I’ve learned some interesting concepts from class #23: Eastern Orthodoxy. The podcast is one from the Ancient and Medieval Church History class from Covenant Theological Seminary. First, let’s have a little background. (Incidentally, the seminary is a Presbyterian seminary.)
The Eastern Orthodox Church officially split with the Catholic Church in 1054. The Pope excommunicated the Patriarch in Constantinople, so the Patriarch did the same to the Pope. There had been some different emphasis on theology for quite some time. For example, while the Catholic Church claimed that the Pope held all the leadership, the Orthodox Church held a much less central authority. The Orthodox belief of revelation is that God speaks through these councils, not one central person.
There were seven early councils (such as the Nicene Council.) These edicts of these councils are usually considered scripture in the Orthodox church. The various Orthodox churches (Russian, Greek, etc) are quite a bit more autonomous. The Orthodox church even holds out that there could one day be an American Orthodox church, if membership warrants such an organization.
Even before the official split, there were many tensions between Rome and Constantinople. In the podcast, the teacher refers to Rome as the “Western” church, and Constantinople as the “Eastern” church. The western church spoke mostly Latin, while the eastern church spoke mostly Greek. In the West, the church had an emphasis on:
- Sin
- Grace
- Justification
- Salvation
- Sacraments
The eastern church agrees, but has a larger emphasis on:
- Apophaticism - an emphasis on the mystery of God.
- Tradition
- Theosis
- Icons
I’d like to talk about Theosis. Theosis is a greek word meaning Deification, as in the deification of humanity. Unfortunately, I do not know the name of the teacher, but anyone can download the podcast to hear him directly. I’d like to quote the teacher directly.
“[Theosis] is the word that really sums up salvation. In the West, we talk about sin and justification as a way of understanding salvation. In the East, the emphasis is on theosis or deification. We are changed so that we become like God, or Eastern theologians will say it even more strongly than that. As Athanasius put it, ‘God became man, that man might become God.’ That’s theosis, or deification.
Well, that strikes the western mind as kind of a problematic way to understand theology and to understand the transforming effect of grace. The eastern mind though sees that as the real purpose of Christ coming into the world, to transform us that we become like him. In some ways, we can see that if we’re talking about union with Christ, or becoming more and more like Christ or becoming more and more like God. But in the eastern expression of theosis, it is stated so strongly that Christ became man, that we might become God that most western thinkers pull back from that. It sounds like a kind of heresy of some sort. I expect closer examination of the eastern idea of theosis, will reveal that the eastern theology doesn’t for the most part, go over the line, but it uses language that can be suggested of something that western Christians would want to avoid.
The people in the west that pick up this same idea are the mystics, and in the west, they were constantly accused of pantheism. Because, to the western mind, this kind of language, and this kind of expression goes too far because it tends to blur the distinction between God and his creation.”
I decided to look up theosis on Wikipedia, and found this interesting quote from St Ireneaus (who lived 130-202 AD.) He is considered a saint in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. “St. Irenaeus explained this concept in Against Heresies, Book 5, in the Preface, “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”
It seems to me that mormons have much in common with this idea of theosis. This sounds quite similar to Lorenzo Snow’s quote, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” Comments?
14 comments ↓
Excellent post my heretical friend!!!
After I had left Mormonism a couple of years ago I seriously considered becoming Eastern Orthodox for some of the reasons you mention.
I have an article by Christoforos Stavropoulos a theologian entitled, “Partakers of Divine Nature.” In there he says, “As human beings we have this one, unique calling, to achieve theosis. In other words, we are destined to become a god, to be like God himself, to be united with him.”
This all sounds very, very, Mormon. However there is an important difference. He says later, “We are transformed into his likeness. 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 as unrestricted happiness in the divine kingdom.”
I think we could make a distinction between weak theosis and strong theosis. Mormons seem to believe in strong theosis, i.e. our natures will themselves become divine. Eastern Orthodox believe in weak theosis, in that, we attain a likeness with God only in being with him, i.e. our natures do not change.
Even with these differences the similarities are striking!
My personal belief is that Mormons believe in the concept of becoming “like” god in a sense that he will allow us to partake of His glory and sit next to him on His throne. Also we will be crowned with glory and become kings and priests unto the most high.
However, God and Jesus will always be superior to us because they have always been God and they created us in the first place and will always be our superior.
I can’t say that I agree with the quote by Lorenzo Snow that states God was once a man because in the scriptures it says God was and is everlasting…he was always God and will always be God.
So I would say that my belief is the “weak” theosis that was mentioned in comment number 1.
Great post!
http://www.graceforgrace.com
Some of you know, but there is a similar discussion going on at http://kolobiv.blogspot.com/2008/07/robbery-to-be-equal-with-god.html
It is interesting to see the different thoughts there. I personally agree that when we become one with God, the hierarchy loses it’s significance. Therefore, weak or strong theosis becomes irrelevant. I think weak theosis is probably easier for most people to comprehend.
Great thoughts. Thank you. I think we have much more to learn about theosis — especially its history.
For a collection of ancient quotations on the topic, see my essay entitled: Theosis.
Someday, I am hoping to see a strong LDS scholarly book on the topic. Certainly, several PhD dissertations could be done. There is much analysis waiting to be done.
S. Faux
Welcome! Thank you so much for the link. I am greatly impressed with your blog.
S. Faux,
An Occasional Paper was published in 2002, written by Jordan Vajda, OP “Partakers of the Divine Nature” A Comparative analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization.
I thought his paper was well researched.
Thanks for the link. I did a google search, and found it available for $9.95. It is interesting to note that the author is not LDS.
It appears there are some blogs out there commenting on this, but I haven’t had time to read through these yet.
The difference between the two ideas is this. For the Orthodox, we become partakers of the divine nature via the activities or energies of God and not the divine essence, which remains unparticipatable. What are the energies? They are activities such as knowledge, will, divine light, love, etc. We do not become another instance of the same kind of being God is.
On the LDS view humans become another instance of the same type of being.
Perry, thank you for commenting. It is nice to go to the “source” for this type of information.
I don’t know if you’ve had occasion to read through S Faux’s list of early church fathers quotes on divinization–they are quite interesting. I am curious as to the Eastern Orthodox position on the resurrection.
It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) that all Christians accept that Jesus had a physical, resurrected body, and this is the primary (among other things) reason why Jesus is more than simply a prophet. What importance is the resurrection in the grand scheme of things?
It seems the mormon view is that God is essentially a resurrected being, but in the trinitarian view of things, the resurrection seems to be relatively unimportant. Can you elain this paradox to me, or is it considered one of the mysteries of God?
MH,
No, but I have read enough of the primary and secondary sources not to be suprised when seeing such citations.
From an Orthodox perspective since we do not view the atonement either in terms of satisfaction (a technical medieval term) or penal substitution, we view the resurrection somewhat differently. The atonement was the preservation of the hypostation union in the face of death. That is, while Christ’s human soul and body are divded from each other, they are never divided from his divine person. So he takes death into himself and recapitulates or does over humanity with it thereby removing death as a weapon of the devil. It no longer leads to our annihilation but to our resurrection. A seed must die in order to srpout and so on. Consequently, the resurrection is therefore the vindication or justification of God, Christ and humanity. 1st. God because it vindicates the Trinity from the charge of the devil that God was not omnipotent and could not save all from annihilation while preserving freedom. 2nd it vindicates or justifies Christ specifically from the false charges as well as the power of death. 3rd It vindicates humanity since all humanity now is predestined to exist foreve rin Christ and to be raised and judged. (Rom 3:25, 1 Cor 15:21ff)
So the resurrection is not a nomological dangler of sorts. It is the capstone to the redeeming work of the Incarnation. Without it there would be no vindication over death.
Perry, thank you for your response. I must say you are using some terms that I am just starting to get acquainted with. Let me see if I understand your position.
It seems you are saying that Christ’s resurrection proves that death is not final. So, Christ’s resurrection was a victory over death. However, Christ is part of God, which is an infinite being. So in essence, Christ evolves into some form which is incorruptible, and that his essence is not easily described, especially his physical characteristics.
Is this correct? Also, is the resurrection of man, just a part of man evolving into another more evolved form?
MH,
Ok, let me see if I can translate more clearly. Ever seen the Matrix? It’s like that, the New Man, Neo, goes into death, goe sinto humanity and heals it from the inside out and triumphs over death. It is not just a proving but an actual doing
I wouldn’t say that Christ is “part” of God since God lacks parts. And we wouldn’t speak of it in terms of evolution since that would imply that death was natural to humanity, which would be a form of Pelagianism.
Theosis is like standing on the shore of a river watching it pass by and then jumping in. The river was always river and you are always you, but now you are in it and moving with it.
Hmmm. I’m still not getting it. Are you saying death is not natural to humanity?
Are there any good websites explaining theosis, trinity, and resurrection from an Eastern Orthodox point of view? They all seem to be very related concepts to me.
Yup, I am saying death is not natural to humanity, but a result of sin.
Yes,there are a number of good sites and good monographs from various patristics scholars. Most major Archdioceses in the US such as GOARCH, the OCA and the Antiochians have plenty of free articles. And of course there is my website.
Leave a Comment