Like, I understand that we are commanded to "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." But... why? Why would Jesus command us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven? Why?

Hmmm... well, that's because it's what He intended us to be all along!!! This is not a radical concept, in fact it's quite Biblical.

(NKJV)
Psalm 82:6 -- I said, "You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High

John 10:33-36 (emphasis mine) -- The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, "I said, "You are gods"'? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming,' because I said, "I am the Son of God'?
******************************

The following is part of something my 'honorary godfather' wrote to me when I was inquiring into Orthodoxy and had trouble with this concept. edit: I tried to use colors to differentiate his commentary from others. Hope it's not too messy. Take it for what it's worth, and if you don't find it helpful, just ignore it. :)

***
I think a great part of the problem has to do with certain words that tend to "push buttons". Many times I have said to Protestants that we are to become more Christlike. Never a wince! Is Christ God? Well, yes! Then... another way to say that is we are to become more Godlike. "Huh????"There go the buttons!!

<snip>

I've dug up a few definitions of "theosis" in the Orthodox sense. At least, some of these folks have translated the traditional concepts into 20th century English... we'll have to update it to 21st century ourselves...

From Jason Barker:
To explain the process in a simple (perhaps overly simplistic) way, theosis involves the transposition of the Christian from a state of mortal corruption to a state of immortal incorruption.
Immortal? No problem for Protestants... eternal life has never been a dispute. Incorruption? Cleansed of sin... is this a problem??

Ok, let's get a bit deeper....
Orthodox theologian Christoforos Stavropoulos
This is the purpose of life: that we be participants, sharers in the nature of God and in the life of Christ, communicants of divine grace and energy - to become just like God, true gods…[Theosis] means the elevation of the human being to the divine sphere, to the atmosphere of God. It means the union of the human with the divine…However, this union is not absolute. It is relative, for it is not the transformation of our essence. Rather, it is natural, ethical, and in accordance with grace. It is the union of the whole person with God.

P. E. Hughes (a Western Christian):
[Athanasius’ presentation of theosis is]the reintegration of the divine image of man’s creation through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit conforming the redeemed into the likeness of Christ, and also of the believer’s transition from mortality to immortality so that he is enabled to participate in the eternal bliss and glory of the kingdom of God.
Again we see... immortality, sactification by the Holy Spirit, become Christlike...

Fr. John Romanides (who, if I'm not mistaken, has taught seminary at both St. Vladimir's in the USA and in Thessoloniki, Greece.)
The primary purpose of faith in and theology and dogma about Christ and His relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit is to lead humanity:
1) to the purification and illumination of the heart, i.e. the therapy of the center of human personality, and
2) to glorification (theosis), which is the perfection of personhood. In the vision of the uncreated glory and rule (vasileia) of Christ in and among His saints, the members of His Body, the Church. Faith, prayer, theology, and dogma are the therapeutical methods and signposts on the road of illumination to perfection which, when reached, abolishes faith, prayer, theology, and dogma, since the final goal of these is their abolishment in glorification and selfess love (1 Cor. 13, 8, 10).

(for reference... here's 1 Cor 13:8-10 from NKJV.. Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away)

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos
The primary work of the Church is to lead man to theosis, to communion and union with God. Given this, in a sense we can say that the work of the Church is to "produce relics". Thus, Orthodox spirituality is the experience of life in Christ, the atmosphere of the new man, regenerated by the grace of God. It is not an abstract, emotional and psychological state of being. It is man's union with God.
Is "communion and union with God" that far from most Protestant concepts?

It seems to me that the thing which is most different is the idea that it's a journey. When I was a Protestant... well, I'm now a Christian and Bing-Bang-Bong... "I'm there! I've got it all!! What I have now is union with God!!" The Orthodox Church says, "Oh no! There's far more to do... you've only started!"

Hmmm... maybe I should tweak that old Carpenter's song, "We've Only Just Begun" to be sung at parties after baptisms....

<snip>

And, would it make you feel better if... well, OK, I know you've read and loved "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis.

Consider... "Christian" is a biblical word; it means... what... "Little Christs"?? And if Christ is fully God... is a Christian a god?

What does Mere Christianity have to say?
God looks at you as if you were a little Christ: Christ stands beside you to turn you into one. I daresay this idea of a divine make-believe sounds rather strange at first. But, is it so strange really? Is that not how the higher thing always raises the lower? A mother teaches her baby to talk by talking to it as if it understood long before it really does. We treat our dogs as if they were ‘almost human’: that is why they really become ‘almost human’ in the end.




LK

[vanshan]

Check out this site which discusses theosis:

http://theosis.riewe.com/index.htm

Fr. Anthony Coniaris is the author of the article, and is a respected Orthodox edit: guy. For you EOE.

Basil

[eoe]

The phrase "Orthodox Theologian" drives me nuts....
Anyhoo..
I do think it is beneficial to state that we do not believe that we will ever become fully funcitonal gods like the Mormons do. God is an infinite creature so by definition, growth in his likeness would be an eternal process and never completed. In order to become a fully functional god one would have to have a sudden moment wherein one was made infinte. This is not theosis.

[Happy Orthodox]

Why must we become more like God? Like, I understand that we are commanded to "be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." But... why? Why would Jesus command us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven? Why? (I am sorry that this is starting to sound ignorant of me... but I'd really like to better understand this).

Out of love?
When one loves another, they wish to be near each other always, right? The only way to get closer to God only when we become more like Him. An impure nature cannot live in presence of the Perfect God (the rest is the Orthodox doctrine of Hell... don't want to make an off-top here).

[Grigorii]

Fr. John Romanides (who, if I'm not mistaken, has taught seminary at both St. Vladimir's in the USA and in Thessoloniki, Greece.)

Fr. Romanides was prof. of patristics at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary not Saint Vladimir's. Few of his writings are avilable in English all of them are quite challenging.

Grigorii

[Andrea Elizabeth]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to vanshan again.

What a helpful site, thanks.

Not sure about the Theistic evolution, though, but that's off-topic.

[Orthocat]

God said to this hairless monkey, "get on with it, become a god." —C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

[rusmeister]

The phrase "Orthodox Theologian" drives me nuts....


C'mon, dude,
Take it in the liberal sense Vanshan likely means - someone who has taken serious/professional time studying the question, and who might actually be worth listening to, as a result.

Right, Vanshan? (fake questioning grin icon)

I understand what you're saying about giving special status and that particular label to people, though.

[Grigorii]

Though Mark's message intends to say the right thing, perhaps a few clarifications may be in place due the density of his language. Perhaps I do not represent his thought in all I write, but that is not my intent. I intend to clarify according to the Orthodox Tradition.

Deification and Theosis are progressive and complete simultaneously.

Deification and theosis are synonyms. Theosis is progressive, it begins at Baptism and continues into the afterlife and if St. Gregory of Nyssa is correct it continues even after the resurrection (epektasis). Completion of theosis can be ascribed to Jesus and to the Mother of God (though in St. Gregory's view this would certainly be a relative completion). Describing theosis as both progressive (suggesting ongoing transformation) and complete (suggesting a stop of the process which has been completed) is unnecessarily confusing.

We are perfect

We are no such thing. We are humans living in a world warped by the ancestral sin of our forebears. Far from perfect, we are sinners, hence the transformative power of the Jesus Prayer which brings us in God's presence acknowledging our sinfulness (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy in me, a sinner) though variants of the prayer exist. This is why Baptism is both for the forgiveness of sins and for spiritual re-birth (as is stated in the prayers in the Baptismal Service in the Orthodox Church). Baptism is our second birth, and the first resurrection.

and being perfected through being made perfect - the being made perfect is Communicative Grace - growth into HIS likeness [Theosis as Orthopraxis - the Right Practice], the Perfect in us is HIS image in us - Deification and Theosis will do that to you.

The Image of God in us (Imago Dei) is not perfect prior to Baptism. In fact it is damaged by the reality of sin, and is in need of healing (which is received in Baptism). The realization of the likeness of God is indeed by means of orthopraxis which begins with Baptism and continues in a sacramental life and personal efforts in ascetism and prayer. God's grace is free, but not cheap.

This is confirmed by Dimitru Staniloae, the Eastern Orthodox theologian in his work on Image, Likeness and Deification.

Fr. Staniloae in no way deviates from the Orthodox understanding of theosis, and does not unnecessarily obfuscate.

Salvation is both imputed [HIS Image] and imparted [HIS Likeness] - the growth in godliness is impartation and that is the active dynamic in Theosis - through ascetic struggle [Devotions and Increasing Faith through increasing Purity of Heart] and through the Communicative Grace of the Holy Spirit.

Salvation is a process in which our active participation is necessary. Salvation is not the Image of God in us, nor is the Image of God mere imputation (ascribed to, or attributed to us) it is the ground of our existence as a human being. The Likeness of God is also not mere impartation that would deny our own ascetic effort in the process of our salvation. Salvation doesn't just happen to me, nor do I make it happen on my own it is the synergistic (harmonious cooperation) with God how salvation is realized. None of the Reformation sola's are acceptable to Orthodox theology and praxis.

Clement of Alexandria wrote that human beings are made in the 'Image of God' and our human vocation is to manifest 'Likeness to God' in the manner of our Life.

Which is the standard distinction in patristics. Some, however, have rejected the distinction between Image and Likeness (St. Gregory of Nyssa) but most have followed St. Clement and Origen in this.

So would you say that it is possible for Protestant Reformed Doctrine and Eastern Orthodox Theology to be discussing the same process?

If the Reformed tradition subscribes to the Scriptural/Patristic doctrine and praxis of theosis,.. Yes. But to my knowledge such is not the case. Those interrested might ask this question on the Reformed forums and let the Reformed tradition speak for itself.


Grigorii

[choirfiend]

If we are to speak, can we please do so using real sentences with words that are understood and impart a single meaning, rather than lists of "theological" gobbledygook that is completely meaningless in any purposeful sort of way?

[Andrea Elizabeth]

Grigorii,

What do you think our state is at baptism, if not perfection? Justin Martyr referred to the newly baptized as the "illuminated" in his Apology. My priest also refers to the newly baptized as the "newly illumined" in the post baptismal prayers. Then the Sacrament of Confession renews this state in us, does it not?

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.

[Andrea Elizabeth]

If we are to speak, can we please do so using real sentences with words that are understood and impart a single meaning, rather than lists of "theological" gobbledygook that is completely meaningless in any purposeful sort of way?

I don't really find it that way, but then I've been densely listening for a while. Dictionaries are very helpful. :)

[choirfiend]

I fully understand the meaning of the words. Put together in such a manner, they are meaningless, however. Especially coming from a non-Orthodox source who can be meaning anything and everything by them. In this discussion, they are meaningless.

[Andrea Elizabeth]

Choirfriend,

This is the meaning I place on Mark's post, which by the way has been added to.

I would distinguish between the 'Nietzschean' statement "we are perfect" and the Christological statement that we are declared perfect.

I'm not sure about the first application of perfect, but in being declared perfect, it is my understanding that at baptism, we are indeed cleansed from all our sins in our identification in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. This occurs after a lifetime confession of sins where we are forgiven. So for a split second, we are actually perfect in that we are without sin. However our capacity to be like God is still very small and immature, so Theosis is our progress after that of increasing our capacities and being increasingly filled with Him.

On the Image of God - this is a soteriological action not an ontological attribution.

It is my understanding that we are made in the Image of God, and that His Likeness was distorted by the fall, and that actually Adam had potential for His Likeness and had not even achieved it yet. So I do not see having His image as soteriological (occuring when saved) but ontological (part of our created nature). I'm open for correction on any of my understandings.

In dealing with Synergy we need to look at impartation, receptivity and reciprocity simultaneously.

Impartation meaning the grace that we receive from the Holy Spirit through revelation, prayer, or through a priest as in the Sacraments. Synergy/cooperation with this grace depends on our receptivity/openness to it, and how it becomes incorporated in our lives.

That's my take on it anyway.

edited to take out the word "full" in reference to having God's likeness.

[Andrea Elizabeth]

Andrea

This is an interesting treatment of Image and Likeness.

Love.

Mark

Mark

I've heard it from lots of sources, though I cant think of who they are offhand. I think this is the Scripture that is being interpreted that way.

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Regarding imputation, Fr. Conairis talks about achieving Theosis through (reading?) the Bible, prayer, and the Sacraments. All by grace of course. So I think the difference is that we view this imparted grace as achieving efficacious cleansing rather than positional cleansing?

Though if one is "In Christ" at baptism (whether you believe this to be spiritual or accompanied by physical), then this position naturally effects a real cleansing? Now and not yet.

Another difference would be the effect of unconfessed sins or those committed after baptism. I don't think we jump in and out of Christ soteriologically every time we sin and confess it, but neither do I think continuing in unconfessed sin has no effect on our position in Christ.

[choirfiend]

It's not so much a "treatment" as it is the Orthodox teaching on image and likeness.

We retain the image. The likeness is blurred. In Christ, we may, by the grace of God, return to the likeness.

If this basic Orthodox teaching is seemingly new, what does all the rest of the theobabble matter? We need Orthodox teaching inquirers in this forum, not the other way around.

[Grigorii]

Grigorii

I like this response.

Thank you.

I would distinguish between the 'Nietzschean' statement "we are perfect" and the Christological statement that we are declared perfect.

That's fine, but we are not declared perfect either, Nietzschean or otherwise.

On the Image of God - this is a soteriological action not an ontological attribution.

Perhaps in your theology Mark, but this is an Orthodox forum, and the Scriptures + Fathers teach us differently. Fr. Sergius Bulgakov writes:" Man's capacity for participating in the Divine is the divine image, which is the very foundation of his being (The Bride of the Lamb, p. 300)." and also: "Man is created in the image of God. In his personal consciousness man possesses the image of the divine hypostasis; as a member of the human race he possesses the image of the union of the three hypostases: he is conscious of himself not only as I, but as you and as we (The Orthodox Church -online edition)." Again Fr. Sergius writes:"The Image of God is therefore manifested, first of all, in the person, which is the principle of creativity and freedom. However, because this creativity is not absolute but presupposes a given in human nature, the Image of God in man is a task requiring realization, and this is the likeness of God (The Bride of the Lamb, p. 135)."

In dealing with Synergy we need to look at impartation, receptivity and reciprocity simultaneously.

That's fine, as long as we recognize we are not saved by faith alone. "Human energy necessarily participates in the work of salvation, that is in the assimilation of deification, even if the degree of this participation is diminished by original sin (The Bride of the Lamb, p. 306)."


The salvation of all men is, then, the deification of human nature. Individual salvation is the appropriation of this gift by a personal effort, for deification is not a physical or magical act on man, but an interior action, a work of grace, in man. This work is accomplished in man with the cooperation of human liberty and not without his will. It is life in Christ, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The effort of man is joined mysteriously to the gift of God, by this capacity for deification. The whole man must be engaged in this effort. Man must strive to become Godlike through the action of faith, which testifies of man's redemption by the blood of Christ and his reconciliation with God. But the striving for salvation is also expressed by works, which are the natural fruit of faith and constitute at the same time the way, the life of faith: "Faith without works is dead." Faith and its works: this is man's share in his deification through the power of Christ, this is the realization of man's likeness to God, of the image of God restored in man, the image which is the Christ.
Here there is no place for the idea of merit of any sort — supererogatory or not — by which man might acquire the full right to the gift of grace, for grace is incommensurable with any merit, whatever it may be, and remains a pure gift, a free gift (gratia gratis data). Good works do not constitute merit — no one merits or can merit salvation by human works. They represent man's personal participation in achieving salvation, beyond any reckoning or compensation. The capacity for deification, for becoming God-like, is without limit, like eternity. This is why the idea of works of supererogation or of merit is just as erroneous as that other extreme, according to which man has no part in the realization of his salvation, under the pretext that the latter is already accomplished for us by God, and that it is sufficient to learn this by an act of faith. Faith is not an instantaneous act, but an enduring process which is constantly perfected; and for this, it should be active in good works.

From his The Orthodox Church (available online as edited by the late Bishop Alexander Mileant); "Orthodox Dogma."

I would like to understand more about HOW the Image of God is restored in us in your theology if I understand you correctly in saying that the IMAGO DEI or the IMAGO TRINITAS has become marred or corrupted through the Fall?

Insofar as the Image of God is a task to be realized, it is marred by original sin. That is, man has failed to realize this Image but has fallen in a contrary motion. A movement away from God rather than towards Him, and towards the realization of this Image in the Likeness. The potentiality in man to live divinely has been affected. The connection between his personal spirit and his nature has become warped so that the passions run amock. In this consists the damage done to the Image of God in man. But the Image is not destroyed. The restoration of the Image of God in man therefore, begins in Baptism, for this is the sacrament of regeneration and spiritual rebirth.

I understand Baptism as a soteriologically efficacious sacrament BUT how does this relate to the work of the Cross?

As follows:
1. Baptism is a spiritual birth. In putting on Christ the natural man dies, together with the original sin innate in him. A new man is engendered. It is the appropriation of the saving power of the redemptive work of Christ. Baptism is the only sacrament which, in the absence of a priest, may be administered by a layman (man or woman). But it can be administered only by the power of the Church, whose instrument the Christian is. The form for baptism is a triple immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity. Christian baptism conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity is valid. As a rule those who have been baptized once are not re-baptized, save in exceptional circumstances. The Orthodox Church - online edition

What is the exact nature of your Nicene Enhypostatic Christology and what are the implications for our Humanity and Orthopraxis?

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


Concerning the Nature of Christ: The definition of Chalcedon

"Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, (1) unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us."

It implies for our humanity that God has become one of us (to answer the question of Joanne Osborne's song) and that by this action our salvation has begun. The corresponding [I]orthropraxis is living a Christian life in the Church. Which includes the sacraments, fasts, Liturgies, etc.

You say Father John Romanides is important - numerous Orthoodx theologians consider him to be "eccentric" and to have highly subjective readings of the Fathers - which theologians support his material?

I did not say important I said he is challenging. I am not one of Fr. John's supporters. Though I did enjoy reading his book on Ancestral Sin which lays down some very basic Orthodox concepts concernign the nature of God, creation, sin, and salvation. Despite the polemics and exaggerations. Also Fr. Romanides posits a hermeneutical theory of reading Scripture that cannot be ignored. There are Greek Orthodox theologians who support Fr. Romanides. He has not found many supporters outside Greece that I know of.

Do you mean the Parousia and the final resurrection?

No I meant Baptism. The second resurrection is what you call the final resurrection.

How does this reconcile with Paul's transformation in a twinkling of an eye?

How does it conflict with Paul's teaching?


Grigorii

[Grigorii]

Grigorii,

What do you think our state is at baptism, if not perfection? Justin Martyr referred to the newly baptized as the "illuminated" in his Apology. My priest also refers to the newly baptized as the "newly illumined" in the post baptismal prayers. Then the Sacrament of Confession renews this state in us, does it not?

Perhaps the words of St. Justin are self-explanatory here:


And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. - emphasis added by me -

Grigorii

[Grigorii]

It's not so much a "treatment" as it is the Orthodox teaching on image and likeness.

We retain the image. The likeness is blurred. In Christ, we may, by the grace of God, return to the likeness.

If this basic Orthodox teaching is seemingly new, what does all the rest of the theobabble matter? We need Orthodox teaching inquirers in this forum, not the other way around.

:thumbsup:

Grigorii

[Mark Downham]

Insofar as the Image of God is a task to be realized, it is marred by original sin.

Grigorii

I find this statement interesting.

Love.

Mark

[Grigorii]

Grigorii

I find this statement interesting.

Love.

Mark

To clarify; The Image of God is to become likeness,.. this proces has become disrupted. That's what my statement means.

Grigorii

[Andrea Elizabeth]

Andrea

In dealing with this particular verse it depends how you treat, assign and locate the 'primary normative agency' - we would locate that agency in Image although I can see that if you assume Adam and Eve are in a state of 'immaturity' - you would locate it in Likeness.

Love.

Mark


I like Grigorii's clarification,

To clarify; The Image of God is to become likeness,.. this process has become disrupted.

This demonstrates how Salvation is a restoration of who we are, becoming who we are meant to be - Theosis.

I suppose the difference in how we view the pre-fall state of Adam and Eve is that we do not believe they had attained total Christ-likeness. Grigorii would be able to give a more sourced and precise explanation. But I'm not sure how that affects our post-baptismal journey to Theosis.

[Andrea Elizabeth]

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. Apology LXI

Grigorii,

This chapter as well as LXV emphasizes how we cooperate with the grace imparted at baptism by choice and repentence to become illuminated, and adds that the illumination is in their understandings. I do not know if that is limited to intellectual/mind understanding or has a more wholistic use, but that is probably beside the point. Though we have approached this topic before.

[TheGMan]

I was also just going to add, that when I was converting, it helped me wrap my head around it to realize that theosis is simply becoming what we were meant to be in the first place, before the fall and before sin bungled everything up.

Just thought I'd pick up on this.

I read recently, without verifying it at source, that Saint Irenaeus taught that even if we hadn't fallen, the Son would still have been incarnated, still been crucified, still been resurrected, because there was more that we can be. Now previously I had thought Saint Irenaeus to be a rather spiteful heresiologist who made up slanders about gnostics. But this, to me, is a rather wonderful insight. I was just wondering how much currency it has in the Eastern Church.

[rusmeister]

Mark,
I find it very interesting that you are drawn to orthodox-style monasticism yet are not Orthodox.
Why have you not become Orthodox?

[Theophorus]

Just thought I'd pick up on this.

I read recently, without verifying it at source, that Saint Irenaeus taught that even if we hadn't fallen, the Son would still have been incarnated, still been crucified, still been resurrected, because there was more that we can be. Now previously I had thought Saint Irenaeus to be a rather spiteful heresiologist who made up slanders about gnostics. But this, to me, is a rather wonderful insight. I was just wondering how much currency it has in the Eastern Church.

It is accepted by some that Christ would have incarnated regardless. Adam and Eve were not perfected yet, hence the fall.

The basic idea is that Adam and Eve were innocent, children, babes.; not perfect.

One of the things that is sought is Christ's statement of becoming as little children.

[seekingpurity047]

Hey everyone! Thank you so much for your replies!

I am very sorry for not being able to respond sooner, but I have been in dispose since last night (with being sick and seeing family today and all...)

Anyways, I understand all of your explanations as to "why" we are to pursue becoming more like God, however, as you probably already know since you have clearly seen my faith icon, I am a calvinist and I believe that the chief end of man is to glorify God. This is found in 1 Cor. 10:31 "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

Now, the reason I bring this up is simply because I believe that, if we are to become more like God, we should do it for the right reasons, and, since we are commanded to glory of God in all that we do as illustrated in 1 Cor 10:31, we are then to become more like Him for Him and His glory. This is not simply because He commanded me to be perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect, but because I desire to glorify God in becoming perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect.

Do you understand this in the same perspective as I do, or am I getting this completely wrong?

Another thing that I would like to add. I have noticed that many evangelicals have been converting to Eastern Orthodoxy in recent times. I would like to understand like... do you believe that people such as I are heretics? This is an honest question, I would really like to know...

Thank you,

Randy

[Andrea Elizabeth]

Hey everyone! Thank you so much for your replies!

I am very sorry for not being able to respond sooner, but I have been in dispose since last night (with being sick and seeing family today and all...)

Anyways, I understand all of your explanations as to "why" we are to pursue becoming more like God, however, as you probably already know since you have clearly seen my faith icon, I am a calvinist and I believe that the chief end of man is to glorify God. This is found in 1 Cor. 10:31 "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

Now, the reason I bring this up is simply because I believe that, if we are to become more like God, we should do it for the right reasons, and, since we are commanded to glory of God in all that we do as illustrated in 1 Cor 10:31, we are then to become more like Him for Him and His glory. This is not simply because He commanded me to be perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect, but because I desire to glorify God in becoming perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect.

Do you understand this in the same perspective as I do, or am I getting this completely wrong?

Another thing that I would like to add. I have noticed that many evangelicals have been converting to Eastern Orthodoxy in recent times. I would like to understand like... do you believe that people such as I are heretics? This is an honest question, I would really like to know...

Thank you,

Randy

Randy,

Sorry you were sick.

I think the difference is in how one becomes more like God and glorifies Him. Vashan's link describes how we believe a transformation takes place where becoming like God is a natural result. The transformation occurs as we make ourselves available to the Grace of God through prayer, studying, obeying, and through the Sacramental Life of the Church.

Do you see a difference there?

I think the Church in the last millinium has veered away from calling people heretics, and puts more emphasis on beliefs being in line with the dogmatic decrees or not. Thus I have observed that "heretical" beliefs are more focused on in a therapeutic way, than is judging a person as a heretic.

[choirfiend]

I dont think there is anyhting we can do that will bring additional glory to God. He's pretty glorious without us, and nothing we do will add to thqat. We can, however, act in accordance with God's glorious will, which is His likeness and perhaps then a reflection of His glory.

I dont know if you're a heretic. You might believe some things that the Orthodox teach are heresies--but I have no idea about that as of now. And heresy also implies full knowledge and willing rejection of the Church's teaching, continuing in falsehood after correction. Since you're not in the Orthodox Church, I dont think you quite fit the bill for a heretic:) That's my very honest answer.

[Theophorus]

Hey everyone! Thank you so much for your replies!

I am very sorry for not being able to respond sooner, but I have been in dispose since last night (with being sick and seeing family today and all...)

Anyways, I understand all of your explanations as to "why" we are to pursue becoming more like God, however, as you probably already know since you have clearly seen my faith icon, I am a calvinist and I believe that the chief end of man is to glorify God. This is found in 1 Cor. 10:31 "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

Now, the reason I bring this up is simply because I believe that, if we are to become more like God, we should do it for the right reasons, and, since we are commanded to glory of God in all that we do as illustrated in 1 Cor 10:31, we are then to become more like Him for Him and His glory. This is not simply because He commanded me to be perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect, but because I desire to glorify God in becoming perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect.

Do you understand this in the same perspective as I do, or am I getting this completely wrong?

Another thing that I would like to add. I have noticed that many evangelicals have been converting to Eastern Orthodoxy in recent times. I would like to understand like... do you believe that people such as I are heretics? This is an honest question, I would really like to know...

Thank you,

Randy

One of the teachings of the Church is that God has need of nothing. He iscomplete in Himself. The grace of God is a natural outflowing of His love. This grace created the angels, universe and man, plus gives us our salvation.
Of course we glorify God, and it is a natural aspect of being something created traveling towards his creator.
But I would not say that is our purpose. Our purpose is to be in communion with Him. But keep in mind that by being in this comunion it restores the Glory of creation. This is a part of theosis as well as sacramental theology.

[buzuxi02]

Anyone who does good, Follows His statutes, Imitates Christ (and all that entails) and yes glorifies God, has already entered into theosis.
Its not some sort of complex doctrine or mysticism. Are you doing the above? Then you are already walking in the path of godliness and partaking of it.