|
|
|
|
|
|
Hallonsten. Gösta, “Theosis in Recent Research: A Renewal of Interest and a Need for Clarity”, Partakers of the Divine Nature, ed. M.Christensen & J. Wittung, (Baker Academic, 2007) 281-293.
Stephen Finlan reviews the Greek words and theological concepts associated with the doctrine of theosis and concludes, “the divinization concept [is] the only idea that is adequate to describe the linkage between inward and outward, personal and universal, spiritual progress,” Theōsis: Deification in Christian Theology. Edited by Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov Pickwick Publications Eugene, OR 97401, 2006
Roger Olsen points out contradictions in modern ecumenical discussions of theosis and argues that a robust definition of theosis should take into account Gregory Palamas’ distinction between the essence and the energies of God: that is, between the transcendent and ultimately unknowable divine nature on the one hand, and the divine power to heal and refashion the soul in God’s image on the other. “Deification in Contemporary Theology” Theology Today 64, (2007)
Paul L. Gavrilyuk adds a true theology of theosis must also include “synergistic anthropology [and] sacramental realism” “How A Once-Despised Archaism Became An Ecumenical Desideratum,” Modem Theology 25:4 October 2009.
Gösta Hallonsten insists “a distinction should be made between the theme and doctrine of theosis, and that the label “doctrine of theosis” should preferentially be reserved for the integral doctrine of deification as presented by the Eastern tradition. Promoting mutual Christian understanding is a good thing. We do not reach that goal, however, simply through interpreting similarities as identities.”“Theosis in Recent Research: A Renewal of Interest and a Need for Clarity”, Partakers of the Divine Nature, ed. M.Christensen & J. Wittung, (Baker Academic, 2007) 281-293.
Abbot (Archimandrite) George, Abbot of St. Gregorios Monastery on Mount Athos describes the Orthodox doctrine of theosis as it is taught to Orthodox laity and clergy: Theosis: the True Purpose of Human Life
The words “divinzation” “deification” and theosis have increasingly appeared in theological texts by Christians who have traditionally regarded these terms with skepticism or even frank disapproval. As a result of the rediscovery of eastern Christianity by western Christians, articles have appeared, written by Lutheran, reformed, evangelical and Baptist theologians, who point to elements in their respective traditions that they regard as analogous or equivalent to the eastern Christian doctrine of theosis.[1] While this approach may reflect both ecumenical zeal and a desire to enrich the systematic and spiritual theology of the Christian West, it can also be criticized as having the potential for diluting or even completely obscuring what is meant by “divinization” or theosis. In attempting to discern the presence of this concept in one’s own spiritual tradition, there can arise a tendency to define “divinzation” so broadly as to deprive the term of any real content. Roger Olsen has noted that it is “confusing to find ‘deification’ being used of something that has for a very long time been called ‘sanctification,’ or ‘union with Christ,’ or ‘communion with God,’ or even ‘being filled with God.’”[2] He argues that a more robust definition of theosis should take into account Gregory Palamas’ distinction between the essence and the energies of God: that is, between the transcendent and ultimately unknowable divine nature on the one hand, and the divine power to heal and refashion the soul in God’s image on the other. [3] Olsen cites the Orthodox theologian Zizoulas in arguing that a doctrine of theosis without such a distinction inevitably leads to either “a near-pantheistic identity of the redeemed person with God or belief that deification is merely a metaphor and not real participation in God.”[4] In an article written in 2009 Paul Gavrilyuk recommends that in addition to the Palamite energies/essence distinction any serious definition of theosis should also include “synergistic anthropology [and] sacramental realism”.[5]
[1] Roland Chia, “Salvation as justification and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 64, no. 2 (2011), 125–139. Paul Gavrilyuk, “The Retrieval of Deification: How a Once-Despised Archaism Became an Ecumenical Desideratum,” Modern Theology 25, no. 4 (October 2009), 647-659. Roger Olsen, “Deification in Contemporary Theology” Theology Today 64, (2007), 186-200. Wesche, K.P. “The Doctrine of Deification A Call to Worship”, Theology Today, 65 (2008), 169–179. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio, ed., Luther und Theosis: Vergöttlichung als Thema der abendländischen Theologie (Helsinki: Luther- Agricola-Gesellschaft, 1990) 1- 232.
[2] Olsen, “Deification in Contemporary Theology,” 192-3
[3] Olsen, “Deification in Contemporary Theology,” 199.
[4] Olsen, “Deification in Contemporary Theology,” 191.
[5] Gavrilyuk, “Retrieval of Deification,” 655.
GRACE
IN the Christian West (especially in Roman Catholic theology) the linguistic “domain” of theosis has generally been subsumed in the theology of grace and in models of sanctification or “spiritual progress”: Traditional distinctions include:
(1) Habitual or sanctifying grace. The gift of God inhering in the soul, by which men are enabled to perform righteous acts. It is held to be normally conveyed in the Sacraments.
(2) Actual grace. A certain motion of the soul, bestowed by God ad hoc for the production of some good act. It may exist in the unbaptized.
(3) Prevenient grace. That form of actual grace which leads men to sanctification before the reception of the Sacraments. It is the free gift of God (‘gratuitous’), and entirely unmerited.
CONTOVERSIES (especially during the Jansenist era) over how a theology of grace can be reconciled with St. Augustine’s doctrine of predestination occasioned further distinctions:
efficacious grace. Grace to which free consent is given by the will so that it always produces its effect (effectum). In the controversy between the Dominicans (D. Báñez) and the Jesuits (L. de Molina), the former held the efficacy of such grace to be dependent on the character of the grace itself, the latter on the fact that it is given under circumstances which God foresees to be congruous with the dispositions of the recipient. Both parties were agreed that, although the result was inevitable, the grace did not necessitate the will and destroy freedom. Both sufficient and efficacious grace are regarded as different forms of ‘actual grace’.
sufficient grace. Grace which, in contrast to efficacious grace (q.v.), does not meet with adequate co-operation on the part of the recipient, and hence fails to achieve the result for which it was bestowed. In the Dominican view (D. Bañez), it required a further Divine motion (‘efficacious grace’) to produce a salutary act. The Jesuit view (L. Molina), on the other hand, was that ‘sufficient grace’ was really adequate to produce such a result, needing only the consent of human free will to become efficacious. Both sufficient and efficacious grace are different forms of ‘actual grace’.
