/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Good, save the part on scholasticism (which began in east), western mysticism, augustinism (which since Anselm was minority view really) and so-called "original guilt" (which is utter lie)

>>572623

Why are we so autistic with those four subjects? What's wrong with us?

What is that muslim language?

>>572650

>A language has a religion

Your brain on America.

>>572650

Every Muslim I've ever met speaks English.

>>572621

The onlu selection I disagree with is the first one. What do you mean by "respect"?

>>572663

You are just jealous that we have the biggest and baddestburgers for like 5 bucks when you have to buy about 20 dollars for a decent burger. And some of you dont even have that, but only mcdonalds paper thing pattys (trademarked).

>>572728

In my travels I've learned that even McDonald's is better in the US than McDonald's anywhere else.

>>572720

>Theosis

>Gnostic

No. That is not Gnostic in the slightest.

>>572761

Gnostic soteriology was being assumed into the being of God. This is no different

>>572626

maybe because it's legalism that has destroyed the western church and turned them into pseudo jews

>>572763

It's not the same in the slighest but it's clear you want to lump them under the label of something you know is bad like Gnosticism. Theosis is the same as sanctification which is required in order to commune perfectly with God; it is not apotheosis and it is not Gnostic in any manner.

There isn't one Gnostic soteriology but most of them are focused on rejecting that the physical world is a good creation by God. which accuses God of either being evil or imperfect in a round-about way And that through the rejection of the physical a person can attain spiritual perfection to become one with the universe or whatever the particular cult says is the end goal. Gnosticism at its core is based on rejecting man's unity of body and soul which was made in Christ's image. **which rejects Christ*

In Orthodox soteriology there isn't rejection of the physical because as created by God it is good. The physical suffering or 'carrying your cross' as it were is a key aspect of Theosis. If it were Gnostic in any manner the suffering and struggle for Christ's sake would have zero purpose.

>>572800

>it's clear you want to lump them under the label of something you know is bad like Gnosticism

I'm basing this off OP's links

<Strong and sure basis of the hope for deification of man’s essence is God’s becoming man, which makes man god in the same measure as God Himself became man

<Just as three Persons of the Holy Trinity dwell in each other without losing their individual character, we are also called to “dwell” in God without losing our identity.

That is not analogous deification, that is literally becoming God

>Theosis is the same as sanctification which is required in order to commune perfectly with God

Justification alone is required

>There isn't one Gnostic soteriology

I know. Pantheistic Gnosticism was prominent.

>The physical suffering or 'carrying your cross' as it were is a key aspect of Theosis. If it were Gnostic in any manner the suffering and struggle for Christ's sake would have zero purpose.

There were highly ascetic Gnostic sects (and these influenced the rise of Monasticism). The thinking was that suffering was bad for the physical body, so it must have been good for the spiritual person.

>>572828

>That is not analogous deification, that is literally becoming God

You know that deification is just latin for theosis? And you know that it does not change a meaning, right?

>Justification alone is required

Justification is a process. If you will not end it in this age, you will in next.

>I know. Pantheistic Gnosticism was prominent.

<Accusing Orthodox, with their energy-essence autism, of pantheism

>There were highly ascetic Gnostic sects (and these influenced the rise of Monasticism)

<Gnostic

<Ascetic

<Monasticism, started by John the Baptist and then Mary Magdalene

<Gnostic

>The thinking was that suffering was bad for the physical body, so it must have been good for the spiritual person.

That was Paul, not gnostics who teaches that.

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth

>>572858

>You know that deification is just latin for theosis? And you know that it does not change a meaning, right?

Anon, do you know what the word "analogous" means?

>Justification is a process

False, unbiblical, heretical

><Accusing Orthodox, with their energy-essence autism, of pantheism

No, I accused Gnostics of pantheism. These Gnostics influenced Eastern Orthodoxy.

>Monasticism, started by John the Baptist and then Mary Magdalene

Pull the other one

>That was Paul

Paul was not a Gnostic

>For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth

Are you saying that deeds of the body are the physical body? You know, Roman Catholicism condemns Gnosticism, you're going to have to pick one

Why can't Orthos get that we Catholics don't believe in guilt of original sin…

from Catechism:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

>>572951

>>572828

>>572763

>>572720

What bothers you exactly? Is it the expression "become by grace what God is by nature"?

>>573128

No, it's Theosis.

>>573128

>Is it the expression "become by grace what God is by nature"?

That's certainly bothersome.

>>573129

"Theosis" is often translated as "deification" or "divinization" but it is a term made up by the Fathers that would better translate as "god-ification." It is not the heresy of "apotheosis," which is unfortunately also translated as "deification" often, but means "to be made a god."

The exact idea behind "theosis" is actually expressed rather clearly in the apostolic & post-apostolic era.

Justin Martyr:

<Dialogue with Trypho:

>And when I saw that they were perturbed because I said that we are the sons of God, I anticipated their questioning, and said, “Listen, sirs, how the Holy Ghost speaks of this people, saying that they are all sons of the Highest; and how this very Christ will be present in their assembly, rendering judgment to all men. The words are spoken by David, and are, according to your version of them, thus: ‘God standeth in the congregation of gods; He judgeth among the gods. How long do ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Judge for the orphan and the poor, and do justice to the humble and needy. Deliver the needy, and save the poor out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither have they understood; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth shall be shaken. I said, Ye are gods, and are all children of the Most High. But ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God! judge the earth, for Thou shalt inherit all nations.’ But in the version of the Seventy it is written, ‘Behold, ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes,’ in order to manifest the disobedience of men,—I mean of Adam and Eve,—and the fall of one of the princes, i.e., of him who was called the serpent, who fell with a great overthrow, because he deceived Eve. But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve. Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God.

<The Discourse to the Greeks:

>Henceforth, ye Greeks, come and partake of incomparable wisdom, and be instructed by the Divine Word, and acquaint yourselves with the King immortal; and do not recognise those men as heroes who slaughter whole nations. For our own Ruler, the Divine Word, who even now constantly aids us, does not desire strength of body and beauty of feature, nor yet the high spirit of earth’s nobility, but a pure soul, fortified by holiness, and the watchwords of our King, holy actions, for through the Word power passes into the soul. O trumpet of peace to the soul that is at war! O weapon that puttest to flight terrible passions! O instruction that quenches the innate fire of the soul! The Word exercises an influence which does not make poets: it does not equip philosophers nor skilled orators, but by its instruction it makes mortals immortal, mortals gods; and from the earth transports them to the realms above Olympus. Come, be taught; become as I am, for I, too, was as ye are. These have conquered me—the divinity of the instruction, and the power of the Word: for as a skilled serpent-charmer lures the terrible reptile from his den and causes it to flee, so the Word drives the fearful passions of our sensual nature from the very recesses of the soul; first driving forth lust, through which every ill is begotten—hatreds, strife, envy, emulations, anger, and such like. Lust being once banished, the soul becomes calm and serene. And being set free from the ills in which it was sunk up to the neck, it returns to Him who made it. For it is fit that it be restored to that state whence it departed, whence every soul was or is.

(cont.)

>>573129

>>573139

Irenaeus of Lyons:

<Against Heresies III

>Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee.” For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God—both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: “God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God—that is, the Son Himself—has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: “The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.” Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, “God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;” that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, “I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not.” But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.” To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the “adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.”

>. . .

>But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” But, being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life; and not receiving the incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors to death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: “I said, Ye are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but ye shall die like men.” He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons?

>>573135

God is by nature Love, Goodness, Light, Power, and so on. Do we not grow in love, goodness, etc., being reshaped in the image of God by having His Spirit in us and Christ through us? Did the Father really not adopt us as His sons? Is not Christ the firstborn of many brothers, although He is God by nature and we become god (as in, like God) by grace and adoption? (or rather, we are restored to the image of God that we innately have - Adam was already called a son of God, after all)

To say that we do -not- actually grow in holiness, that is, that we do not grow to become like God, is to deny that we must actually be perfect as the Father is, or that Christ really is our model, or that it is His Holy Spirit that we have received.

It does not mean that we become godly by nature - that would make us new persons in the Trinity. We do not cease to be God's creatures and we do not cease to be human. But by the spirit of adoption, we grow in God, rather than growing merely in the flesh (and, unless you're a soul sleep kind of guy, we continue to grow in God even when our flesh is dead). Ultimately, we are given to rule the universe with Christ (Revelation 20). God became man so that He could pull man toward Him.

>>573144

>God is by nature Love, Goodness, Light, Power, and so on. Do we not grow in love, goodness, etc., being reshaped in the image of God by having His Spirit in us and Christ through us?

We must certainly do, and this is the deification in analogy of which scripture speaks, as when Peter says we partake of the divine nature. This is meant in the sense that we, becoming good in our innermost, align with and become reflections of Him who is goodness, as He Himself said "Ye shall be holy, for I am holy". But what I quoted earlier seems to suggest a proper deification, as becoming true gods, since it uses the Incarnation and the Blessed Trinity as examples. But the Son did not analogously take on humanity, He became true man, and the persons of the Holy Trinity are not God by analogy, but are true God.

Furthermore, it is still false to say we by grace become what God is by nature because these things are improperly predicated of God. What we experience is not truly 'love', but the very essence of God (since God is pure act), and since we cannot understand it, our minds rationalize it by failing to distinguish it with the most similar thing, the thing we call love. To become what God is by nature would be to become God Himself.

>Did the Father really not adopt us as His sons?

Our adoption is by imputation. We are seen by God as His Son, so we are also treated as sons.

>>573151

We are called to partake in the life of the Trinity, but this being eternal, infinite, and incomprehensible, we can only do so to the measure of grace we can receive. To belong to the Trinity proper would require of us to be God by nature.

The Incarnation, however, is a perfect example, what's wrong with it? God, who is not man by nature, took upon our human nature anyway. Our nature united to His, we can now take upon a divine nature, but granted purely by grace and by derivation. This divine nature is nothing else than Goodness and God's attributes and energies. We become sons of God in the sense that we reflect God's light and qualities, to the degree of grace we can handle, so that Jesus Christ, even as He is God, is truly the prototype of the Christian.

>Furthermore, it is still false to say we by grace become what God is by nature because these things are improperly predicated of God. What we experience is not truly 'love', but the very essence of God (since God is pure act), and since we cannot understand it, our minds rationalize it by failing to distinguish it with the most similar thing, the thing we call love

That's a weird thing to say. So God is not literally love? God is not literally good? God is simply the incomprehensible divine essence, and we skip a note and settle on this or that attribute because it is incomprehensible to us? Doesn't that tecnically mean that there are two "Gods" - God as He is in His essence, His divine nature; and the God that we imagine and interpret? Then He does not really reveal Himself.

>To become what God is by nature would be to become God Himself.

Do you know about Palamas's essence-energy distinction?

>Our adoption is by imputation. We are seen by God as His Son, so we are also treated as sons.

I don't know what that means, and ironically, I find that it sounds much more like apotheosis than what I said earlier. The Father's relationship to the Son, if it is the same as the one between the Father and us, can only lead to theosis (ie, we are in Christ and grow in Him to taste a bit of the infinite love within the Trinity) or apotheosis (ie, God's relationship to uncreated God is applied to us).

>>573156

>God, who is not man by nature, took upon our human nature anyway

That is precisely why it is unorthodox. God, who was not man by nature, became true man. Do we, who are not God by nature, become true God?

>We become sons of God in the sense that we reflect God's light and qualities

We are sons of God because God is fatherly to us. He is fatherly to us because we have become reconciled to Him through the merits of His Son.

>So God is not literally love? God is not literally good?

Not in same way we are loving or good

>God is simply the incomprehensible divine essence, and we skip a note and settle on this or that attribute because it is incomprehensible to us?

We aren't just making it up. Like I said, love is most similar to God. This is because we are made in the image of God, we are imperfect copies of that incomprehensible thing. We must not forget that concepts like love and good are creaturely. I'm not saying God is not loving or not good, I'm saying God is more loving and more good than we can possibly imagine, because He surpasses even the concepts of "love" or "good". It isn't that love is an inaccurate descriptor of God, it's insufficient.

>Doesn't that tecnically mean that there are two "Gods" - God as He is in His essence, His divine nature; and the God that we imagine and interpret?

No, that God we "interpret" is the same God, it's just that we imperfectly understand Him, because He is so far beyond us we cannot understand Him in His fullness.

>Do you know about Palamas's essence-energy distinction?

I am somewhat aware of it.

>I don't know what that means

It means we are credited the whole life of Jesus Christ as if it were our own, so God "sees" us as Jesus Christ Himself.

>I find that it sounds much more like apotheosis than what I said earlier.

Well, that makes sense if you were reading it ontologically. Adoption is forensic.

>The Father's relationship to the Son, if it is the same as the one between the Father and us

It is absolutely not the same. He is Son by nature, we are sons by adoption. He is the only begotten Son of God.