On a post in GT, one person said his definition of synergy is:
This strikes me as inadequate, at best, and perhaps semi-pelagian at worst. A bit of "God helps those who help themselves."
As I've studied the historical theology of Orthodoxy, I've come to think that human-divine synergy is realized in Christ himself, in the Incarnation, the hypostatic union of God and Man in a single person.
Now of course individual humans will never be one person with the divine in that sense...but if theosis ultimately is our perfect union with God, through our participation in the humanity of Christ...then it stands to reason that synergy between us and God, is participation in the synergy between God and Man in Christ.
Which is to say, two wills cooperating in complete harmony, the human always submissive to the divine but willingly so, and freely so, such that neither will is in any sense dominating or predestining the other.
So back to the definition above, I would have to ask "Was the Incarnation about Christ's humanity doing its part, and then his Divinity making up the difference?" To which I would have to answer, no it is not. It wasn't part here, part there, but rather every action was mysteriously entirely the work of God and entirely the work of man.
Am I on track here?
... us doing our part and God making up the difference.
This strikes me as inadequate, at best, and perhaps semi-pelagian at worst. A bit of "God helps those who help themselves."
As I've studied the historical theology of Orthodoxy, I've come to think that human-divine synergy is realized in Christ himself, in the Incarnation, the hypostatic union of God and Man in a single person.
Now of course individual humans will never be one person with the divine in that sense...but if theosis ultimately is our perfect union with God, through our participation in the humanity of Christ...then it stands to reason that synergy between us and God, is participation in the synergy between God and Man in Christ.
Which is to say, two wills cooperating in complete harmony, the human always submissive to the divine but willingly so, and freely so, such that neither will is in any sense dominating or predestining the other.
So back to the definition above, I would have to ask "Was the Incarnation about Christ's humanity doing its part, and then his Divinity making up the difference?" To which I would have to answer, no it is not. It wasn't part here, part there, but rather every action was mysteriously entirely the work of God and entirely the work of man.
Am I on track here?