#theosis

[orthodoxadventure]

Christ shared our poverty that we might share the riches of His divinity: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, though He was rich, yet for your sake became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich' (2 Corinthians viii,9). In Saint John's Gospel the same idea is found in a slightly different form. Christ states that He has given His disciples a share in the divine glory, and He prays that they may achieve union with God: 'The glory which Thou, Father, gavest me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as we are one; I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfectly one' (John xvii, 22-3). The Greek Fathers took these and similar texts in their literal sense, and dared to speak of man's 'deification' (in Greek, theosis). If man is to share in God's glory, they argued, if he is to be 'perfectly one' with God, this means in effect that man must be 'deified': he is called to become by grace what God is by nature. Accordingly Saint Athanasius summed up the purpose of the Incarnation by saying: 'God became man that we might be made God'.

Now if this 'being made God', this theosis, is to be possible, Christ the Saviour must be both fully man and fully God. No one less than God can save man; therefore if Christ is to save, He must be God. But only if He is also truly a man, as we are, can we men participate in what He has done for us. A bridge is formed between God and man by the Incarnate Christ who is both. 'Hereafter you shall see heaven open,' Our Lord promised, 'and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man' (John i, 51) Not only angels use that ladder, but the human race.

Christ must be fully God and fully man. Each heresy in turn undermined some part of this vital affirmation. Either Christ was made less than God (Arianism); or His manhood was so divided from His Godhead that He became two persons instead of one (Nestorianism); or He was not presented as truly man (Monophysistism, Monothelitism). Each Council defended this affirmation. The first two, held in the fourth century, concentrated upon the earlier part (that Christ must be fully God) and formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. The next four, during the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, turned to the second part (the fullness of Christ's manhood) and also sought to explain how manhood and Godhead could be united in a single person.

-- Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church

[apenitentialprayer]

Okay, so in the Summa, Saint Thomas Aquinas argues that any one Member of the Trinity could have become Incarnate, and that it was simply that it was most fitting that it was the Son. Thomas gives three explanations for his reasoning:

All things were created in and through the Son, and that gives Him "a certain common agreement with all creatures," and it is the craftsman's sense of duty upon seeing his damaged work that he "restores it when it has fallen into ruin."

That a share of the Divine life is an inheritance given to the human race through the Incarnation; and since an inheritance is given from a parent to a child, it would make sense that the human race be united to God through the Son, the only begotten Child.

Original Sin entered the human race through the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Given the first sin was an illegitimate seizure of wisdom, it was right that the Wisdom of God Himself become Incarnate in order to be seized by men.

And these are interesting. But I'm reading Bernard of Clairvaux's sermons for Advent, and in his Six Circumstances for the Coming of the Lord, he suggests another reason: In attempting to become like God, Adam and Eve and the fallen angels attempted to take the birthright of the eternal Son, the true image of the Father. This act of trying to usurp the glory of God's only begotten Son causes the Son to freely give His glory to the attempted usurpers. Bernard places the following monologue in the pre-Incarnate Christ's mouth:

My Father . . . made two noble orders sharing His reason, capable of participating in His beatitude: angels and men. But behold, on My account He has ruined a multitude of His angels and the entire race of men. Therefore, that they may know that I love my Father, He shall receive back through Me what in a certain way He seems to have lost through Me. 'It is on my account this storm has arisen; take me and cast me into the sea' [Jonah 1:12]. All are envious of Me; behold, I come, and will exhibit Myself to them in such a guise as that whoever shall wish may become like Me; whatsoever I shall do they may imitate, so that their envy shall be made good and profitable to them.

So the Son, whose position as Him who is most like the Father is envied, transforms that envy into something good; He shares His nature as the beloved of the Father, and He does so in such a way that our deepest desire to be loved plays a part in that salvation. We, who wanted to be like God, now truly have a way of imitating Him. And that's neat.

[dramoor]

“I am in God, and God is in me. I feel that all creatures, the trees, the flowers belong to God and also to me. I no longer have a will, it belongs to God. And all that is God´s is mine.”

~ St. Mariam of Jesus Crucified, The Lily of Palestine, O.C.D. (1846-1878)

(Art: Resurrection, by Albert Pinkham)

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Thinking: Christianity is not an intellectual exercise. God is infinite and as such any attempts to rationalize the mystery of the divine will result in heresy. God is not a thing that you rationalize about but a being that you know (unfully) and are known by (fully). It does you no good to simply think of God and not speak to him. To know is to be. To know God is to become like God, it is to image God, it is to glorify and to be glorified, to be more and more intimate with God that the line between you and the divine becomes blurry to those who see you.

That is the end and aim of humanity: to image God so clearly that the spiritual beings can barely tell the difference.

[guwhir]

theosis

[apesoformythoughts]

“If someone who is born of God does not sin, how is it that we who have been born of water and the Spirit, and thus of God, do in fact commit sins? The answer is that the phrase ‘born of God’ has two different meanings. According to the first of these, God has given the grace of sonship with all power to those who have been born again. According to the second, the God who has thus given birth is working in us to bring us to perfection. By faith we are born again in principle, but God still has to get to work on us in order to refashion us according to his likeness.”

— St. Maximus the Confessor

[thetelesterion]

A Comparison of Neoplatonic and Christian Theology: Henosis vs. Theosis

------------------------------------------

Henosis, (ἕνωσις)

-A word meaning "unity" or "oneness"

-A transformation or elevation of the soul back to its prime source, the One (Τὸ Ἕν)

-Achieved through means of spiritual contemplation combined with theurgic rituals

-Requires an emptying and purifying of the self to achieve (katharsis)

-A full, unfiltered unity with the essence of the One, not just with its energies

Theosis, (θέωσις)

-A word meaning "deification" or "divinization"

-A restoration of human nature to a "pre-fall" state-- a sinless, semi-divine state.

-Achieved through a combination of spiritual purification (katharsis) and engaging with the energies of God through the sacraments.

-Not a "full" union with the essence of God, merely his energies.

-------------------------------------------

In Neoplatonism, henosis is more of an ascent, or a return of the soul to its original source, a full realization of our inner divinity. Theosis, in Christian belief, is a restoration of the human person, (body and soul) to a state of divine sinlessness, as it existed in the Garden of Eden. It is not a direct unity with God's essence but rather his energies, as his essence is ultimately unknowable to us. It is, in a sense, limited.

The similarities between henosis and theosis make for interesting theological discussions about human nature and the soul. Several Christian writers were influenced by Neoplatonist ideas in late antiquity, and many Christian beliefs borrow heavily from Platonism in general.

[pilgrimage-towards-christ]

[eyeoftheheart]

“Perhaps no one on this earth is able to maintain a state of perfect illumination from moment to moment. Even fairly advanced practitioners probably reach a glimpse of gnosis and then fall back into the preoccupations of the world; this may explain the experience of “dryness” or “aridity” that is described in so many spiritual texts. When one notices this has happened, one picks oneself up and begins again. Thus vigilance and watchfulness are always essential, and complacency always dangerous. As Christ says, “Watch ye therefore, and pray always” (Luke 21:36).

But there are said to be a few who attain this consciousness to a degree that their being is totally transformed, becoming pure and luminescent, far surpassing the limits of what we understand as embodiment. The Transfiguration of Christ, in which “his face did shine as the sun and his raiment was as white as the light” (Matt. 17:2) is a prototype of this experience. The Orthodox tradition says that those who reach this goal have attained theosis or deification; the individual literally becomes divine. As the fourth-century Church Father Athanasius the Great put it, “God became man so that man could become God.” For those of us in the battlefield of daily life, theosis may seem a distant and elusive goal. Yet human capacities—and divine grace—reach far beyond what is commonly believed possible. A story from the Desert Fathers gives a hint of what such transformation may be like:

There came to the abbot Joseph the abbot Lot, and said to him, “Father, according to my strength I keep a modest rule of prayer and fasting and meditation and quiet, and according to my strength I purge my imagination; what more must I do?” The old man, rising, held up his hands against the sky, and his fingers became like ten torches of fire, and he said, “If thou wilt, thou shalt be made wholly a flame.””

― Richard Smoley, Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition

[versegpt]

Glorify God, Emulate Christ: The Thesis of Theosis

As Christians, we are called to something far greater than mere moral improvement or personal success. Our calling is to reflect God’s glory and to grow into Christ’s likeness through a deep and transformative communion with Him. This process is known as theosis, a theological concept that describes the believer's transformation into the divine nature. While this may seem like a lofty goal, it is not an unreachable ideal—it is the very purpose of our lives in Christ.

1. Glorify God: Reflecting His Glory in All We Do

The first part of our calling is to glorify God. This means that every aspect of our lives—our thoughts, actions, and relationships—should reflect God’s greatness and holiness. When we reflect on God's glory, we acknowledge His supreme power, His unfathomable love, and His perfection. As believers, we are meant to mirror these divine attributes in the world around us.

In 2 Corinthians 3:18, the Apostle Paul explains that, "we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory." This transformation is not something we achieve on our own, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. As we live in communion with Christ—through prayer, Scripture, and worship—we become more like Him, and His glory is reflected in our lives. Theosis is the process by which we are increasingly shaped by Christ to reflect His perfect image, and thus bring glory to God.

2. Emulate Christ: Growing into His Likeness

The second key aspect of theosis is to grow into Christ’s likeness. This is not simply a matter of imitating Jesus’ actions, but of allowing His character to transform our hearts and minds. As we become more like Christ, we begin to think as He thinks, love as He loves, and live as He lived. This growth in Christlikeness is an ongoing process that requires both commitment and dependence on God.

Romans 8:29 states that, "those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son." Christ is our ultimate example, and we are called to emulate Him in every way. But this is not something we can do through our own strength or willpower. It is through communion with Christ that we are able to grow into His likeness. As we draw near to Him, He changes us from the inside out, and we are empowered to live lives that reflect His love, humility, and holiness.

The Power of Communion

The unifying thread in both of these key points is communion with Christ. It is only through a deep, personal relationship with Jesus that we can fulfill our calling to reflect God’s glory and emulate Christ’s likeness. This communion is nurtured through regular prayer, meditating on God's Word, and living in the power of the Holy Spirit.

In John 15:4, Jesus said, "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me." True transformation—becoming more like Christ—can only happen when we are deeply connected to Jesus, allowing His presence and power to shape every area of our lives. This intimate relationship is the foundation of theosis, as it is through our union with Christ that we reflect His glory and grow into His likeness.

Conclusion: Our Calling to Transformation

Theosis is not an optional part of the Christian life. It is our holy calling to reflect God’s glory and to grow into Christ's likeness through communion with Him. This calling is both a privilege and a responsibility. As we live in relationship with Christ, we are transformed into His image and, in turn, reflect His glory to the world. Our journey of becoming more like Jesus is not something we do in isolation but is deeply rooted in our communion with Him.

As you walk through your own spiritual journey, remember that your calling is clear: Glorify God. Emulate Christ. Through deep communion with Him, may your life reflect His glory and grow into His likeness, day by day.

[porphurios]

“On the subject of that which is beyond Intellect, many statements are made on the basis of intellection, but it is contemplated (θεωρεῖται) by a non-intellection (ἀνοησία) superior to intellection; even as concerning sleep many statements may be made in a waking state, but only through sleeping can one gain knowledge and comprehension (γνῶσις καὶ κατάληψις); for like is known by like, because all knowledge consists of assimilation to the object of knowledge.”

— Porphyry of Tyre, Sententiae XXV

[apenitentialprayer]

God is all-holy, God is all-love, God is infinite goodness. He can only want what is best for man, which is Himself. God's moral nature precludes ignoring or discounting good or evil. He wants to fill every human life (body and soul) with Himself. That divine self-gift would be absolutely unbearable for a person unprepared to receive it. A person attached to sin in any way cannot rightly love God who is Love-Absolute-and-Love-Incarnate[, but a] person made for love and ready to receive Love Personified will not be satisfied with anything or anyone else.

Father Robert McTeigue, S.J.

The Holy Spirit is Like Fire from Heaven, by Elizabeth Wang

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Thinking about trying to encapsulate the idea of "Beauty is terror" into my theology. God is Absolute Beauty (Plato). Thus, God is Absolute Terror (Donna Tartt).

And yet the terror is beautiful.

Thinking about Isaiah. Thinking about Isaiah seeing God's throne room, thinking he's gonna die, only for a fiery flying snake cherubim-esque creature to put burning coal on his lips. This should kill him but instead makes him holy - totally unique. Theosis like. (Moses horrifying transformation was (apo)theosis like) Then Isaiah is totally cleaned of his moral failure and is more than eager to risk his life for Yahweh.

Idk still meditating. Notes welcome.

[colorful-cryptid]

What's attractive to you about Orthodoxy?

(Also, how do you feel about the two most common objections - the exclusivism of a One True Church doctrine, and the questionable historical descent and Scriptural justification for icon veneration?)

Now THAT is the million dollar question isn’t it :)

My response has the potential to be very long, but I will try to keep it brief. I’ll first address the common objections and then circle back.

First, regarding icons: I have no problems with it whatsoever. Icons are not as precious to me as they are to many Orthodox, but they are not as offensive to me as they are to most protestants. The question of its legitimacy as a practice is of little interest to me, but the apologetics I hear from Orthodoxy are sound.

The exclusivism of a One True Church doctrine is unattractive to me. Talking with my wife, I always say that if I were convinced of any one church being the One True Church, then I’d essentially be converted already and would drop everything to ask to be received as a catechumen. I expect if I am to become Orthodox, then accepting the One True Church idea will come after I am received. The things that attract me to Orthodoxy are attractive regardless of my pervading disagreement.

So the One True Church idea is an obstacle for me for sure. I don’t know if being Orthodox necessarily means I must have an exclusivist view. I understand the topic is somewhat debated within Orthodoxy; I see some ecumenism such as from The Open Ark, whose article on Ukraine inspired my earlier ask.

As for what I do find attractive…

My faith/spirituality has been a private, personal thing for me, for the most part. I grew up going to a nondenominational church, whose central teaching was an emphasis on one’s personal relationship with God. These days I understand some complications regarding such an emphasis, but still I’ve held to it very closely.

2023 was a brutally difficult year for me due to hardships in my family. Long story short, that was the domino that led me into a sort of dark night of the soul. I was spiritually chewed up and spit back out, but renewed.

I always struggled with my faith, and my experience gave me a new firmness I never had before. I learned about Quakerism, which deeply resonated with me. It sounded like what I’ve essentially privately believed my whole life and it gave words to the experience I had just gone through. But I was still early in my “reconstruction” and I wasn’t about to choose a path just yet. I had more to learn.

I eventually discovered Christian mysticism, in the broad sense. I cannot overstate my fascination with such a thing, especially in light of my experiences.

It was while learning about Christian mysticism that I heard Orthodoxy was very mystical, moreso than in Western traditions that have given more credence to reason than to mystery. So, naturally, I started looking into Orthodoxy.

What I discovered wasn’t at all impenetrable. In fact, I was astounded to see it teaching things I had come to believe through my own contemplation already. For example, the Orthodox view of Ancestral Sin as opposed the Western idea of Original Sin. The more I learned, the more I realized not only do I prefer the Eastern view to the Western view on most matters, but my limited understanding of history seems to demonstrate that Orthodoxy has held more closely to the original deposit of faith than any Western tradition.

So I continued to discern both Quakerism and Orthodoxy as possible paths for me, and that dilemma continues to this day. (I know, very strange to consider something SO high-church compared to something SO low-church, but the similarities they DO have are striking)

In entertaining Orthodoxy, I realized I did not have a high enough view of the Theotokos, our Blessed Mother. So I retreated into contemplation, considering: what have I missed about Mary that I can/should appreciate about her? I had a realization about how she symbolizes the Christian life - that we should pray to her that, as she carried and birthed Christ, she will show us the way to mystically carry and birth Christ through union with Him. It was later that I heard such a teaching attributed to St. Symeon the New Theologian. To the best of my recollection, I had heard no such teaching beforehand. Mary was very understated in the tradition I grew up in.

That is perhaps the most wonderful example, but I’ve noticed other instances where something I arrived at through my own contemplation was something I later learned to be totally in line with Orthodox teaching.

But undoubtedly the most attractive quality of Orthodoxy is the teaching of theosis as the purpose and meaning of life. Where before I was staring down the barrel of nihilism and meaninglessness, now I can be convinced of nothing other than my need for theosis, which the Orthodox Church promises to guide me towards in a way most other traditions just don’t.

What’s more is I’ve seen Quakers become Orthodox, but I haven’t seen it the other way around (although Catholics have become Quakers, but I digress). Since Quakerism is so much about listening directly to the leadings of the Holy Spirit, I find that very compelling.

So I hope that gives you a decent overview. Let me know if you have other questions :)

[briefblueseason]

The Host is resting among us in order that Christ may work the miracle of His love in us, changing us almost imperceptibly into Himself, that through us His love may overcome the world.

- Caryll Houselander, The Passion of the Infant Christ

[sonadorayluchadora]

I feel the spiritual grip music is beginning to have on me again, i have to be more diligent. Genuinely as addictive and intoxicating as weed. Praying my morning and evening rule is incredibly difficult as my life is so uncertain and, well, i live in a car that isn't even mine....

but truly, i feel not even ashamed as much as sad I have not been grateful to God for what He is owed.

I tend to be a soldier when it comes to the spiritual life, wanting to war for war's sake and not for God's. But for the proof of my own strength, it makes sense in retrospect why I've been dealing with such vainglory.

This new living situation is really proving to me how dysfunctional that relationship with God really is.

Being a Pentecostal was so easy because it was doing nothing and begging God to do something. Which honestly is an insult to humanity, the jewel of creation. Did Christ not come in flesh? Theosis is a much more straightforward yet complex idea.

The concept of a constant communion with God and His Church was a lot easier than you'd think for me. Ha. now its just the actually doing it part.

Every homily changed when I stopped taking it as "huh. yeah, i better keep this in mind for later" and thinking of examples in other's of what to watch for in myself. When I started to actually treat every word that came out of my priest's mouth as if he were speaking directly to me.

Now, its far more difficult to do for my lack of prayer.

But hope! i can pray lol. Even the way in which i've forced myself to pray is vainglory, trying to have a fancy old grand set up like my bf.

Why do i do that? I've never been impressed with the grand of this life. Beauty in the mundane is what has always moved me.

He is every present and fillest all things.