Theosis, Entire Sanctification, and Process Salvation

[Polycarp1]

Something that's intrigued me, and which I mentioned briefly to Wesley John just after IDD closed down, is what I see as the close parallels in four completely distinct Christian traditions regarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer after conversion.

The Eastern Orthodox have a doctrine called Theosis -- that the Holy Spirit shapes us to become more Christlike -- and therefore more Godlike -- not in a Mormon "You shall be as gods" sense, but rather in a transformation back into what we were supposed to be before the Fall. Some extensive discussion and quotes on the E.O. theology of theosis can be found in this thread.

Many modern Anglicans speak of salvation as not an event but a process -- God working within one before, during, and after one becomes aware of His work, to save us and transform us more nearly into what God would have us be.

The Holiness, Wesleyan, and Nazarene churches place great store on what they call "entire sanctification," after Wesley's term for it. In short, so far as I understand it, this consists of the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in purging one of sin and the sinful nature, and reshaping one into what God would have one be -- holiness of life and a sanctified self.

And some theologians follow Duns Scotus in speaking of the Imago Dei -- the "image and likeness of God" in which man was first created, and whch persists within us even in our Fallen state.

To me, these sound very much like different ways of saying much the same thing, and I'd like to ask that we explore the similarities and differences in the four concepts. Beyond identifying that they do sound like something I see dimly as the same thing depicted by four different artists, I do not feel led to go. But I look forward to reading what people have to say about them.

 

[Suzannah]

Hi Polycarp:

I can't really comment on the other views (Protestant) of theosis. A really good read on the Orthodox view of Theosis is:

The Path to Salvation by St. Theophan the Recluse (St. Herman's Press)

 

[Patristic]

I can't really comment on the Anglican view since I am not familiar with that soteriological chain, but let my try and tackle the Weslyan view. Wesley taught that once an individual believed on Jesus' name in faith, that individual was not only credited with Christ's righteousness, but also received an internal and intrinsic righteousness because of the indwelling of the Spirit. Thus, justification was both imputed and imparted, extrinsic and intrinsic. This instrinsic righteousness is what enabled a believer to resist the temptation of sin and crucify the desires of the flesh, and thus through grace and struggle overcome sin and achieve "entire sanctification." On the flip side, if an individual sinned grievously they would be deprived of this intrinsic righteousness and, the process of sanctification would be halted by sin, and the person would once again come under God's wrath. I think Wesley hits on this theme most profoundly in his sermon a call to backsliders where he uses the story of David's adulterous affair with Bathsheeba and his murder of Uriah to prove his point.

 

[Mustaphile]

I'd like to know more on this, as I have tended to move away from any set doctrine on salvation. Having been taught under a number of different churches, I must say it's developed into quite a mish mash of ideas. But the one that seems to follow the scriptures the most is an idea of faith being the underlying first step and foundation of our salvation. Faith brings the indwelling of the Spirit (baptism of the Spirit), the indwelling Spirit brings us life, and our flesh dies in God's eyes, but we remain in fleshly bodies. The baptism in water symbolises our casting off of the old fleshly nature and we begin to be transformed from the inside by the surrendering ourselves to the Spirit. The Spirit leading us to sanctification and life eternal.

I determine repentance, to be part of the initial act of faith. A 'changing of mind'. That 'changing of mind' continues to be developed by our daily surrender to the Spirit inside us. Allowing the light of Jesus to shine through us as we become willing servants of righteousness. So santification I suppose is a continueing process driven by the Spirit of Christ within us, working a miraculous transformation in our lives.

How close this comes to theosis I have no idea, but I am certainly studying the whole issue of soteriology at the moment, trying to get a picture of God's true intentions.

The whole idea of us being totally transformed in an instant when we confess Christ and from that day walking a blameless life to my mind is quite ludicrous and it seems to be what some people are implying when they talk of salvation. Jesus might have been able to walk perfectly on this Earth, but I am yet to see a single other christian that does. So the message must be of a transformation from within, with the Spirit as a mechanism, since works should not be a path to salvation, but evidence of the transformation occuring within us. Works is not salvation itself, but a symptom of salvation and continuing growth in our spiritual walk.

I hope this all makes sense. Sorry I can't show allegiance to any demoninational doctrine for the purposes of the OP, but it's something I have picked up as I have attempted to get into the more meaty side of the word. I was originally saved in a Pentascostal or Charismatic denomination, but have sinced moved through a number of denominations. I have looked at the Catholic version of salvation by grace, and 'saving faith'. The differences are all very subtle really, but even a subtle change can make a big difference to how people perceive their salvation and walk with Christ.

 

[Received]

I would have to say that salvation is a process, for it seems difficult to me how one can go from a life smothered in the deception of sin as power, to an absolute negation of it at the mere focus of will. However, we are called to awake to our righteousness and sin not (1 Corinthians 15:34), and it is from sin -- not punishment -- that Christ has saved his people (Matthew 1:21). In short, I do believe that we are not entitled to sin -- which is doing what we are conscious of as wrong (James 4:17) --, though we may be working in a process, relative to each person, of destroying sin as a power that exists beyond our consciousness of it. The difficulty of any such theology is that it seems either too difficult for some, who usually have an incorrect understanding of what sin is and thus how difficult it can be for one in love with God to sin -- apart from a man who does not know God --, and it usually runs the risk of falling in line with the dreaded Lordship theology, which in itself is good and well, but in its historical context, from the mouths of those contemporary theologians who do not have the prettiest conception of God, is repugnant to the masses.

I think the paramount reason as to why people consider sin a great deal easier than it really is -- in my opinion -- is because they falsely objectify it, many adhering to -- gasp -- the outdated Levitical laws, and even more focusing on what they indirectly hold as New Testament laws through the epistles of Paul. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free, and it is through love of God and neighbor that this freedom is established, without which we would be condemned before the law.