As for HH's article (since I pointed to it in the first place), I agree that there is much to be uncomfortable about in it. I don't know what "soul sleep" is, and I doubt HH knew either (maybe this is one of the western ideas he warns about...I don't know), but it is important to note here that the OO more generally never developed a codified way of expressing the energies/essence distinction, since that happened rather late (or at any rate, specifically post-Chalcedon) in Christian history, as the result of various conflicts that as far as I know did not include us. This is why I wrote earlier in the context of saying that he was ultimately wrong that HH seemed to make of it some kind of Mormonesque idea that man literally becomes an almighty God, as I don't know of any proponent of theosis who claims (as HH wrote against in that article) that via theosis we would gain God's ability to create from nothing, or His full knowledge, or His might, etc.
Consider it this way: How do we ask for intercession of the saints in the Orthodox Church? "Through the prayers of St. _____, O Lord, grant us the forgiveness of our sins" is the standard in the Coptic Orthodox tradition. So it is still asking directly from God, through the prayers of the saint who -- by virtue of being a saint -- we can assume is far 'advanced' (or however you'd put it) in the process of theosis. We do not ask the saint directly to heal us or forgive us our sins or any of these things we recognize that they cannot do. Why can't they do them? Because obviously gaining these divine characteristics is not a part of theosis in any Christian tradition.
Even in the EO sources I have consulted on this matter, such as Fr. Andrew Damick's "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" podcast on AFR, describe theosis as the infinite process of "becoming more, and more, and more
like God" (emphasis added). The good father does not say "
becoming God", probably because he recognizes that this wouldn't be an accurate statement of what theosis is. Correct me if I'm wrong, EO people: by advocating theosis, you are not saying that man becomes God such that you are some kind of "second God" alongside God the Holy Trinity, correct? I am aware of many people in my own communion (aided by stuff like this messy situation between HH and Fr. Matta) who are tripped up then by statements like HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's famous "God became man so that man may become God", but if we understand already that it is not used to mean becoming almighty creator Gods or whatever (as that is not something that any saint has argued for), then there is really no problem with it, and it is something that we can (and must) affirm.
So I say HH is wrong because what he fought against is clearly not what theosis actually is (at least not as far as I've been able to tell by consulting with EO people or EO sources about it, to the limited extent that I have), but apparently at some point he became convinced that it was. I would have much the same concern with Fr. Athanasius' article, but I think Fr. Athanasius has given it more thought than HH did (or at least understood it differently than HH did), to be honest, and he actually provides for an alternative, and argues why it ought to be adopted. I had hoped it would be given some serious consideration by the people who choose to post here (and maybe it still will), not as something for they themselves to adopt, but as an alternative way to look at this issue.
Another viewpoint comes from HG Bishop Youssef of the Southern United States diocese, my former bishop who again I have heard with my own ears affirm the essence/energies distinction as being a real thing that we do believe in, wrote the following:
Deification:
Deification is an ancient theological term used to describe the process by which a Christian becomes more like God. A distinction must be drawn between the idea of deification as “becoming God” (theosis) and as “becoming like God” (homoiosis theoi).
What Deification is not:
When the Church calls us to pursue godliness, to be more like God, this doesn’t mean that human beings then become divine. We do not become like God in His nature. That would not only be a heresy, it would be impossible. For we are human, always have been human, and will always remain human. We cannot take on the divine nature of God. God said it clearly, “My glory (of the divinity) I will not give to another” (Isa 42:8 ). In (Jn 10:34), our Lord Jesus Christ, quoting (Ps 82:6) repeats the passage, “You are gods”. The fact that He was speaking to a group of hypocritical religious leaders who were accusing Him of blasphemy makes the meaning very clear: our Lord was not using “god” to refer to divine nature. We are gods in that we bear His likeness, not His nature. Moreover, the same Holy Psalm says in the next verse, “You shall die like men and fall like one of the princes” (Ps 82:7).
What Deification is:
Deification means we are to become more like God through His grace. When the Son of God assumed our humanity in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the process of our being renewed in God’s image and likeness was begun. Thus, those who are joined to Christ through Faith, Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist begin a re-creation process, being renewed in God’s image and likeness. We become as St. Peter writes, “partakers of the divine nature” (2Pet 1:4).
What St. Peter means is partaking of the divine virtues and not the essence of the Godhead. He therefore shows us the way by saying in the same verse, “...having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (1Pet 1:4). Those who misinterpret St. Peter’s words fall into the deception of Satan who said to Eve, “you will be like God” (Gen 3:5), the devil convinced her that they would be divine!
I'm going to guess that this probably isn't still entirely in line with the essence/energies distinction as found in the EO tradition (after all, as I've written already, we weren't a part of its codification), but I post it here to point out things like the opening of the last paragraph, in which HG writes "What St. Peter means is partaking of the divine virtues and not the essence of the Godhead." The distinction that EO (or for that matter OO) make is not virtues/essence, but still there is a distinction being made between a correct way of understanding the scripture and an incorrect way, and importantly among either people the incorrect way would be to say that we participate in His essence. That's clearly wrong, and in so far as HH wrote against that he was right to do so, even if he was at the same time wrong in identifying this as theosis and hence mistakenly/ignorantly attacking it.
