Theosis as the re-humanization of man

[ViaCrucis]

Here are some thoughts I'd like to express have critiqued by others, specifically if my thinking is wayward or not.

I have often, in my studies of theosis, viewed theosis as a kind of mirror-reflection of the Incarnation. Going by, for example, the famous statement by St. Athanasius that God became man so that man might become god, that even as God has become the full participant in our humanity in the Incarnation, so by grace God, by our communion and union to Him, makes us--as St. Peter writes--partakers of the divine nature.

Thus theosis is a mirror of the Incarnation; God become by the Word's union with our humanity, man; and so conversely man being united to God by grace by our union to Christ.

But other thoughts I've had are that, in the Incarnation we also see what it means to be really human. I am reminded of what Catholic priest and theologian, Herbert McCabe says in "God Still Matters", that in the Incarnation we see a bit of how God understands HImself. That it is God the Word and Son, becoming man, that we actually see the first truly human part of our history; as through Adam our humanity having been twisted and distorted by sin has meant, in some sense, the de-humanization of our humanity; and so in Christ there is the full realization and the most and fullest human.

So, perhaps theosis can even be understood--maybe even paradoxically--as man becoming man. That is, the restoration of humanity in Christ means the re-humanization, or in-humanization of man. God created us human, and to be truly human is to reflect the Divine Image; the serpent's lie in the garden, "you shall be as gods" paradoxically has the effect that by our wanting to be "as gods" we become less human, and thus estranged from God, disordered, broken, wounded. God, rather, does not wish us to be "as gods", but fully human; and He Himself becomes fully human to make that happen. And so it is by His grace, by our partaking in His divine nature by His grace, by our union to Christ, that He is making us fully human once again.

Ergo, theosis isn't about our becoming "god-like" (i.e. divine by nature), but "God-like" by way of Christ, and thus more fully human because of the restoration of the Divine Image; and therefore reflecting the pure and undistorted likeness of God.

These thoughts are, I'll admit, fragmented and not well put together. But I'd love to have some feedback, especially critiqued by those far more theologically knowledgeable and educated than myself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[disciple Clint]

Here are some thoughts I'd like to express have critiqued by others, specifically if my thinking is wayward or not.

I have often, in my studies of theosis, viewed theosis as a kind of mirror-reflection of the Incarnation. Going by, for example, the famous statement by St. Athanasius that God became man so that man might become god, that even as God has become the full participant in our humanity in the Incarnation, so by grace God, by our communion and union to Him, makes us--as St. Peter writes--partakers of the divine nature.

Thus theosis is a mirror of the Incarnation; God become by the Word's union with our humanity, man; and so conversely man being united to God by grace by our union to Christ.

But other thoughts I've had are that, in the Incarnation we also see what it means to be really human. I am reminded of what Catholic priest and theologian, Herbert McCabe says in "God Still Matters", that in the Incarnation we see a bit of how God understands HImself. That it is God the Word and Son, becoming man, that we actually see the first truly human part of our history; as through Adam our humanity having been twisted and distorted by sin has meant, in some sense, the de-humanization of our humanity; and so in Christ there is the full realization and the most and fullest human.

So, perhaps theosis can even be understood--maybe even paradoxically--as man becoming man. That is, the restoration of humanity in Christ means the re-humanization, or in-humanization of man. God created us human, and to be truly human is to reflect the Divine Image; the serpent's lie in the garden, "you shall be as gods" paradoxically has the effect that by our wanting to be "as gods" we become less human, and thus estranged from God, disordered, broken, wounded. God, rather, does not wish us to be "as gods", but fully human; and He Himself becomes fully human to make that happen. And so it is by His grace, by our partaking in His divine nature by His grace, by our union to Christ, that He is making us fully human once again.

Ergo, theosis isn't about our becoming "god-like" (i.e. divine by nature), but "God-like" by way of Christ, and thus more fully human because of the restoration of the Divine Image; and therefore reflecting the pure and undistorted likeness of God.

These thoughts are, I'll admit, fragmented and not well put together. But I'd love to have some feedback, especially critiqued by those far more theologically knowledgeable and educated than myself.

-CryptoLutheran

You have a very clear and correct view IMHO

 

[fhansen]

Here are some thoughts I'd like to express have critiqued by others, specifically if my thinking is wayward or not.

I have often, in my studies of theosis, viewed theosis as a kind of mirror-reflection of the Incarnation. Going by, for example, the famous statement by St. Athanasius that God became man so that man might become god, that even as God has become the full participant in our humanity in the Incarnation, so by grace God, by our communion and union to Him, makes us--as St. Peter writes--partakers of the divine nature.

Thus theosis is a mirror of the Incarnation; God become by the Word's union with our humanity, man; and so conversely man being united to God by grace by our union to Christ.

But other thoughts I've had are that, in the Incarnation we also see what it means to be really human. I am reminded of what Catholic priest and theologian, Herbert McCabe says in "God Still Matters", that in the Incarnation we see a bit of how God understands HImself. That it is God the Word and Son, becoming man, that we actually see the first truly human part of our history; as through Adam our humanity having been twisted and distorted by sin has meant, in some sense, the de-humanization of our humanity; and so in Christ there is the full realization and the most and fullest human.

So, perhaps theosis can even be understood--maybe even paradoxically--as man becoming man. That is, the restoration of humanity in Christ means the re-humanization, or in-humanization of man. God created us human, and to be truly human is to reflect the Divine Image; the serpent's lie in the garden, "you shall be as gods" paradoxically has the effect that by our wanting to be "as gods" we become less human, and thus estranged from God, disordered, broken, wounded. God, rather, does not wish us to be "as gods", but fully human; and He Himself becomes fully human to make that happen. And so it is by His grace, by our partaking in His divine nature by His grace, by our union to Christ, that He is making us fully human once again.

Ergo, theosis isn't about our becoming "god-like" (i.e. divine by nature), but "God-like" by way of Christ, and thus more fully human because of the restoration of the Divine Image; and therefore reflecting the pure and undistorted likeness of God.

These thoughts are, I'll admit, fragmented and not well put together. But I'd love to have some feedback, especially critiqued by those far more theologically knowledgeable and educated than myself.

-CryptoLutheran

Good thoughts. I think it’s both, becoming more human as our human purpose or telos is fulfilled, but not without recognizing that this also means to become more like God whose image and likeness we’re made in to begin with. We were not created to be sinners in any case, but that can only be realized as we exist in a state of union with God. Maybe it’s both/and: we’re to be like Christ where the two, divinity and humanity, are united, with divinity raising our humanity to the full height it was meant to achieve. Just more thoughts.

 

[friend of]

God, rather, does not wish us to be "as gods", but fully human; and He Himself becomes fully human to make that happen. And so it is by His grace, by our partaking in His divine nature by His grace, by our union to Christ, that He is making us fully human once again.

God wants us to be dependent on Him. That's just the way He created us, it's what we are as humans. Other so called "gods" are in fact entities, and entities are supposedly self-sufficient, or at least, propose to be. Demons are behind all such idols and they are also self-obsessed and prideful, desiring worship when God alone is worthy of it. This disposition separates them from God all the further, as anything that sets itself up against God Almighty is His adversary. Like C. S. Lewis puts it:

 

[FireDragon76]

Here are some thoughts I'd like to express have critiqued by others, specifically if my thinking is wayward or not.

I have often, in my studies of theosis, viewed theosis as a kind of mirror-reflection of the Incarnation. Going by, for example, the famous statement by St. Athanasius that God became man so that man might become god, that even as God has become the full participant in our humanity in the Incarnation, so by grace God, by our communion and union to Him, makes us--as St. Peter writes--partakers of the divine nature.

Thus theosis is a mirror of the Incarnation; God become by the Word's union with our humanity, man; and so conversely man being united to God by grace by our union to Christ.

But other thoughts I've had are that, in the Incarnation we also see what it means to be really human. I am reminded of what Catholic priest and theologian, Herbert McCabe says in "God Still Matters", that in the Incarnation we see a bit of how God understands HImself. That it is God the Word and Son, becoming man, that we actually see the first truly human part of our history; as through Adam our humanity having been twisted and distorted by sin has meant, in some sense, the de-humanization of our humanity; and so in Christ there is the full realization and the most and fullest human.

So, perhaps theosis can even be understood--maybe even paradoxically--as man becoming man. That is, the restoration of humanity in Christ means the re-humanization, or in-humanization of man. God created us human, and to be truly human is to reflect the Divine Image; the serpent's lie in the garden, "you shall be as gods" paradoxically has the effect that by our wanting to be "as gods" we become less human, and thus estranged from God, disordered, broken, wounded. God, rather, does not wish us to be "as gods", but fully human; and He Himself becomes fully human to make that happen. And so it is by His grace, by our partaking in His divine nature by His grace, by our union to Christ, that He is making us fully human once again.

Ergo, theosis isn't about our becoming "god-like" (i.e. divine by nature), but "God-like" by way of Christ, and thus more fully human because of the restoration of the Divine Image; and therefore reflecting the pure and undistorted likeness of God.

These thoughts are, I'll admit, fragmented and not well put together. But I'd love to have some feedback, especially critiqued by those far more theologically knowledgeable and educated than myself.

-CryptoLutheran

Good, or at least, on the right track.

I disagree that we merely become "fully human". There is a real ontological/metaphysical union that takes place, a glorification that can begin in this life and extends into the next. Adam was merely naturally good, "not bad" so to speak, he did not yet achieve union with God, becoming by grace what God is by nature.

It's good that a Lutheran is exploring this stuff, though (Pr. Jordan Cooper is the only other living Lutheran I know of interested in theosis or mystical union as a paradigm of salvation). The Lutheran community I have known is big on talking about justification and forgiveness of sins, but very little of the challenging, ascetical stuff, which many would probably dismiss as "Law". I hear more of this type of preaching from my local Congregationalists, or among Episcopalians/Anglicans.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Ergo, theosis isn't about our becoming "god-like" (i.e. divine by nature), but "God-like" by way of Christ, and thus more fully human because of the restoration of the Divine Image; and therefore reflecting the pure and undistorted likeness of God.

That is my understanding as well.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here are some thoughts I'd like to express have critiqued by others, specifically if my thinking is wayward or not.

I have often, in my studies of theosis, viewed theosis as a kind of mirror-reflection of the Incarnation. Going by, for example, the famous statement by St. Athanasius that God became man so that man might become god, that even as God has become the full participant in our humanity in the Incarnation, so by grace God, by our communion and union to Him, makes us--as St. Peter writes--partakers of the divine nature.

Thus theosis is a mirror of the Incarnation; God become by the Word's union with our humanity, man; and so conversely man being united to God by grace by our union to Christ.

But other thoughts I've had are that, in the Incarnation we also see what it means to be really human. I am reminded of what Catholic priest and theologian, Herbert McCabe says in "God Still Matters", that in the Incarnation we see a bit of how God understands HImself. That it is God the Word and Son, becoming man, that we actually see the first truly human part of our history; as through Adam our humanity having been twisted and distorted by sin has meant, in some sense, the de-humanization of our humanity; and so in Christ there is the full realization and the most and fullest human.

So, perhaps theosis can even be understood--maybe even paradoxically--as man becoming man. That is, the restoration of humanity in Christ means the re-humanization, or in-humanization of man. God created us human, and to be truly human is to reflect the Divine Image; the serpent's lie in the garden, "you shall be as gods" paradoxically has the effect that by our wanting to be "as gods" we become less human, and thus estranged from God, disordered, broken, wounded. God, rather, does not wish us to be "as gods", but fully human; and He Himself becomes fully human to make that happen. And so it is by His grace, by our partaking in His divine nature by His grace, by our union to Christ, that He is making us fully human once again.

Ergo, theosis isn't about our becoming "god-like" (i.e. divine by nature), but "God-like" by way of Christ, and thus more fully human because of the restoration of the Divine Image; and therefore reflecting the pure and undistorted likeness of God.

These thoughts are, I'll admit, fragmented and not well put together. But I'd love to have some feedback, especially critiqued by those far more theologically knowledgeable and educated than myself.

-CryptoLutheran

I like your thoughts. You capture something of what I have been feeling, but unable to fully articulate.

Brilliant theology.

I don't think the term "God-like" has any real content, anyways, just becoming a wax nose for religious pundits to play power games with language. And I believe Jesus was essentially a religious humanist in his ethos, anyways, albeit of a Jewish sort. So we should focus on the human, not the divine, in the modern context, and how we can be the best version of ourselves, and not try to find some ladder to heaven through "religion". That's the stuff of flying airplanes into buildings.

 

[The Liturgist]

@Teofrastus how do you feel about this subject?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

In different language I am thinking of the "self". There is our surface human self and the deeper self in Christ that we awaken to.

Romans 7:15-20​

15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.
20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.
22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law;
23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.
24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?
25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Does this ring true to our daily experience? It sure does for me. My surface self is disturbed by emotions and reactions to life of all kinds. But if I remain vigilant, watchful, and reflective from the perspective of a deeper self, peace is possible. I believe that undisturbable peace is our divine heritage. It is already in us and we know it not, or hardly.