Theosis: A Lutheran Doctrine

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Everybody keep in mind my recent thread, please...

I disagree with many of the teachings about theosis, though since it seems to mean something different to every group of Orthodox it is hard to nail down.

First, the definition of theosis, if it's that much of a problem:

The Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, became what we are, that we might become what he is himself.
God became man that we might become god.
A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God Himself became man.

The central idea of theosis is that through the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ, we are, over time, united to God in Christ. Christ comes to dwell in us, and we are united to the essence of God- the same essence that is the one essence of the three persons of the Trinity and the same essence that is one of the two essences in the one person of God. This process is begun at baptism, continued throughout life, and consumated at the resurrection. And it is through this process that the image of God in humanity is repaired, until we reflect the love of God so perfectly that we indeed take part in the essence of God, love.

It does not contradict: 1. Justification by grace alone through faith alone, 2. the forensic (legal, declaratory) nature of justification, 3. the double imputation of our guilt and Christ's righteousness (indeed, it depends on the latter). While the Orthodox believe that a believer is furthered along in the process of theosis by their good deeds (and this is surely wrong), this is not essential to the overall concept of deification/theosis; it is the method, not the project.

But is this idea in Scripture? Lets have a look....

He has given us all the things that we need for life and for true devotion, bringing us to know God himself... through them you will be able to share the divine nature.

. . . the two will become one body. . . This mystery applies to Christ and the Church.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, with our unveiled faces reflecting like mirrors the brightness of the Lord, all grow brighter and brighter as we are turned into the image that we reflect; this is the work of the Lord who is Spirit.

And is it in Luther?....

Christ is God's grace, mercy, righteousness, truth, wisdom, power, comfort, and salvation, given to us by God without any merit on our part. Christ, I say, not as some express it in blind words, 'casually,' so that he grants righteousness and remains absent himself , for that would be dead. Yes, it is not given at all unless Christ himself is present, just as the radiance of the sun and the heat of fire are not present if there is no sun and no fire.
...and we are so filled "with all sorts of God's abundance," which is in the Hebrew manner as much as saying that we are filled in all ways in which he makes full, and, full of God we are showered with all gifts and grace and filled with his Spirit, so that it makes us courageous and illuminated by his light, and his life lives in us, his beautitude makes us blessed, his love awakens love in us. In short, that everything he is and can do be in us fully and affect vigorously, so that we become completely divine, not having a piece of even a few pieces of God, but all abundance. Much has been written about how man is to become divine; they have made ladders on which one might climb.... But this is all vain beggar's work; here the right and closest way to get there is shown so that you may become full of God, that you may not be lacking any piece, but have everything all together, that everything you say or think, everywhere you go, in sum: that your whole life be completely divine.

And in the Book of Concord?

There is a long exposition of John 15 in Cyril which teaches that Christ is offered to us bodily in the Supper. He says: “We do not deny that we are joined to Christ spiritually by true faith and sincere love. But we do deny that we have no kind of connection with him according to the flesh, and we say that this would be completely foreign to the sacred Scriptures. Who has ever doubted that Christ is a vine in this way and that we are truly branches, deriving life from him for ourselves? Listen to Paul say, ‘We are all one body in Christ’ (Rom. 12:5); ‘We who are many are one body, for we all partake of the same loaf’ (1 Cor. 10:17). Does he think perhaps that we do not know the power of the mystical benediction? Since this is in us, does it not also cause Christ to dwell in us bodily through the communication of the flesh of Christ?” A little later he says, “Therefore we must consider that Christ is in us, not only according to the habit which we understand as love, but also by a natural participation,” etc. (Apology X:3, p. 179)

We must also explain correctly the discussion concerning the indwelling of God’s essential righteousness in us. On the one hand, it is true indeed that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who is the eternal and essential righteousness, dwells by faith in the elect who have been justified through Christ and reconciled with God, since all Christians are temples of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who impels them to do rightly. But, on the other hand, this indwelling of God is not the righteousness of faith of which St. Paul speaks and which he calls the righteousness of God, on account of which we are declared just before God. This indwelling follows the preceding righteousness of faith, which is precisely the forgiveness of sins and the gracious acceptance of poor sinners on account of the obedience and merit of Christ. (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration III:54, pp. 548-49)

...we unanimously reject and condemn...the following and all similar errors as contrary to the Word of God, the teaching of the prophets and apostles, and our Christian faith: ... That not God but only the gifts of God dwell in believers. (Solid Declaration III:59,65, p. 550)

Next to the article of the holy Trinity, the greatest mystery in heaven and on earth is the personal union [of the two natures in Christ], as Paul says, “Great indeed is the mystery of our religion: God was manifested in the flesh” (I Tim. 3:16). Since St. Peter testifies with clear words that even we, in whom Christ dwells only by grace, have in Christ, because of this exalted mystery, “become partakers of the divine nature” (II Pet. 1:4), what kind of participation in the divine nature must that be of which the apostle says that “in Christ the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9) in such a way that God and man are a single person! (Solid Declaration VIII:33-34, p. 597)

Looks to me like union with Christ and deification are straight up biblical, Lutheran doctrine.

Indeed, the only real denial of it, I think, can come from crypto-Calvinists who deny the capax, the doctrine that the finite can and has comprehended the infinite, both in the incarnation and Holy Communion. That, or the rejection of Luther's argument that to have the righteousness of God is to have God the righteousness, put forward by Friedrich Schleiermacher and other modernists.

[LilLamb219]

Deification? Us?

[DaRev]

I believe we Lutherans call it "Sanctification."

[Edial]

You appears to have edited one distinct point in the following quote.

by St. Athanasius
God became man that we might become god.

...
The last word "god" is capital G.

St.Athanasius quote is -
"God became man that we might become God".

I had some debates with the EO concerning the capitalization of the letter G.

The only Scriptural reference that the EO could point to support their understanding of the "theosis", is in the text where we "share in the divine nature".

"Sharing in the divine nature" could mean a number of things.
It is a stretch to say that we become God with a capital G.

Now, the EO are saying that one does not really become God in essense, but nonetheless, becomes God with a capital G.

I find that statement lacking Scriptural evidence.

And since the EO actively and openly promotes their OWN authority AT PAR or ABOVE the Scriptures, they give themselves the right to make some of the most outrageous statements concerning the Supernatural.

They made it up.

Thanks,
Ed

[LilLamb219]

I believe we Lutherans call it "Sanctification."

Now that I understand very well. It is a better term biblically than the word deification which has a meaning that goes beyond what scriptures says.

[filosofer]

Everybody keep in mind my recent thread, please...


Looks to me like union with Christ and deification are straight up biblical, Lutheran doctrine.


Despite your qualifier, I think I have seen this path taken before on this board.

Perhaps more study of Lutheran authors and less of Orthodox might be in order.



But hey, this is just an old(er) codger rambling again. :D



In Christ's love,
filo

[Melethiel]

Is Johann Gerhard Lutheran enough? :P

[RayJGentry]

While some of the Luther works you cite would seem to support this, you forget that in the whole body of his work we learn that yes, we are made completely divine in Christ...but that we are still also completely sinner. This moves to the sanctification thing: that we can work towards perfection. Not possible. We are always 100% sinner while we're 100% saint.

Theosis seems to state that (if even through Christ alone) perfection under that law can be achieved. Even it was acheieved solely in Christ, it would take away our need for Grace: our need for Christ's Grace to cover our imperfection under the Law. This would take away the notion of being 100% sinner and allow us to soley be saint.

[filosofer]

Is Johann Gerhard Lutheran enough? :P

Of course. My point is that we as Lutherans confess the faith maintaining the tension, paradox, etc. that is often not reflected in Orthodox writings nor in RCC nor Reformed (in the generic sense of that word).

Ray's comments are an example of how Lutherans understand this and why there is danger in the Orthodox phrasing.

In Christ's love,
filo

[Qoheleth]

Even it was acheieved solely in Christ, it would take away our need for Grace: our need for Christ's Grace

No, not at all. Grace is presupposed and necessary for cooperation.

I do not believe this is representative of Lutheran thought...

A freed will by and through faith, worked by the Holy Spirit results in...

"...and that after such conversion in the daily exercise of repentance the regenerate will of man is not idle, but also cooperates in all the works of the Holy Ghost" (FC 2.17)

(interesting: "the daily exercise of repentance".) Repentance meaning the turning away from. turn from their wicked ways
2 Chronicles 7:13-14



So then...

the Holy Ghost has wrought and accomplished this, and man's will has been changed and renewed by His divine power and working alone, then the new will of man is an instrument and organ of God the Holy Ghost, so that he not only accepts grace, but also cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the works which follow. (FC 2.18)


And...

"Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace." (Luther-Intro to Romans)


Therefore...


*that Christ was born and died and descended into Hades and rose again and sat at the right hand of the Father to save me; I did not;

*that Christ re-created human nature, (and we do not single out free will here; we mean all of human nature, including that He made it immortal, as well) -- I did not;

*that God created me and graced me with free will through the Holy Spirit; I did not have it from myself;

*that God enlightened my will; I did not;

*that God freed me and gave me the ability to exercise my free will rightly; I did not create or give that ability to myself;

*that God gave me the opportunity to exericse it rightly; I did not;

*and above all, that for me to have exercised it rightly is no more virtuous than to have grabbed at a lifeline when I was drowning.



A synergism which sees the work of Christ as incomplete, and which sees our works of piety as contributing to the propitiation for our sins, is false. But a synergism which sees our works of piety as salutary on the basis of the work of Christ, and sees them as enabled and empowered by the grace of God, is perfectly Lutheran.


Q

[DaSeminarian]

I agree with filosofer. We need to become more acquainted with Luther's Works and other Lutheran writers on this subject. Issues Etc had this as one of the topics it covered this last year.

[Qoheleth]

Deification? Us?


Ray's comments are an example of how Lutherans understand this and why there is danger in the Orthodox phrasing.



I agree with filosofer. We need to become more acquainted with Luther's Works



How about Luther's phrasing?


For it is true that man helped by grace is more than a man; indeed, the grace of God gives him the form of God and deifies him, so that even the Scriptures call him "God" and God's son. Thus a man must be extended beyond flesh and blood and become more than man, if he is to become good. And this begins when a man acknowledges that of himself this is impossible, humbly seeks the grace of God, and utterly despairs of himself; only then do good works follow. Thus, when grace has been obtained, then you have a free will; then do what in you lies (Luther's works, vol. 51, Sermons I )


Q

[DaSeminarian]

How about Luther's phrasing?


For it is true that man helped by grace is more than a man; indeed, the grace of God gives him the form of God and deifies him, so that even the Scriptures call him "God" and God's son. Thus a man must be extended beyond flesh and blood and become more than man, if he is to become good. And this begins when a man acknowledges that of himself this is impossible, humbly seeks the grace of God, and utterly despairs of himself; only then do good works follow. Thus, when grace has been obtained, then you have a free will; then do what in you lies (Luther's works, vol. 51, Sermons I )


Q



This is the work of the Holy Spirit which was sent to us to enable us to do God's work. Without the Holy Spirit we have no power or likeness of God, just a bare resemblance to the created image. Through Christ's work on the cross and our reception of the Holy Spirit, we become heirs to God's kingdom through adoption and share in the sonship with Christ.

While what you said is essentially true, I think that what filo is saying is that whole embodiment of Luther's works gives a more thorough picture of our relationship to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[LilLamb219]

In the German language the words for sanctification and deification, how different are they?

[Qoheleth]

This is the work of the Holy Spirit which was sent


Indeed, I agree. Grace, Life in Christ, is absolutely necessary.

The movement towards becoming as Christ, Theosis, Deification, the Mystical Union is not at all foreign to Lutheran thought.

Does Lutheranism conflict with this below...


When we say that what God does is incomparably more important than what we humans do, this should not be taken to mean that our salvation is partly God's work and partly our own-

For example that it is sixty per cent the work of God and forty per cent our work; or eighty or ninety per cent God's work, and twenty or ten per cent our own.

Any attempt to compare in this way the respective contributions of the divine and the human partners, assigning percentages to each, is utterly misguided. ( Florovsky)

The necessity of Grace is absolute.

At every point our human cooperation is itself the work of the Holy Spirit.

When we speak of 'cooperation', it is not to be imagined that our initial impulse towards good precedes the gift of divine grace and comes from ourselves alone.(Ware-Florovsky)

God wishes all to be saved (l Tim. 2:4): but he knocks at the door but does not break it down by force -he waits for us to open (cf. Rev.
3:20).

We are saved by faith, and not by works

Faith signifies love a love that is active and creative. And, because grace is never irresistible; it is also never indefectible



"Without your own Free will the Righteousness of God will not exist within you…He then that made you without you, does not justify you without you. Thus he made you without your knowledge, but He Justifies you with your voluntary consent." (St. Augustine-sermon cxix, 13)


Q

[DaSeminarian]

However, I am inclined to say that Luther did not believe in Total depravity as the Calvinists do. There are points in Bainton's "Here I Stand" biography which lead me to believe he did not see Adam as totally depraved, but merely without the ability to do anything Good without selfish motivation.

[DaRev]

Well, if something "good" comes with selfish motivation, is it really "good" in the eyes of God? I would think not.

[LilLamb219]

"Without your own Free will the Righteousness of God will not exist within you…He then that made you without you, does not justify you without you. Thus he made you without your knowledge, but He Justifies you with your voluntary consent." (St. Augustine-sermon cxix, 13)


The will is bound to sin. We are justified apart from our permission to be justified.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I believe we Lutherans call it "Sanctification."
Yes.

But the concept that we are ontologically united to Christ, and are thus deified, over a period of time is the same. That is my point.

The same God who poured himself out in the act of creation, who poured himself out in the incarnation, who poured himself out in the crucifixion, who gathered us together to be risen and ascend with him, still pours himself into his church, in word and sacrament. And through that pouring, we become one.

[DaRev]

Just as we are born into the world without our knowledge or consent, we are re-born (justified) without our knowledge or consent.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You appears to have edited one distinct point in the following quote.

by St. Athanasius
God became man that we might become god.

...
The last word "god" is capital G.

St.Athanasius quote is -
"God became man that we might become God".

I had some debates with the EO concerning the capitalization of the letter G.

The only Scriptural reference that the EO could point to support their understanding of the "theosis", is in the text where we "share in the divine nature".

"Sharing in the divine nature" could mean a number of things.
It is a stretch to say that we become God with a capital G.

Now, the EO are saying that one does not really become God in essense, but nonetheless, becomes God with a capital G.

I find that statement lacking Scriptural evidence.

And since the EO actively and openly promotes their OWN authority AT PAR or ABOVE the Scriptures, they give themselves the right to make some of the most outrageous statements concerning the Supernatural.

They made it up.

Thanks,
Ed

However you want to spell it, the concept is the same either way. The essence of God becomes permenantly bound to the elect through the ourpouring of Christ in his church through word and sacrament, and in the end we become utterly transformed by this essence of God, which exhibits in love. Are we gods or one with God? Yes. We have absorbed divine nature generally, and been united to the one true God.

It's a false dichotomy.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Despite your qualifier, I think I have seen this path taken before on this board.

Perhaps more study of Lutheran authors and less of Orthodox might be in order.



But hey, this is just an old(er) codger rambling again. :D



In Christ's love,
filo

Funny how I didn't quote any Othodox writers except to provide a definition...

I mean, it's in Luther and the Book on Concord!

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

While some of the Luther works you cite would seem to support this, you forget that in the whole body of his work we learn that yes, we are made completely divine in Christ...but that we are still also completely sinner. This moves to the sanctification thing: that we can work towards perfection. Not possible. We are always 100% sinner while we're 100% saint.

Theosis seems to state that (if even through Christ alone) perfection under that law can be achieved. Even it was acheieved solely in Christ, it would take away our need for Grace: our need for Christ's Grace to cover our imperfection under the Law. This would take away the notion of being 100% sinner and allow us to soley be saint.
As I understand it, the process of theosis never wipes away sin until a person is completely righteous, and this only happens in heaven or at the resurrection of the dead.

During that time, that is, during sanctification/deification/theosis, we are still legally declared righteous solely on the basis of faith given by grace. Simuls iustus et peccator. The peccator does not go away until we are made perfectly and forever righteous at the resurrection, when theosis is complete.

[Qoheleth]

During that time, that is, during sanctification/deification/theosis, we are still legally declared righteous solely on the basis of faith given by grace. Simuls iustus et peccator. The peccator does not go away until we are made perfectly and forever righteous at the resurrection, when theosis is complete.

I would like to add that Man is not defined by sin, it is not his nature. Sin is a disease, we do not equate the disease with the nature or being.

Also, we are not only declared righteous but are being made righteous a transformation, a communion in Him, with Him and through Him...no?


Q

[LilLamb219]

Sin...our fallen nature is to sin. God rebirths (in baptism) us so that we are righteous because of Christ's blood.

We are declared righteous without our permission...both objectively and subjectively.

[Melethiel]

Sin...our fallen nature is to sin. God rebirths (in baptism) us so that we are righteous because of Christ's blood.

We are declared righteous without our permission...both objectively and subjectively.
We are declared righteous...that is justification.
But we are also made righteous...sanctification. And sanctification includes cooperation with the Spirit, however weak.

[Qoheleth]

Sin...our fallen nature is to sin

A disfigurement of our nature, sin that is, but it is not what defines our nature...before or after.

Do you agree that Christ has not left us in the same wretched state in which He found us??

That the fallen, disfigured will doesn't go God's direction we agree.

That it CANNOT is in disagreement. That it "cannot" is something St. Paul says of the mind. Not of the will. The restored will, that which is enabled by the Holy Spirit by grace is able to co-operate as the Confessions state.






Q

[DaSeminarian]

I would like to add that Man is not defined by sin, it is not his nature. Sin is a disease, we do not equate the disease with the nature or being.

Also, we are not only declared righteous but are being made righteous a transformation, a communion in Him, with Him and through Him...no?


Q

Here is where I think we differ some. You see salvation as an on-going process where we see it done once for all and that in Confession and Communion we receive forgiveness and grace for sins committed since the last time we confessed and received communion.

[LilLamb219]

Kudos to Scott! :)

[Qoheleth]

Here is where I think we differ some. You see salvation as an on-going process where we see it done once for all and that in Confession and Communion we receive forgiveness and grace for sins committed since the last time we confessed and received communion.



Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the divine Trinity, saved the whole world from enslavement to death and sin by His Incarnation, Life, Teaching, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and Sitting at the right hand of the Father. This was accomplished by the will of God and not by our merits, desires, or even cooperation.

Through the grace of God, we receive our part in that justification, enabling the whole process of personal sanctification/deification, which is the core of salvation, to be made real in our own lives. Of course it is possible to sin while justified, just as Abraham, David, Paul and others were justified and continued to fall prey, from time to time, to sin.


Do you see any contradiction?



Q

[DaSeminarian]

Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the divine Trinity, saved the whole world from enslavement to death and sin by His Incarnation, Life, Teaching, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and Sitting at the right hand of the Father. This was accomplished by the will of God and not by our merits, desires, or even cooperation.

Through the grace of God, we receive our part in that justification, enabling the whole process of personal sanctification/deification, which is the core of salvation, to be made real in our own lives. Of course it is possible to sin while justified, just as Abraham, David, Paul and others were justified and continued to fall prey, from time to time, to sin.


Do you see any contradiction?



Q

Depends on how you word it from post to post. Other posts indicate that you all see salvation and sanctification as an ongoing process. This post you don't which is why the EO seems so confusing to us Lutherans.

[Qoheleth]

Depends on how you word it from post to post. Other posts indicate that you all see salvation and sanctification as an ongoing process. This post you don't which is why the EO seems so confusing to us Lutherans, but then again you have had the added benefit of having Pseudo-Lutheran Father Fenton in your service.


If by this you mean one is saved, being saved, will be saved... then yes as it is biblical language.

As to the second half of your post, well...

Q

[DaSeminarian]

If by this you mean one is saved, being saved, will be saved... then yes as it is biblical language.

Q

EDITED TO AVOID UNNECESSARY ARGUMENTS

[Edial]

GCC, let's skip philosophy.

EO's claim that we will become God, with a capital G.

(Let's not minimize the importance of capitalizing the G).

Do you believe that you will become God?

Ed

[Qoheleth]

I don't judge men's hearts, but I do discern their actions and from those at CTS that knew him have said that he had been going East in his practices for quite a while.

So you know Father Fenton that well?? You have spoken many times with him at length, sat at his table, shared a meal, participated in his bible studies, attended Mass at Zion??

No you have not.

You have the 8th commandment and judgment written all over your posts when it comes to this.


Q

[Qoheleth]

Do you believe that you will become God?
For it is true that man helped by grace is more than a man; indeed, the grace of God gives him the form of God and deifies him, so that even the Scriptures call him "God" and God's son.((Luther's works, vol. 51, Sermons I )

As to be Christ-like, one with Christ, to be made as Christ...not by essence but by the grace and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the very life of Christ...Yes.


Q

[LilLamb219]

That's a very serious charge, Q. Didn't Fr. Fenton once come here to TCL to talk to us? Or am I thinking of another pastor who wandered?

[Qoheleth]

That's a very serious charge, Q. Didn't Fr. Fenton once come here to TCL to talk to us? Or am I thinking of another pastor who wandered?



"but that he had abdicated his vow to the Lutheran Confessions long before he stated so on Oct. 31, 2006. "

Lamb, is Scott Father Fentons confessor or conscience. How can he make a statement such as this.

Q

[DaSeminarian]

So you know Father Fenton that well?? You have spoken many times with him at length, sat at his table, shared a meal, participated in his bible studies, attended Mass at Zion??

No you have not.

You have the 8th commandment and judgment written all over your posts when it comes to this.


Q

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers. Post deleted by author.

[Qoheleth]

Quid pro quo

[DaSeminarian]

Truce has been called

[Qoheleth]

I just responded to your email. I am willing to delete my stuff on the post if we can just call a truce.


works for me

Q

[DaSeminarian]

I apologize to everyone else on this forum for my behavior over the past several posts regarding Fr. Fenton. I have deleted all my references to him and my opinions thereof. I pray that Q will also delete the quotes he used in his posts to make his point.

I don't want any trouble on this matter any longer and I will refuse to answer any further posts for the time being on this thread.

[LilLamb219]

Scott, there is still a quote from Q in your posting that should be deleted. Thanks.

[DaSeminarian]

Scott, there is still a quote from Q in your posting that should be deleted. Thanks.

Thanks Lambie

[LilLamb219]

Great work, guys :) Brownie points for both of you!

[Edial]

I missed the Fr.Fenton fiasco ...

I am certain I would have added my 2 cents to it.

Oh well.

[Edial]

I missed the Fr.Fenton fiasco ...

I am certain I would have added my 2 cents to it.

Oh well.
My 2 cents :)

So you know Father Fenton that well?? You have spoken many times with him at length, sat at his table, shared a meal, participated in his bible studies, attended Mass at Zion??

No you have not.

You have the 8th commandment and judgment written all over your posts when it comes to this.


Q
Well, I remember when Fenton left East I visited the website of his Lutheran Church.

I got a distinct flavor from visiting that website that it was very much leaning towards the EO traditions.
I'm sure they still do.

So it would not surprise me at all that he already was heavily leaning towards the EO even while a Lutheran.

I mean, look at our people that left.

They did not get a sudden Epiphany to become an Eastern Orthodox.
Everyone knew that they already were leaning in that direction.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

For it is true that man helped by grace is more than a man; indeed, the grace of God gives him the form of God and deifies him, so that even the Scriptures call him "God" and God's son.((Luther's works, vol. 51, Sermons I )

As to be Christ-like, one with Christ, to be made as Christ...not by essence but by the grace and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the very life of Christ...Yes.


Q

Q, can you just state plainly?

Will you be God or not?

Ed

[ByzantineDixie]

My 2 cents :)


Well, I remember when Fenton left East I visited the website of his Lutheran Church.

I got a distinct flavor from visiting that website that it was very much leaning towards the EO traditions.
I'm sure they still do.

So it would not surprise me at all that he already was heavily leaning towards the EO even while a Lutheran.


This surprises me, Ed. Because I remember when I first happened on to that site...many moons ago...even before ChiRho posted in TCCL (I surely miss that man--haven't heard from him in ages of ages--has anyone else?) And it didn't look EO to me at all. If the site had any describable leaning...I would have said it leaned toward pre-VII Rome. Articles about the Western Fast, a "statue" of the the Blessed Mother, Western Vestments and postures (hands folded in prayer). Not a Byzantine icon in the mix. I certainly wouldn't have seen "Eastern Orthodox" leanings on that site...until, perhaps, the "What Options" paper was posted.

I'll tell you one thing I do know. When Father Fenton tendered his resignation, from what I read, almost everyone who really knew him personally, even and especially those who were staunch, unshakeable, confessional Lutherans, spoke very highly of him. They may not have agreed with this decision to leave Lutheranism, his theology, and his ultimate destination but they acknowledged him as an honorable man who followed his conscience.

He may have been leaning EO while being Lutheran but look at all the Lutheran pastors who lean reformed or evangelical (in that Greg Laurie way) today and I don't know how many of them think their leanings mean they should leave Lutheranism.

[DaSeminarian]

This surprises me, Ed. Because I remember when I first happened on to that site...many moons ago...even before ChiRho posted in TCCL (I surely miss that man--haven't heard from him in ages of ages--has anyone else?) And it didn't look EO to me at all. If the site had any describable leaning...I would have said it leaned toward pre-VII Rome. Articles about the Western Fast, a "statue" of the the Blessed Mother, Western Vestments and postures (hands folded in prayer). Not a Byzantine icon in the mix. I certainly wouldn't have seen "Eastern Orthodox" leanings on that site...until, perhaps, the "What Options" paper was posted.

I'll tell you one thing I do know. When Father Fenton tendered his resignation, from what I read, almost everyone who really knew him personally, even and especially those who were staunch, unshakeable, confessional Lutherans, spoke very highly of him. They may not have agreed with this decision to leave Lutheranism, his theology, and his ultimate destination but they acknowledged him as an honorable man who followed his conscience.

He may have been leaning EO while being Lutheran but look at all the Lutheran pastors who lean reformed or evangelical (in that Greg Laurie way) today and I don't know how many of them think their leanings mean they should leave Lutheranism.

Dixie,

Truthfully I have always had respect for Fr. Fenton. I struggle to this day trying to understand why he truly left. I know that both of you say that it was not due to the current political climate of the LCMS, but it seems that it was a contributing factor to your decision to begin looking to other areas of Christian belief and expression.

I personally can't understand anyone who held to the Confessions leaving them behind. It utterly confounds me. But I am not going to harbor resentment for it. I don't think this is the forum to gain understanding and at this juncture in my seminary career I really don't want to search it out very deeply.

I respect both of you and Dr. Robb, but I disagree with the EO as I understand it now.

Maybe someday I will be able to understand more fully what persuaded you to leave the Lutheran Confessions.

Scott

I live in the same town as ChiRho and while I have attempted to get together with him he has sluffed off all opportunity to do so at this time.

[ByzantineDixie]

I know that both of you say that it was not due to the current political climate of the LCMS, but it seems that it was a contributing factor to your decision to begin looking to other areas of Christian belief and expression.

I can't speak for anyone else but I can assure you that my leaving had absolutely nothing to do with politics. I was way too far away from synod politics for it to affect me. My issues were initially with praxis and then theological. These concerns are what caused me to look outside of Lutheranism.

I personally can't understand anyone who held to the Confessions leaving them behind. It utterly confounds me.

In my estimation the only way someone could leave the confessions behind is because they found an error in them. I never bought the "The Confessions are right but it's only a Church on paper" argument. Either they are all right, or they are wrong. And if one part proved to be wrong then all the rest was suspect....and that is how it was for me.

I respect both of you and Dr. Robb, but I disagree with the EO as I understand it now.

I understand completely. I didn't always agree with it either!



I live in the same town as ChiRho and while I have attempted to get together with him he has sluffed off all opportunity to do so at this time.

:cry:

[Edial]

This surprises me, Ed. Because I remember when I first happened on to that site...many moons ago...even before ChiRho posted in TCCL (I surely miss that man--haven't heard from him in ages of ages--has anyone else?) And it didn't look EO to me at all. If the site had any describable leaning...I would have said it leaned toward pre-VII Rome. Articles about the Western Fast, a "statue" of the the Blessed Mother, Western Vestments and postures (hands folded in prayer). Not a Byzantine icon in the mix. I certainly wouldn't have seen "Eastern Orthodox" leanings on that site...until, perhaps, the "What Options" paper was posted.
May be so.
I do not remember now.
But I do remember a distinct traditional type of an atmosphere.
I also remember that I was really surprised, not expecting such an atmoshere.
Yet that atmosphere was under Fenton's approval and authority.
So it made sense to me then that he did not "just" leave.


I'll tell you one thing I do know. When Father Fenton tendered his resignation, from what I read, almost everyone who really knew him personally, even and especially those who were staunch, unshakeable, confessional Lutherans, spoke very highly of him. They may not have agreed with this decision to leave Lutheranism, his theology, and his ultimate destination but they acknowledged him as an honorable man who followed his conscience.
I do not know Fenton, but I do know some pastors that fly higher than the others.
They are all gifted, charismatic, personable, and rely heavily on personal relationships with other people.

Following one's conscience on such a higher pastoral level is really not a necessarily positive thing in a context of the Scriptural behavior.

These guys know too much in order to rely on conscience.
To say that one relies on a conscience is a cop out.

Fenton knows the Book.
He knows what faith is.



He may have been leaning EO while being Lutheran but look at all the Lutheran pastors who lean reformed or evangelical (in that Greg Laurie way) today and I don't know how many of them think their leanings mean they should leave Lutheranism.

Here are my personal observations.
Please forgive my bluntness.

If a Lutheran becomes a Catholic, it is like going back to Egypt.

If a Lutheran becomes an EO, it is like neglecting your own individuality as a rebel being saved by the grace of God and being melted into mysticism.

If a Lutheran becomes a Baptist/Reformed/Penthecostal it is like scrapping half of one's faith (communion, baptism) and putting it into own understanding.

Lutherans are beacons of Christianity for all to see.

But that is my personal view.

Thanks,
Ed

[ByzantineDixie]

Well Ed, free will is a great gift of God. You are free to believe as you wish.

These guys know too much in order to rely on conscience.
To say that one relies on a conscience is a cop out.


Interesting comment from a Lutheran. I would be interested in knowing if the other Lutherans agree...that a pastor knows to much to listen to his conscience. At what point does one know enough that matters of conscience need not be heeded?

[Edial]

...Interesting comment from a Lutheran. I would be interested in knowing if the other Lutherans agree...that a pastor knows to much to listen to his conscience. At what point does one know enough that matters of conscience need not be heeded?
Rose, he CHOSE to follow things that are not found in the Bible.

And he CHOSE that because he LIKES it.

It is not complicated at all.

THEN he said that he follows his conscience.

Conscience is not a thermostat of one's faith, but of one's heart.

Thanks,
Ed

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I would like to add that Man is not defined by sin, it is not his nature. Sin is a disease, we do not equate the disease with the nature or being.

Also, we are not only declared righteous but are being made righteous a transformation, a communion in Him, with Him and through Him...no?


Q

As a former Lutheran, I'm sure you know that the Flacian controversy was about this very issue.

For the uninitiated...

The Flacian controversy surrounded the question whether or not sin had infected the core (substance) of humanity or only, however, terribly, the periphery (accidents). Flacius said the core. Melanchthon, however, said no; however true it is that sin is terrible and has rendered us uneffectual before a holy God, sin is only an accident.

Why? Because if sin had become part of the substance of humanity, Christ could not have become fully human, adapting human substance (nature), without becoming sinful.

This principle is enshired in the epitome and solid declaration of Concord.

(How come it that people think I'm so unLutheran, but I quote the Book of Concord more than most people here? Funny thing that...)

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

GCC, let's skip philosophy.

EO's claim that we will become God, with a capital G.

(Let's not minimize the importance of capitalizing the G).

Do you believe that you will become God?

Ed

Hey, Ed lets not!

You can't skip philosophy when you're taking about the sharing of substances! It's a philosophical issue! And you can't skip it just because you can't meet the argument openly.

Do I believe that I will become God?

What a dumb question.

I believe that God will remain utterly transcendent, but at the same time I will, over time, become indwelled with the nature and substance of God (self-giving love) which will cause me to take on divine properties.

That's my answer. It's a biblical answer, it's a Lutheran answer, it's an Orthodox answer.

You want to change the question and reconfigure the debate to stack the cards? I'm not buying it. You might not like the specific ways they state our shared doctrine (that is, with a capital G), but they actual doctrine is not how it is stated, it's what I've said about: that we partake in the divine nature and thus take on divine essences, and thus properties, while not, for instance, become fourth and fifth and sixth (etc.) members of the Trinity.

[Edial]

...

(How come it that people think I'm so unLutheran, but I quote the Book of Concord more than most people here? Funny thing that...)
Try quoting Bible.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Try quoting Bible.
Go back to the OP and you're find plenty of both.

[Edial]

Hey, Ed lets not!

You can't skip philosophy when you're taking about the sharing of substances! It's a philosophical issue! And you can't skip it just because you can't meet the argument openly.
When philosophy is applied towards resolving the mysteries of God, it is called foolishness.

1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1CO 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Philosophy is associated with a wisdom of this world.
It can tell us nothing concerning the mysteries of God.


Do I believe that I will become God?

What a dumb question.

I believe that God will remain utterly transcendent, but at the same time I will, over time, become indwelled with the nature and substance of God (self-giving love) which will cause me to take on divine properties.

That's my answer. It's a biblical answer, it's a Lutheran answer, it's an Orthodox answer.
Good.

I emphacized this because you quoted Athanasius and Maximus who claimed to become God, yet you edited the capital G out.


You want to change the question and reconfigure the debate to stack the cards? I'm not buying it. You might not like the specific ways they state our shared doctrine (that is, with a capital G), but they actual doctrine is not how it is stated, it's what I've said about: that we partake in the divine nature and thus take on divine essences, and thus properties, while not, for instance, become fourth and fifth and sixth (etc.) members of the Trinity.
I presented elsewhere that Eastern Orthodox do not state that one becomes God in essence.

But they hang on to the capital G with both hands.

[Edial]

Go back to the OP and you're find plenty of both.
True. :)

[Lotar]

Dixie,

Truthfully I have always had respect for Fr. Fenton. I struggle to this day trying to understand why he truly left. I know that both of you say that it was not due to the current political climate of the LCMS, but it seems that it was a contributing factor to your decision to begin looking to other areas of Christian belief and expression.

I personally can't understand anyone who held to the Confessions leaving them behind. It utterly confounds me. But I am not going to harbor resentment for it. I don't think this is the forum to gain understanding and at this juncture in my seminary career I really don't want to search it out very deeply.

I respect both of you and Dr. Robb, but I disagree with the EO as I understand it now.

Maybe someday I will be able to understand more fully what persuaded you to leave the Lutheran Confessions.

Scott

I live in the same town as ChiRho and while I have attempted to get together with him he has sluffed off all opportunity to do so at this time.

I don't know about LCMS politics being a real factor for anyone who would leave for Orthodoxy. We have many political problems ourselves (esp. in the US).

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

When philosophy is applied towards resolving the mysteries of God, it is called foolishness.

1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
1CO 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Philosophy is associated with a wisdom of this world.
It can tell us nothing concerning the mysteries of God.

Sorry but that's just not what the quoted text says.

The text is refering to the philosophies of Paul's time, in which Middle Platonism, a pre-Gnostic philosophy, was dominant. It's doctrines included inherent negativity of creation and the illusory nature of visible reality.

How has God made it foolish? Through becoming incarnate and wedding himself to physical matter in the person of Jesus Christ, through accomplishing salvation in human history through the ministry and crucifixion of Christ, and through the glorifing the physical, material body of our Lord in the resurrection.

That's what Paul's talking about. Not philosophy in general.

[JM]

Interesting thread.

[IowaLutheran]

I'm also just catching up with this thread.

My conclusion after reading some of the Finnish Lutheran work on this subject is that Luther's thoughts on justification/sanctification do not match up identically with EO beliefs, but it is undeniable that Luther wrote about the "real presence" of Christ in us that is a result of faith, which leads to share in the divine nature (as supported by the quote from 2 Peter).

So, complete agreement with EO? No.

A common language and framework for discussion? Yes.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm also just catching up with this thread.

My conclusion after reading some of the Finnish Lutheran work on this subject is that Luther's thoughts on justification/sanctification do not match up identically with EO beliefs, but it is undeniable that Luther wrote about the "real presence" of Christ in us that is a result of faith, which leads to share in the divine nature (as supported by the quote from 2 Peter).

So, complete agreement with EO? No.

A common language and framework for discussion? Yes.
Fair enough. I think that's all Toumo Manermaa and folk are saying, anyway.