Theosis: The True Purpose of Human Life (Video)

[ArmyMatt]

He was definitely closer to God. How does that passage support the doctrine of theosis? Did Moses reach divinity at that time? I don’t believe the passage mentions that or mentions that Moses reached any form of perfection.

I never said he reached perfection. I just said to note the difference. becoming closer to God is theosis.

 

[ArmyMatt]

With respect to this topic, what is considered to be heresy in the RCC theology?

Not looking to debate anyone just interested to know what the EO view is.

the beatific vision, and at least the historic belief that God's grace is created, that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces, etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Isn’t theosis a form of perfection?

yes, but never ending since God is infinite. we are eternally perfected by God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So is perfection reached in this life?

yes and no.

 

[Swag365]

the beatific vision, and at least the historic belief that God's grace is created, that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces, etc.

Thank you.

 

[Swag365]

While Roman Catholics do not believe in theosis I do not believe that they would consider it heresy.

Well you can see the concept briefly mentioned in our Catechism but I won't quote it here b/c this isn't a RC forum. . .

 

[Swag365]

Does it mention it as heresy?

No, Athanasius is quoted there. My question to the OP was meant to ask what aspect (if any) of our view of theosis is considered to be heresy by EO.

 

[ArmyMatt]

No, Athanasius is quoted there. My question to the OP was meant to ask what aspect (if any) of our view of theosis is considered to be heresy by EO.

the problem is with the rejection of the essence and energy distinction found in Palamas, theosis becomes impossible.

 

[Swag365]

the problem is with the rejection of the essence and energy distinction found in Palamas, theosis becomes impossible.

Thank you. I'll take a look at that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you. I'll take a look at that.

love to see what you find

 

[Swag365]

love to see what you find

Saint Gregory Palamas » Saint John the Evangelist Orthodox Church

Just upon a quick glance it kind of reminds me of the "substance" versus "accidents" distinction that the RCC makes. We can't answer the question "What is God" we can only state what God is not, and learn certain characteristics about him through inference or revelation.

So when you say "theosis" are you talking about the "essence" of man becoming the same as the "essence" of God?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So when you say "theosis" are you talking about the "essence" of man becoming the same as the "essence" of God?

no, the essence of God is never knowable to anything created. but we participate in the Divine Energies, which deifies the nature of man.

 

[Swag365]

no, the essence of God is never knowable to anything created. but we participate in the Divine Energies, which deifies the nature of man.

Got it. Thanks. This is actually a topic that I have thought to look into for a while. It's not really given any emphasis in the RCC, but I don't think we are formally opposed to it, from what I know. To me it seems more like the EO have developed it while we have not. It never took on in the west for whatever reason, more so than us being opposed to it. It's something that I don't hear much about, but I never hear anyone being outright opposed to it (but I could be wrong).

Thanks. Going to try to watch the video when I have a little more time.

 

[Swag365]

no, the essence of God is never knowable to anything created. but we participate in the Divine Energies, which deifies the nature of man.

So I would guess that the objection to Roman Catholicism is that our "created grace" is not something that you believe exists, so basically there is no viable mechanism by which man is transformed?

Also, in your theology, what is the nature of the way in which man is deified? When you say that, do you mean that merely in the sense of acting in a manner that is more consistent with our Lord? Or is there like an actual substantive change in the "soul" of the man that occurs?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Got it. Thanks. This is actually a topic that I have thought to look into for a while. It's not really given any emphasis in the RCC, but I don't think we are formally opposed to it, from what I know. To me it seems more like the EO have developed it while we have not. It never took on in the west for whatever reason, more so than us being opposed to it. It's something that I don't hear much about, but I never hear anyone being outright opposed to it (but I could be wrong).

Thanks. Going to try to watch the video when I have a little more time.

the problem is Rome outright rejected it and opposed it in the 14th century

 

[ArmyMatt]

So I would guess that the objection to Roman Catholicism is that our "created grace" is not something that you believe exists, so basically there is no viable mechanism by which man is transformed?

Also, in your theology, what is the nature of the way in which man is deified? When you say that, do you mean that merely in the sense of acting in a manner that is more consistent with our Lord? Or is there like an actual substantive change in the "soul" of the man that occurs?

man can be transformed by created means, but it takes uncreated means to become like the Uncreated God.

we participate literally in the life of God by His Energies. like how metal in fire takes on the properties of fire, without actually becoming fire.

 

[Swag365]

man can be transformed by created means, but it takes uncreated means to become like the Uncreated God.

we participate literally in the life of God by His Energies. like how metal in fire takes on the properties of fire, without actually becoming fire.

Thanks. Personally I've never conceptualized grace as a "substance" or a "fuel" as some RCC folks seem to speak of it. I think of grace as more of a quality of a person's soul or character that manifests when the Holy Spirit works within him to change him. I don't know if that view is compatible with what the RCC teaches, but would it conflict with EO theology?

That verse "partakers in the divine nature" - how would you interpret that?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks. Personally I've never conceptualized grace as a "substance" or a "fuel" as some RCC folks seem to speak of it. I think of grace as more of a quality of a person's soul or character that manifests when the Holy Spirit works within him to change him. I don't know if that view is compatible with what the RCC teaches, but would it conflict with EO theology?

That verse "partakers in the divine nature" - how would you interpret that?

it might be an Orthodox interpretation depending on what one means.

and partakers of the Divine Nature means we partake of God's natural energies.

 

[Union With Christ]

I have been studying Orthodoxy and theosis rather in depth lately as I am somewhat interested in joining the Orthodox Church.

I found it interesting that Lutherans have a doctrine similar to theosis called Mystical Union:

Weedon's Blog: A Primer on Mystical Union

 

[Union With Christ]

Here is a Lutheran Pastor on Theosis and Christification.