Becoming God?

[Philothei]

To be growing in the "image and likness of God" is to be like God . We are to become god-like in aquiring the virtues of Christ and be "of the same mind" of Him. True. He is the archetype for us. Through his incarnation we are saved as Adam
s disobedience the rift between God and man was created. Theosis is that process of fulfilling that "image and likeness".

 

[WileyCoyote]

I know myself only too well to know that I do not have the mind of Christ - whatever 'the mind of Christ' may mean.

"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16)

 

[BrendanMark]

I don't think anyone has said or implied we become part of the eternal Trinity as we are finite creatures, not The Creator. Nevertheless, thanks to Christ and His sacrifice for us we are promised eternal (divine) life in the Spirit if we conform ourselves to the divine image (imitation of Christ).

The closest English equivalent of theōsis is “deification.” In Christian theology, theōsis refers to the transformation of believers into the likeness of God. Of course, Christian monotheism goes against any literal “god making” of believers. Rather, the NT speaks of a transformation of mind, a metamorphosis of character, a redefinition of selfhood, and an imitation of God. Most of these passages are tantalizingly brief, and none spells out the concept in detail.
Finlan, Steven – Theōsis [Princeton Theological Monograph Series, 2006, p. 1]


The Eastern Orthodox Church has retained theōsis as a concept for theological reflection, while the Western churches—separated by time, language, and philosophy from the Greek thinkers of the early church—have dropped it. In fact, theōsis simply does not exist for most contemporary Western theologians. In lay theology, the term is usually perceived to be blasphemous or absurd. . . The near disappearance in Western Christendom of an idea that was widely accepted for over a thousand years (including by Latin theologians such as Augustine), is a serious loss for Christian thought and hope.
Finlan, Steven – Theōsis [Princeton Theological Monograph Series, 2006, p. 8]

 

[Arch Emerging]

"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16)

this is referring to the mind of the Spirit imo

 

[Montalban]

"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16)

Doesn't that just mean knowing what he wants? As in "I'm going to give you a piece of my mind!"

 

[Montalban]

I think that explains why redemption is NOT a justification in the words of Fr. John Meyendorff

Kudos Philothei

 

[Ave Maria]

To teach that man may become God is a heresy and it is also a teaching of the Mormon church. The Mormons teach that man may become gods.

 

[BrendanMark]

Mormons are essentially Gnostics, and Orthodox theology is not Gnostic.

What part of

In Christian theology, theōsis refers to the transformation of believers into the likeness of God. Of course, Christian monotheism goes against any literal “god making” of believers. Rather, the NT speaks of a transformation of mind, a metamorphosis of character, a redefinition of selfhood, and an imitation of God.

is utterly incomprehensible to many here? No one is saying we literally become God or gods - not me, not the Fathers - so why continually bring up a falsehood and distortion as if it is a real counter-argument?

 

[Ave Maria]

Mormons are essentially Gnostics, and Orthodox theology is not Gnostic.

What part of

In Christian theology, theōsis refers to the transformation of believers into the likeness of God. Of course, Christian monotheism goes against any literal “god making” of believers. Rather, the NT speaks of a transformation of mind, a metamorphosis of character, a redefinition of selfhood, and an imitation of God.

is utterly incomprehensible to many here? No one is saying we literally become God or gods - not me, not the Fathers - so why continually bring up a falsehood and distortion as if it is a real counter-argument?

Of course orthodox theology is not Gnostic. The Gnostics were an early Christian heretical movement condemned by the early Church, also known as the Catholic Church.

 

[BrendanMark]

Yeah . . . kinda knew that. Now how about the rest of it? Orthodox theology and theosis is not Gnostic heresy - indeed, it was and is entirely contrary to it and used as proof against it, and for the Trinity and doctrine of the Two Natures.

On the one hand, Christ’s assumption of a full humanity is the prerequisite for his accomplishment of our salvation as man. On the other, Christ as man provides a pattern of the godly way of life (πολιτεία), teaching us how we are to live. The term, πολιτεία, captures for Cyril the corporate manner of life of the Christian people, a way of life and conduct made possible only by the inauguration of a new covenant and the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Keating, Daniel A. – The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria [Oxford Theological Monographs, 2004 p.v124]

 

[Montalban]

To teach that man may become God is a heresy and it is also a teaching of the Mormon church. The Mormons teach that man may become gods.

There's a difference between

Man becomes God
to
Man becomes a god

 

[Montalban]

Of course orthodox theology is not Gnostic. The Gnostics were an early Christian heretical movement condemned by the early Church, also known as the Catholic Church.

I think it makes more sense if I read your words as saying


Of course orthodox theology is not Gnostic. The Gnostics were an early Christian heretical movement also known as the Catholic Church, condemned by the early Church.

 

[BrendanMark]

So you think Catholicism is Gnosticism? What a joke this thread has become.

 

[Montalban]

So you think Catholicism is Gnosticism? What a joke this thread has become.

I had meant it half-heartedly, however I think I'll raise this but it may be due for its own thread...

They do try and achieve 'gnosis' (knowledge) of God through mental exercises/experiments but they call it scholasticism.

Take Aquinas for example where he sat down and logically determined how many angels can occupy the same space at the same time.

However, Gnostics are by definition a different group. Hence the half-heartedly statement.

 

[BrendanMark]

Aquinas a Gnostic? Scolasticism (which you badly misinterpret) = Gnosticism? You really haven't a clue at all about Catholic (or Western) theology, have you?

. . . it is far from the case that this architectonic dialectic finds its justification principally in any philosophical doctrine of ‘God’, Platonic or otherwise, but that it arises first and foremost out of a strictly Christian theological, above all Christological, necessities. That is to say, even if it is the case – and without doubt it is – that there are Greek philosophical sources on which the apophaticism of Bonaventure and Thomas directly or indirectly draw, that they do so derives not from some willingness to superimpose an alien conceptual framework distortingly upon a pure source of authentic Christian faith in Christ. Rather, these two authorities inherit conceptual opportunities already embedded in the patristic articulations of Christian teaching which bear witness to tensions of knowing and unknowing inherent within the structure and dynamic of that faith itself. In the case of Thomas Aquinas, therefore, it is not his natural theology which presses this dialectic upon sacra doctrina; rather, that natural theology reflects and replicates within reason the tensions between affirmative and negative moments which structure the inner nature of belief itself. For Thomas, then, reason already, and in its own nature, as it were ‘anticipates’ the structurally ‘mystical’ character of faith itself.
Turner, Denys – Faith, Reason and the Existence of God [Cambridge 2004 p51]

 

[MamaZ]

Doesn't that just mean knowing what he wants? As in "I'm going to give you a piece of my mind!"

1Co 2:3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
1Co 2:4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
1Co 2:6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
1Co 2:7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
1Co 2:8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
1Co 2:9 but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
1Co 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
1Co 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
1Co 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
1Co 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Montalban]

Aquinas a Gnostic? Scolasticism (which you badly misinterpret) = Gnosticism? You really haven't a clue at all about Catholic (or Western) theology, have you?

I said it was half-hearted.

Gnosis is about 'secret knowledge' and knowing God by acquiring it.

Scholasticism is, in Catholicism a way of knowing God by using knowlege.

I make no other comparisons other than these two points.

In scholasticism one can get wrapped up with, what I think are, really pointless disputations - such as the one I mentioned earlier regarding spaces and angels.

Note again I drew no other points of similarity... even if there are others...

 

[Montalban]

1Co 2:3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
1Co 2:4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
1Co 2:6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
1Co 2:7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
1Co 2:8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
1Co 2:9 but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
1Co 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
1Co 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
1Co 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
1Co 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

I think it means to understand God. Or do you think that by having the 'mind of God' you have his knowledge?

 

[MamaZ]

I think it means to understand God. Or do you think that by having the 'mind of God' you have his knowledge?

Read the scripture it has the answer for you.

 

[Montalban]

Read the scripture it has the answer for you.

*sigh*
I read the scripture.

I guess that's me not following the Apostle's again