Many readers will find the word theosis confusing, and
perhaps even be put off by it. Many will
be far more comfortable with the terms sanctification (the process) and glorification
(the goal or result). The tragedy of
such different uses of terms is that we may often talk past each other, and
fail of hearty agreement because of misunderstandings about words. We are encouraged to discover that The Church
(at least on earth) has always struggled to find adequate words to describe
heavenly things, and this is no less true of our beloved father, Athanasius[1].
In spite of the difficulties and technical nature of these
three essays, we would urge readers to persevere at this reading. In doing so, they will discover an undeniable
and fundamental foundation for universal agreement: for Athanasius loves the
Bible, the same Bible that you love. Moreover,
theologians of every name and stripe, from every tradition around the world,
embrace in their theology the ideas of Athanasius common to almost all of
us. There are exceptions, of course, but
most of these can be attributed to an insufficient grasp of Church history. As these essays repeatedly point out, this is
an “evangelical message”.
This is not to hide the fact that there are real
differences, significant ones. Yet only
by distinguishing the details of these differences and separating them from the
common ground can we resolve the problem of the disunity of the churches. There is little fruit to be gained from
saying that theosis and glorification are different. We must disclose accurately how they are the
same, as well as precisely how they are different. Then, and only then, can we bring to the
table that which must be resolved for genuine spiritual unity to take place.
We are delighted to find that Athanasius does not use the term
theosis, but prefers the Greek terms theopoieo (god constructing, creating,
forming, making, or preparing from theos + poieo) and huiothesia[2] (son + placing as,
adoption from huios + tithemi).
Evidently, Athanasius also had a highly developed and firm faith in
substitutionary atonement, which some circles find popular to deny. Additionally, Athanasius builds his
understanding of theopoieo on substitutionary atonement, which in turn
finds its roots in incarnation. We
should not read into this some false divergence with later theology, but rather
that the terms have not yet been standardized.
When some sort of standardization comes, it will still differ by
regions: hence the origin of confusion.[3]
It is in the distinction between eternal sonship (that
sonship which finds its final expression in the incarnation) and sonship by
adoption where we first discover modern conflict. In the second essay we find a clear collision
with Calvinism in the sentence, “Since they were not sons by nature, when they
altered, the Spirit was taken away and they were disinherited; and again at
their repentance that God who thus at the beginning gave them grace, will
receive them, and give light, and call them sons again” (Contra Arianos I,
11:33). Yet only a minute portion of
this world’s believers adhere to all of the basic tenets of Calvinism.[4]
The third essay obliquely touches upon the problem of the
filioque clause which divides us. I for
one, have long wished to delete the filioque clause in the interests of
brotherly love and peace. I cannot
support the filioque clause from Scripture, it appears to originate in a simple
copyist’s error, and it is now made optional in many sectors. If it is optional, I may freely delete it,
and for my own purposes, I do delete it.
It does nothing but foment disagreement and dissension.[5]
The three essays do not address Hesychasm[6], and its related issues
directly, issues which were unknown to Athanasius. Those who have never lived in areas where
this debate was once important may be completely ignorant of it. Even so, Christians around the world so
frequently seek the peace of Christ in the solitude of prayer, and so
universally use the “Jesus Prayer”[7] even where it is unknown
by that title; even so, we have difficulty seeing a real difference here. How can anyone oppose the desire for solitude
in prayer? How can anyone despise the desperation
voiced in the prayer, “Lord, Have mercy.”
Those who wish to create differences will always find a means for doing
so.
For me, I cannot see any real substantial difference between
theosis and sanctification leading to glorification. So, by all means help us to ferret out and resolve
all real substantial differences among us.
Peace.
http://myocn.net/deification-sonship-according-st-athanasius-alexandria-part/
http://myocn.net/deification-sonship-according-st-athanasius-alexandria-part-ii/
http://myocn.net/deification-sonship-according-st-athanasius-alexandria-part-iii/
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria
[2] Romans
8:15, 23; 9:4; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5
[3] http://myocn.net/deification-sonship-according-st-athanasius-alexandria-part/
[4] http://myocn.net/deification-sonship-according-st-athanasius-alexandria-part-ii/
[5] http://myocn.net/deification-sonship-according-st-athanasius-alexandria-part-iii/
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer
[8] If
you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost,
share, or use any of them as you wish.
No rights are reserved. They are
designed and intended for your free participation. They were freely received, and are freely
given. No other permission is required
for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment