What and how is really Theosis?

[Ayenew]

Possibly, then, it is wise not to make a project of calling attention to the word

Possibly it is wise not to use the word at all

but feed on all the Bible says about how to become conformed to the image of Jesus and how to love the way His example has us loving >

This is the right Biblical expression, to be conformed to the image of Jesus (as in Him is our human nature in perfection).

But what do you mean, by "the image of (like) God"?

What do you have for scriptures about what you mean
by being "(like) God"?

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" Genesis 1:26

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness" 1 Timothy 3:16

"for bodily exercise is profitable for a little; but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come." 1 Timothy 4:8

Titus
"11 For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; 13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works."

 

[com7fy8]

Possibly it is wise not to use the word at all

I agree with everything you say. And as I read your scripture quotes I thought of how God's word brings out what is really involved in theosis - being conformed to the image of Jesus. So, isolating on just the word could get people's attention elsewhere.

Even the quotes of the Bible you give are not all of it. We need to feed on everything. For example, the word "godly" by itself does not tell me much about what it means to be godly. But I do see the word and realize how much I need to trust God to change me to be all He means and is able to do with me in my character so I am with Him, submissive to Him in His peace, loving any and all people. Because godly has to do with how God is . . . sharing this with me in my character.

So, then, of course, if we are going to talk about theosis - godliness - conformity to the image of Jesus, we need to talk about what this means . . . to God, and how He has us becoming and loving.

So, just to practice what we preach, a little bit, here > I think Ephesians 5:31-32 is very good for how to live godly lives >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32)

Here this talks not only about what to do, by the way, but how to be. How to be is what I think has to do with being godly > having the character of Jesus so we stay this way and grow more > so we are "kind" and "tenderhearted" by nature . . . so we can forgive "even as God" in His kind and family and adoptive way, not just with distant clearing of our slate while we are on our own more or less. But with God in us in our character, sharing with us, we can forgive in the quality of His love, not only making distant gestures of forgiving, but relating personally and tenderly.

So, I would say this is included in theosis - conforming to Jesus - living godly . . . while being godly This is not do-it-yourself cookie-cut ceremonial do-this-and-that-recipe-stuff, but God in us shares how He is with us, in union and communion with our character >

"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

So . . . all the time I need to deal with if I am being like this and loving like this. And in prayer I can be corrected of whatever in me is not so > things like "bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking, with all malice" and unforgiveness and lusts and cursing people with my worry and suspicion instead of blessing them in caring prayer of trusting God with them. And then I can submit to how God rules me during the day, in His peace (Colossians 3:15) keeping me always ready for love with any person.

 

[Ayenew]

I agree with everything you say. And as I read your scripture quotes I thought of how God's word brings out what is really involved in theosis - being conformed to the image of Jesus. So, isolating on just the word could get people's attention elsewhere.

Even the quotes of the Bible you give are not all of it. We need to feed on everything. For example, the word "godly" by itself does not tell me much about what it means to be godly. But I do see the word and realize how much I need to trust God to change me to be all He means and is able to do with me in my character so I am with Him, submissive to Him in His peace, loving any and all people. Because godly has to do with how God is . . . sharing this with me in my character.

So, then, of course, if we are going to talk about theosis - godliness - conformity to the image of Jesus, we need to talk about what this means . . . to God, and how He has us becoming and loving.

So, just to practice what we preach, a little bit, here > I think Ephesians 5:31-32 is very good for how to live godly lives >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32)

Here this talks not only about what to do, by the way, but how to be. How to be is what I think has to do with being godly > having the character of Jesus so we stay this way and grow more > so we are "kind" and "tenderhearted" by nature . . . so we can forgive "even as God" in His kind and family and adoptive way, not just with distant clearing of our slate while we are on our own more or less. But with God in us in our character, sharing with us, we can forgive in the quality of His love, not only making distant gestures of forgiving, but relating personally and tenderly.

So, I would say this is included in theosis - conforming to Jesus - living godly . . . while being godly This is not do-it-yourself cookie-cut ceremonial do-this-and-that-recipe-stuff, but God in us shares how He is with us, in union and communion with our character >

"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

So . . . all the time I need to deal with if I am being like this and loving like this. And in prayer I can be corrected of whatever in me is not so > things like "bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking, with all malice" and unforgiveness and lusts and cursing people with my worry and suspicion instead of blessing them in caring prayer of trusting God with them. And then I can submit to how God rules me during the day, in His peace (Colossians 3:15) keeping me always ready for love with any person.

I agree with you too. And I learned a lot from your posts.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes, Theosis is the ancient and universal teaching of the universal Christian Church. Not just the Oriental Orthodox, but all historic and mainstream Churches. The word itself is less common among the Western Churches (Catholic and Protestant), but it's still there.

-CryptoLutheran

In our Lutheran Tradition, Theosis might better be defined as "Sanctification". Justification comes through Christ; Sanctification comes through the Holy Spirit. As we grow in faith, we strive to become more Christ-Like; this is life long and can only be achieved through the on-going work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[WanderedHome]

Recently I have learned in theological classes that Theosis is in our doctrine (I am from Oriental Orthodox family). But I found many of the things in Theosis difficult to take. I even doubt many in our church know it and/or accept it. My question is: Is really Theosis what the universal church has believed for centuries? Is it an official doctrine in OO churches? And even, is there a well defined theology for Theosis?

This is article gives solid theological support and also paints a good picture to understand what theosis looks like:

Theosis and Our Salvation in Christ - Orthodox Reformed Bridge

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Recently I have learned in theological classes that Theosis is in our doctrine (I am from Oriental Orthodox family). But I found many of the things in Theosis difficult to take. I even doubt many in our church know it and/or accept it. My question is: Is really Theosis what the universal church has believed for centuries? Is it an official doctrine in OO churches? And even, is there a well defined theology for Theosis?

simply read II Peter 1, it really is not a hard topic.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Below is a listing of most of Scriptures thematic words that describe Christ's works on the cross.

My best guess is the Orthodox places great stress on "Mystical Union" and "Christus Victor" and less on the other motifs.

• Justification by Faith
• Reconciliation
• Propitiation
• Sacrifice
• Ransom
• Redemption
• Penal Substitution
• Atonement
• Examplar
• Recapitulation
• Mystical Union
• Adoption
• Christus Victor

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Below is a listing of most of Scriptures thematic words that describe Christ's works on the cross.

My best guess is the Orthodox places great stress on "Mystical Union" and "Christus Victor" and less on the other motifs.

......

My guess is, you've never read anything by Orthodox theologians.

 

[dzheremi]

Hello, Ayenew. Unfortunately this topic seems to have become a confusing issue for our church in the last few decades thanks to some prominent figures writing things about it based on some bad translations into Arabic and such mistakes resulting from the spread of those writings.

At any rate, it is still most definitely a part of our tradition. You can read about it, for instance, in Fr. Matthias F. Wahba (Coptic Orthodox priest) The Doctrine of Sanctification in St. Athanasius' Paschal Letters (1988), which has a forward by Eastern Orthodox priest Kalistos Ware. You can also find it in some of the writings of HG Bishop Daniel on the theology of the icon, and in some of the writings of HG Bishop Youssef of the Southern United States diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Church (I've also heard him speak positively about it in person, since he was my bishop when I lived in his territory). And these are all, of course, based on the understanding of the scriptures, the early Church fathers, and preserved belief of the Church.

I think Fr. Moses Saaman, while he comes off to me as a bit cranky (understandably), is probably correct in his blog post that the modern 'controversy' surrounding this issue in the OO Church is not looked at properly in its own context but is instead often used as a stick to beat the 'heretical' OO with by the hardliners among the Chalcedonians who frankly don't know what the hell they're talking about, because they don't know or care anything about the Church of Egypt or Ethiopia or generally any place except for that of the Greeks who might be in those places, and only know that tradition and those of Constantinople and the other Greco-Roman traditions, so they don't know the context of anything they're looking at and sometimes even after having it explained to them they still maintain that XYZ 'proves' this or that against our Church. And if I sound cranky myself here it's because I've dealt with such people over on the OO board here, so I know they exist (though thankfully not all Chalcedonians are like that).

Probably the most you will get from some OO people who really spend a lot of time on these questions is that some will object to terminology and some ideas as being ultimately foreign to us and representing some of the ways in which the Chalcedonians took the writings of the Cappadocian fathers too far into realms of theological speculation. I can't comment on that myself, but that seems to be the position of people like Fr. Athanasius Iskander, who serves in Canada and wrote a 32-page document a few years ago called The Doctrine of Theopoiesis which highlights some of the reasons he thinks that this is a more accurate term to describe what we believe. It is available here (link automatically opens as PDF), if you are interested in it. I have no opinion myself, but that's mostly because I am used to people in the Church talking about Theosis, not Theopoiesis, so I don't connect Theosis with any theological error, since again it is taught in our tradition including by my very own bishop.

 

[Ayenew]

This is article gives solid theological support and also paints a good picture to understand what theosis looks like:

Theosis and Our Salvation in Christ - Orthodox Reformed Bridge

Sorry for my late reply. Thank you for the link, I will see it.

 

[Ayenew]

simply read II Peter 1, it really is not a hard topic.

I don't think it is as simple as that

 

[Ayenew]

Hello, Ayenew. Unfortunately this topic seems to have become a confusing issue for our church in the last few decades thanks to some prominent figures writing things about it based on some bad translations into Arabic and such mistakes resulting from the spread of those writings.

At any rate, it is still most definitely a part of our tradition. You can read about it, for instance, in Fr. Matthias F. Wahba (Coptic Orthodox priest) The Doctrine of Sanctification in St. Athanasius' Paschal Letters (1988), which has a forward by Eastern Orthodox priest Kalistos Ware. You can also find it in some of the writings of HG Bishop Daniel on the theology of the icon, and in some of the writings of HG Bishop Youssef of the Southern United States diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Church (I've also heard him speak positively about it in person, since he was my bishop when I lived in his territory). And these are all, of course, based on the understanding of the scriptures, the early Church fathers, and preserved belief of the Church.

I think Fr. Moses Saaman, while he comes off to me as a bit cranky (understandably), is probably correct in his blog post that the modern 'controversy' surrounding this issue in the OO Church is not looked at properly in its own context but is instead often used as a stick to beat the 'heretical' OO with by the hardliners among the Chalcedonians who frankly don't know what the hell they're talking about, because they don't know or care anything about the Church of Egypt or Ethiopia or generally any place except for that of the Greeks who might be in those places, and only know that tradition and those of Constantinople and the other Greco-Roman traditions, so they don't know the context of anything they're looking at and sometimes even after having it explained to them they still maintain that XYZ 'proves' this or that against our Church. And if I sound cranky myself here it's because I've dealt with such people over on the OO board here, so I know they exist (though thankfully not all Chalcedonians are like that).

Probably the most you will get from some OO people who really spend a lot of time on these questions is that some will object to terminology and some ideas as being ultimately foreign to us and representing some of the ways in which the Chalcedonians took the writings of the Cappadocian fathers too far into realms of theological speculation. I can't comment on that myself, but that seems to be the position of people like Fr. Athanasius Iskander, who serves in Canada and wrote a 32-page document a few years ago called The Doctrine of Theopoiesis which highlights some of the reasons he thinks that this is a more accurate term to describe what we believe. It is available here (link automatically opens as PDF), if you are interested in it. I have no opinion myself, but that's mostly because I am used to people in the Church talking about Theosis, not Theopoiesis, so I don't connect Theosis with any theological error, since again it is taught in our tradition including by my very own bishop.

Hi dzheremi, thank you for your detailed explanation. I agree that the 'prominent figures' are in some way the reason for the 'controversy'. I changed a lot after reading a good (at least for me) article by Pope Shenouda. I tried to read some of the books by church fathers and I feel there is in them a material similar to it (Theosis). I think the 'problem' comes when people try to define it as an organized theology of the church.

As a final point, I need to say that I fully agree on what Pope Sheouda has thought on the topic. And although I truly long for a more friendly relationship between EO's and our church, I feel it is hard to take the EO understanding of Theosis.

the hardliners among the Chalcedonians who frankly don't know what the hell they're talking about, because they don't know or care anything about the Church of Egypt or Ethiopia or generally any place except for that of the Greeks who might be in those places, and only know that tradition and those of Constantinople and the other Greco-Roman traditions, so they don't know the context of anything they're looking at and sometimes even after having it explained to them they still maintain that XYZ 'proves' this or that against our Church.

I also have seen that some try to undermine OO church and want to only think of the 'heresy' part of the church, sometimes may be because we are not significant in number (or may be forgetting OO's were at the heart of early Christianity )

 

[prodromos]

And although I truly long for a more friendly relationship between EO's and our church, I feel it is hard to take the EO understanding of Theosis.

I thought we believed the same about theosis?

 

[QvQ]

It is the goal of the Christian Mystic
This quote is from St. John of the Cross
St. John of the Cross on Theosis and Uncreated Grace
Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book II, Chapter V, Sections 4-7
"Wherefore God communicates Himself most to that soul that has progressed farthest in love;
namely, that has its will in closest conformity with the will of God.
And the soul that has attained complete conformity and likeness of will is totally united and transformed in God supernaturally."

(There is more about this in the section cited if anyone cares to look it up but from what I understand, it is the transcendent state of contemplatives and I have only seen the word in that context)

 

[Ayenew]

I thought we believed the same about theosis?

I am not saying we believe different. I would rather say OO churches (at least my church) haven't said yes or no about it. But it is given in theology classes as it is in our theology. I have asked here because I found it difficult to take and I have read writings from our church fathers (I mean recent fathers), which I found to be sound and right.