I guess this would be the Lutheran version of theosis. We become "partakers". To me, the Eastern version of theosis seems to take this a step further in that one is not a "partaker" but that man becomes divine himself. In this step from "partaker" to being divine in one's own nature one finds the error.
I am always surprised at the trouble this gives folks. Look, if I add two words it all goes away:
God became a child of man, that men might become children of God.
It's the same thing, folks! It's just that the more startling way of putting it is just to drop the "child/children." Further, Dr. Luther was by no means adverse to using the language of "divinize" - always within the framework of GRACE. It is not that we are changed into God, but that God divinizes us (makes us His children by grace). Joint-heirs with His Son.
Andrew: I will go with Pr. Weedon's explanation on this "It is not that we are changed into God, but that God divinizes us (makes us His children by grace)."
I always see an inversion in Eastern Orthodoxy. There is an overemphasis on man becoming God and divinization. There is no saint/sinner paradox, instead of the wages of sin being death, you sin because you are dead.
I have no problem with a Lutheran version of divinization, in that Christ puts makes us his brothers and sisters through grace, and that when God sees a redeemed Christian he sees Christ, and this salvation causes us to grow in holiness, therefore he sees the divine rather than the sinner.
But the inverted view of divinization sees death as the cause of sin, rather than its result, it see the transformation of the dead into the divine as the reason for salvation, rather than the effect of the savior and through this lense thoroughly distorts the concept of original sin which in turn leads to works righteousness rather than objective justification.
You couldn't be more wrong in your appraisal of theosis of the Holy Orthodox Church. It is true that there is man working with God, but this in NO WAY trivializes or reduces God to a subordinate player so that man becomes divine and communicates with the energies of God. I don't want to get into that argument right now, though.
If you only look at the hymnography of the Eastern Churches for this day and other feasts, you will see that these things are done "as He wills." That certainly speaks of Grace and nothing else.
Here is the Doxasticon of Matins for the Feast of Annunciation:
"Of old Adam failed to become a God as he desired, so God became Man that Adam might become a God. Wherefore let creation rejoice and nature exchange greetings for the archangel did stand reverently before the Virgin and offered her joy instead of sorrow. Wherefore, O our God, who by thy compassion became man, glory be to thee."
This hymn poses no inversion. There is nothing to suggest that sin doesn't cause death. It is true that we do not accept the Augustinian view that man was created perfect, but we hold to the Athanasian and Irenaean teachings which decree that Adam and Eve were in a state of infancy in the garden of Eden, though they walked with God. Athanasius and St. Gregory the Theologian both go further to sugges that had Adam not sinned, Christ would have still become Man to lift us up from our spiritual infancy. It turns out that we needed Him for much more than that. Bt there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in our hymnography or creed or teaching to suggest that we have turned Grace on its head and to suggest that we are the causes of theosis. The key word is "participate." That does not reduce God nor does it absolve us of our responsibility. "work out your salvation in faith and trembling" says St. Paul.
I've snipped the following quote from an essay I've written on Athanasius' Christ-centered theology that clears up, I think, some misconceptions about theosis. Athanasius writes, “although there be one Son by nature, True and Only-begotten, we too become sons, not as he in nature and truth, but according to the grace of him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, are yet called gods, not as the True God or his Word, but as has pleased God who has given us that grace” (Orations Against the Arians, III.19; NPNF, ii, 4, p. 404).
10 comments:
Well that's an interesting way of putting it, isnt' it?
I guess this would be the Lutheran version of theosis. We become "partakers".
To me, the Eastern version of theosis seems to take this a step further in that one is not a "partaker" but that man becomes divine himself. In this step from "partaker" to being divine in one's own nature one finds the error.
"divinae consortes naturae" is still inspired Scripture no matter how you slice it:) 2 Peter 1:4
Mr Townsend,
On your view, what exactly does 'partaking' of the divine nature mean?
I am always surprised at the trouble this gives folks. Look, if I add two words it all goes away:
God became a child of man, that men might become children of God.
It's the same thing, folks! It's just that the more startling way of putting it is just to drop the "child/children." Further, Dr. Luther was by no means adverse to using the language of "divinize" - always within the framework of GRACE. It is not that we are changed into God, but that God divinizes us (makes us His children by grace). Joint-heirs with His Son.
Andrew:
I will go with Pr. Weedon's explanation on this "It is not that we are changed into God, but that God divinizes us (makes us His children by grace)."
I always see an inversion in Eastern Orthodoxy. There is an overemphasis on man becoming God and divinization. There is no saint/sinner paradox, instead of the wages of sin being death, you sin because you are dead.
I have no problem with a Lutheran version of divinization, in that Christ puts makes us his brothers and sisters through grace, and that when God sees a redeemed Christian he sees Christ, and this salvation causes us to grow in holiness, therefore he sees the divine rather than the sinner.
But the inverted view of divinization sees death as the cause of sin, rather than its result, it see the transformation of the dead into the divine as the reason for salvation, rather than the effect of the savior and through this lense thoroughly distorts the concept of original sin which in turn leads to works righteousness rather than objective justification.
Mr. Townsend,
You couldn't be more wrong in your appraisal of theosis of the Holy Orthodox Church. It is true that there is man working with God, but this in NO WAY trivializes or reduces God to a subordinate player so that man becomes divine and communicates with the energies of God. I don't want to get into that argument right now, though.
If you only look at the hymnography of the Eastern Churches for this day and other feasts, you will see that these things are done "as He wills." That certainly speaks of Grace and nothing else.
Here is the Doxasticon of Matins for the Feast of Annunciation:
"Of old Adam failed to become a God as he desired, so God became Man that Adam might become a God. Wherefore let creation rejoice and nature exchange greetings for the archangel did stand reverently before the Virgin and offered her joy instead of sorrow. Wherefore, O our God, who by thy compassion became man, glory be to thee."
This hymn poses no inversion. There is nothing to suggest that sin doesn't cause death. It is true that we do not accept the Augustinian view that man was created perfect, but we hold to the Athanasian and Irenaean teachings which decree that Adam and Eve were in a state of infancy in the garden of Eden, though they walked with God. Athanasius and St. Gregory the Theologian both go further to sugges that had Adam not sinned, Christ would have still become Man to lift us up from our spiritual infancy. It turns out that we needed Him for much more than that. Bt there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in our hymnography or creed or teaching to suggest that we have turned Grace on its head and to suggest that we are the causes of theosis. The key word is "participate." That does not reduce God nor does it absolve us of our responsibility. "work out your salvation in faith and trembling" says St. Paul.
I've snipped the following quote from an essay I've written on Athanasius' Christ-centered theology that clears up, I think, some misconceptions about theosis. Athanasius writes, “although there be one Son by nature, True and Only-begotten, we too become sons, not as he in nature and truth, but according to the grace of him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, are yet called gods, not as the True God or his Word, but as has pleased God who has given us that grace” (Orations Against the Arians, III.19; NPNF, ii, 4, p. 404).
One other thing to keep in mind. If it seems the Orthodox overemphasize theosis it is because for the Orthodox salvation *is* theosis.
Dixie,
I'm glad you said that. Salvation in the Orthodox setting is equated to what the Formula of Concord calls the "healing of human nature." FC DS I:14
Post a Comment