This is directed to those Copts who believe in theosis. Are there any mentions of theosis in the Coptic liturgy? I don't recall any. It seems quite odd that such an essential doctrine would not be contained in the liturgy.
This is directed to those Copts who believe in theosis.
A Coptic atheist might not believe in it. Any Orthodox Christian, even the Roman catholics, and some protestants, believe in Theosis. It isn't really optional LOL. Its like asking for a Christian who believes in the Trinity. Theosis is not a new aged heresy or any of the like. It is not a theory one can ascribe to or not. It is basic, essential, and necessary doctrine. Just to point that out, I think it must be clear. A Christian who denies theosis is no Christian at all.
It seems quite odd that such an essential doctrine would not be contained in the liturgy.
I feel that, though this is the third line of your question, it presupposes that one cannot point out any liturgical instances of a commemoration of Theosis. I don't mind giving you some.
Prayer Before Communion: "Open my eyes and heart that I may accept Your Gifts and Blessings and let Your Holy Spirit abide in me that I may unite with You and live for the Glory of Your Holy Name."
Prayer After Communion "Let my union with You today be everlasting. Make me increase in virtue and strengthen my faith and my hope."
There are obviously many more, but since it is 4:50 AM where I am, I will let others add to it (I have seen many more, and remember clearly the wording.) Still, I must make something clear. The reason that there would be no need to come out and say "Theosis" in liturgy is for the simply reason that it is taken for granted. It has always been the understanding of the church that Theosis is salvation, that there is no need to hammer it out. Other things (like the trinitarian faith, a statement of the natures of Christ) serve to counteract heresy. Theosis was just never attacked. Just like the words "Jesus is God" is rarely candidly said in liturgy (merely alluded to.) It was not a matter of conflict. Still, Theosis is mentioned a thousand times during liturgy.
I'll try posting some more concrete examples. But try picking up the liturgy book, move towards the end (the absolution prayers before the communion) and witness Theosis spelled out liturgically.
[quote author=qawe link=topic=14084.msg162318#msg162318 date=1356935449] This is directed to those Copts who believe in theosis. Are there any mentions of theosis in the Coptic liturgy? I don't recall any. It seems quite odd that such an essential doctrine would not be contained in the liturgy.
Everytime the priest says "life-giving flesh" (of our Lord Jesus Christ), we are talking about our theosis through the Eucharist.
There are two things to note here first: 1) Life-giving is the nature of God, not a human nature (we say, for example, that the Holy Spirit is the life-giver). 2) Flesh is not life-giving -- whoever eats the bread of this world still dies.
Now, what we get through Christ is a unity of the nature of the life-giver and the nature of the flesh. The flesh of Christ is life-giving because God is the life-giver, and by uniting His divinity to the flesh that He makes His own, that same flesh, which was born of the Virgin, crucified, and raised on the third day, is the very same flesh that we partake of in the Eucharist.
In other words, the Eucharist is partaking of the divine nature in the person of Christ, which is why we call His Body the "life-giving flesh." This is theosis, and so everytime the priest says that the Eucharist is the life-giving flesh of our Lord, that is an affirmation of the doctrine of theosis.
Priest: You, who are THE BEING at all times, have come to us on earth. You have come into the womb of the Virgin. You, the Infinite, being God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.
But emptied Yourself, and took the form of a servant, and blessed my nature in Yourself, and fulfilled your law on my behalf You have shown me the rising up from my fall.
You have lifted the curse of the Law. You have abolished sin in the flesh. You have shown me the power of Your authority. You have given sight to the blind. You have raised the dead from the tombs. You have established nature by the word.
You have manifested to me the economy of your tender mercy. You have borne the oppression of the wicked. You have given Your back to the scourge. Your cheeks You have left open to those who smite.
For my sake, O my Master, You have not hidden Your face from the shame of spitting.
The sanctification of the human nature through Christ's Incarnation is at the heart of Theosis.
[quote author=qawe link=topic=14084.msg162318#msg162318 date=1356935449] This is directed to those Copts who believe in theosis. Are there any mentions of theosis in the Coptic liturgy? I don't recall any. It seems quite odd that such an essential doctrine would not be contained in the liturgy.
I'm kind of flying by feel and bad memory, but it has just occurred to me that "theosis" is another EO self-defined, fabricated traditional slander of OO (starting with SS. Athanasius and Cyril??). Similar to "monophysite," "monothyletiticism (sp)," etc. etc.. My experience is that these self-made EO pseudo-theologians have no clue of the spiritual speculations they are espousing (criticizing) . Ask them to fully explain Chalcedonian Christology. That is a Gordian knot. I've yet to receive a full, comprehensible objective definition, only fabricated, self-defined OO criticisms. Who can fully define Divine Nature? Or even human nature? Only the Emperor? Where has he gone to? Ask Diogenese (more sp). If any of these curious EO are sincere, let them come and see (for about six months). Starting with Saturday midnight praises (is this tasbeha?). Even my miserable Irish/english can comprehend enough of this Coptic/Arabic to understand its validity. This is a very small investment for its eternal potential. Happy "Gregorian" New Year.
Pick up a book. No-one cares for "your feel." While everyone has put up reason for believing in theosis, and have portrayed patristic evidence, you have not. What you have given is another dim-witted excuse for reason. An EO invention?
Try Bishop Bishoy El-Bushy, a 13th century Coptic bishop who speaks about theosis. Was he EO as well? I expect an answer to that question. Put up or shut up!
Our liturgy explains the unity with God over and over again. Do you mind pointing out where it is denied in our liturgies? Put up or shut up!
At least these "EO pseudo-theologians" have given reason. You have given nothing more than the maniac ramblings of an idiot. Care to back what you say by proof? Put up or shut up!
Chalcedonian Christology is 100% irrelavent to the issue of Theosis (though, yes, I could explain Chalcedonian Christology to you. I just wouldn't waste my voice.) I believe in Jesus Christ. Should I explain how computers are made for you to believe my theory?
You speak of Tasbeha. Let me show you Theosis in our Coptic Tasbeha.
"He took what is ours, and gave us what is his." - Friday Theotokia. Would you care to explain what this means without speaking of a unity with God or a partaking of the divine nature? Put up or shut up.
"He took our body, and gave us His Holy Spirit, and made us one with Him, through His goodness." - Friday theotokia. Made us one with him. EO invention? I put up. I don't have to shut up. Give it a try. Put up, or shut up!
I've yet to receive a full, comprehensible objective definition, only fabricated, self-defined OO criticisms.
It is not a criticism of the OO. It is not even a criticism of the Coptic church. The OO sister churches have always believed in it. Did you not yourself say that Paulos Mor Gregorios was a good man? He spoke in plenty about it. Likewise Fr. Matthew the Poor. Look at the sister OO churches and make a judgement. Only recently have some Copts denied it. So is it a criticism of the OO? No. It is nothing but the teaching of the Orthodox church for centuries. OO and EO. But since you like to reject everything the EO say, just because they are EO, I will deny the trinity (they believe in that), the incarnation etc.
You assume that I do not attend Tasbeha. I only wish you would have stepped back and realized that I do pray Tasbeha, and to a much greater degree than you would expect. But you are not interested in facts, are you? You are interested in your own unsupported pre-conceived notions. This results in you falling in heresy. For the reason of not spitting my spiritual life to you, I will remain silent, but suffice it to say I am well aquainted with Tasbeha.
How is theosis a slander of Cyril and Athanasius?! It is a doctrine based from their Holy works? Have you read them? Since we christians have shown over and over from the writings of these two great saints a support for theosis, would you kindly portray these saints speaking against it? Put up or shut up!
I leave you with one thought. PUT UP OR SHUT UP! If you attack a person, that is no reason for me to be upset. But when you attack doctrine of the Church, you are a heretic. A heretic cannot receive any treatment other than that of Arius. My anger is warranted, and I will not repent. The truth of the doctrines of the Holy Church must stand above the vain ramblings of an angry unsupported man.
[quote author= Bishop Boulos El Bushi]Then He said the greatest thing when He made the statement, "Just as the living Father sent me, and I have life on account of the Father, so too whoever eats Me lives on account of Me." (John 6:57). He did not need to say here, "whoever eats my body," because He already established that in the preceding statement. He said first, "the living bread" (John 6:51), and informed us that that bread was truly His body. Then, He said third, "whoever eats me" (John 6:57). He means (here) that He is God incarnate, and His divinity is not differentiated from His humanity. Whoever partakes (of the Eucharist) in a worthy manner and with faith, (God) resides in him and gives him the life that He gave to the body united to Him.
Pick up a book. No-one cares for "your feel." While everyone has put up reason for believing in theosis, and have portrayed patristic evidence, you have not. What you have given is another dim-witted excuse for reason. An EO invention?
Try Bishop Bishoy El-Bushy, a 13th century Coptic bishop who speaks about theosis. Was he EO as well? I expect an answer to that question. Put up or shut up!
RO,
I'm sorry for having mislead you to understand that I have any problem with your concept of theosis, and by whom and how the theology developed. My point is that it seems to me, over a relatively long period of experiencing this EO/OO contention, that this is another general area of "blind" polemical EO criticism of OO theology, generally related to EO defense of Chalcedon, Seven Ecumenical Councils, etc.. I believe that several EO visitors have made and implied this criticism as a deficiency of the OO. I'm fearful of my making any claims to deep understandings of Divine (or human) spiritual natures. I hope that is not heretical. It is not my thing. I'd like to see strong, open efforts to stop wife rebellion and divorce in Orthodox marriages with children (of all ages). Then Orthodox strugglers can have the foundation for etherial theology, such as theosis, nature and will of J.C. Sorry, bless me, pray for me.
Pick up a book. No-one cares for "your feel." While everyone has put up reason for believing in theosis, and have portrayed patristic evidence, you have not. What you have given is another dim-witted excuse for reason. An EO invention?
Try Bishop Bishoy El-Bushy, a 13th century Coptic bishop who speaks about theosis. Was he EO as well? I expect an answer to that question. Put up or shut up!
RO,
I'm sorry for having mislead you to understand that I have any problem with your concept of theosis, and by whom and how the theology developed. My point is that it seems to me, over a relatively long period of experiencing this EO/OO contention, that this is another general area of "blind" polemical EO criticism of OO theology, generally related to EO defense of Chalcedon, Seven Ecumenical Councils, etc.. I believe that several EO visitors have made and implied this criticism as a deficiency of the OO. I'm fearful of my making any claims to deep understandings of Divine (or human) spiritual natures. I hope that is not heretical. It is not my thing. I'd like to see strong, open efforts to stop wife rebellion and divorce in Orthodox marriages with children (of all ages). Then Orthodox strugglers can have the foundation for etherial theology, such as theosis, nature and will of J.C. Sorry, bless me, pray for me.
Yes, sure, I would like to see the same with marriages. I have no problem in assuming that there is a problem with marriage in the church. But you have, on more than one count, called anything outside the sphere of the coptic church currently as being mere EO innovation. This is my only problem. As well as you, I do not want to make claims on the divine nature that I cannot handle. I know onthing of this divine nature. But I have a duty, as do you, to uphold the teachings of the Bible, the fathers, and the church. This is Theosis. We must uphold this teaching. It cannot be brushed of as EO innovation or an attack on OO.
I also did not mean to imply that you were a heretic (I reserve that name for a select few lol) but only that my attack against your first comment was warranted as a defense of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.
Thanks guys that was really informative. I didn't mean for it to turn polemical, although I guess these days the topic of Theosis in the Coptic Church often does.
Pick up a book. No-one cares for "your feel." While everyone has put up reason for believing in theosis, and have portrayed patristic evidence, you have not. What you have given is another dim-witted excuse for reason. An EO invention?
Try Bishop Bishoy El-Bushy, a 13th century Coptic bishop who speaks about theosis. Was he EO as well? I expect an answer to that question. Put up or shut up!
RO,
I'm sorry for having mislead you to understand that I have any problem with your concept of theosis, and by whom and how the theology developed. My point is that it seems to me, over a relatively long period of experiencing this EO/OO contention, that this is another general area of "blind" polemical EO criticism of OO theology, generally related to EO defense of Chalcedon, Seven Ecumenical Councils, etc.. I believe that several EO visitors have made and implied this criticism as a deficiency of the OO. I'm fearful of my making any claims to deep understandings of Divine (or human) spiritual natures. I hope that is not heretical. It is not my thing. I'd like to see strong, open efforts to stop wife rebellion and divorce in Orthodox marriages with children (of all ages). Then Orthodox strugglers can have the foundation for etherial theology, such as theosis, nature and will of J.C. Sorry, bless me, pray for me.
Yes, sure, I would like to see the same with marriages. I have no problem in assuming that there is a problem with marriage in the church. But you have, on more than one count, called anything outside the sphere of the coptic church currently as being mere EO innovation. This is my only problem. As well as you, I do not want to make claims on the divine nature that I cannot handle. I know onthing of this divine nature. But I have a duty, as do you, to uphold the teachings of the Bible, the fathers, and the church. This is Theosis. We must uphold this teaching. It cannot be brushed of as EO innovation or an attack on OO.
I also did not mean to imply that you were a heretic (I reserve that name for a select few lol) but only that my attack against your first comment was warranted as a defense of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.
I will pray for you, as you pray for me.
RO,
I used to think that EO theology, morality, philosophy. hierarchy, liturgy, etc. was the ultimate - compared to the only such that I had experienced [Roman Catholic]. I still think that the EO win that comparison. It was not easy to then step up to some understanding of Coptic/Ethiopean life. This has been more helpful to me. If you will carefully read my criticisms of EO, it doesn't regard EO traditional theology at all. My problems are primarily with modern EO lax morality, hierarchy, philosophy, discipline, etc. I have tried to give specific examples of each criticism. I enjoy and appreciate discussions and readings with traditionalist EO, for example, ROCOR. I benefit from these discussions. I don't favor formal unity with the mainline EO jurisdictions because of their generally lax compromises with "normal" modern western culture, mentlity and morality. I think that formal unity would give detrimental credibility to their "barely" orthodox mentality. I've given too many itemized examples. I've deceived you to think that I somehow generally condemn everything EO. This is not the case. I think that with formal unity, our treasured Orthodox pearls would be devalued to the EO lowest common denominator. If OO keep our higher values, hopefully they will always be preserved to also benefit EO who "come and see," temporarily or permanently. Thank you for reminding me to try to be clearer and more precise.
The Coptic Orthodox Church believes in theosis. It is in the writings of the great Alexandrian Fathers St. Cyril and St. Athanasius, and many of the Fathers of the Church (St. Gregory et al).
The recent controversy of theosis in the Coptic Church has to do with once again errors in translation. Theosis translation in arabic sounds borderline heretical, therefore I believe thats why the controversy arose. We become God-like through grace, what God is already by nature.
I had a discussion with Bishop David regarding this and to my surprise he told me one time "We don't believe in Theosis", I quickly replied with sayings and writings of the Fathers.
His Grace Bishop Youssef has said the term "Glorification of man" is more acceptable especially in the translation in Arabic.
But with regards of man becoming God-like, this is in line with the Fathers, and is no way heretical, and the Coptic Psalmody and Liturgy attest to this.
We may not like the term theosis from a translational stand point, but with regards to doctrine it is a cornerstone of our faith and hope for unity in Christ.
"God became man, so that you may learn from a Man how to be like God."- St. Gregory Nazianzen
This blessed work provides a good understanding of the subject approachable for the layman & it was blessed by Pope Shenouda III. And the forward to the book is by Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia (Bishop Kallistos Ware).
An excerpt of Bishop Kallistos Ware's forward to Fr Matthias' book:
As a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Fr.Matthias feels an especial closeness to St. Athanasius. But the Archbishop of Alexandria is also our common father. Along with St.Cyril of Alexandria, he is part of the shared Patristic inheritance that belongs to all of us, whether non Chalcedonians or Chalcedonians. Reading St.Athanasius and St.Cyril, we rediscover our unity. At a time when Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are drawing closer to each other in mutual dialogue, Fr. Matthias’ scholarly study has thus a practical ecumenical value. Through his original research he has made St.Athanasius better Known to us, and we are deeply grateful to him. -1988
[glow=red,2,300]In the Name of the Father+ and the Son+ and the Holy Spirit+, the One True God. Amen[/glow].
St. Peter tells us in 2Peter 1:3,4 the meaning of Theosis. Let us attend:
" ....as His divine power has give to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."
We partake by grace NOT by nature! Rabena's Nature is infinite and ours finite. But by His grace ( glory, life, love, virtue and power) we can become like Him because of our merciful adoption as children of the Most High. Again, we cannot ever be divine by our nature but through his grace.
St John of Damascus gives us an example by saying if a metal sword is thrust into a fire it will acquires the characteristics of fire (light, heat) but it never becomes fire, for fire is fire and metal is metal.
We become deified (on fire) but never Diety (the Fire) !
Glory to the Father+ and to the Son+ and to the Holy Spirit+, the One True God. Amen!
Comments
Prayer Before Communion: "Open my eyes and heart that I may accept Your Gifts and Blessings and let Your Holy Spirit abide in me that I may unite with You and live for the Glory of Your Holy Name."
Prayer After Communion "Let my union with You today be everlasting. Make me increase in virtue and strengthen my faith and my hope."
There are obviously many more, but since it is 4:50 AM where I am, I will let others add to it (I have seen many more, and remember clearly the wording.) Still, I must make something clear. The reason that there would be no need to come out and say "Theosis" in liturgy is for the simply reason that it is taken for granted. It has always been the understanding of the church that Theosis is salvation, that there is no need to hammer it out. Other things (like the trinitarian faith, a statement of the natures of Christ) serve to counteract heresy. Theosis was just never attacked. Just like the words "Jesus is God" is rarely candidly said in liturgy (merely alluded to.) It was not a matter of conflict. Still, Theosis is mentioned a thousand times during liturgy.
I'll try posting some more concrete examples. But try picking up the liturgy book, move towards the end (the absolution prayers before the communion) and witness Theosis spelled out liturgically.
RO
This is directed to those Copts who believe in theosis.
Are there any mentions of theosis in the Coptic liturgy? I don't recall any.
It seems quite odd that such an essential doctrine would not be contained in the liturgy.
Everytime the priest says "life-giving flesh" (of our Lord Jesus Christ), we are talking about our theosis through the Eucharist.
There are two things to note here first:
1) Life-giving is the nature of God, not a human nature (we say, for example, that the Holy Spirit is the life-giver).
2) Flesh is not life-giving -- whoever eats the bread of this world still dies.
Now, what we get through Christ is a unity of the nature of the life-giver and the nature of the flesh. The flesh of Christ is life-giving because God is the life-giver, and by uniting His divinity to the flesh that He makes His own, that same flesh, which was born of the Virgin, crucified, and raised on the third day, is the very same flesh that we partake of in the Eucharist.
In other words, the Eucharist is partaking of the divine nature in the person of Christ, which is why we call His Body the "life-giving flesh." This is theosis, and so everytime the priest says that the Eucharist is the life-giving flesh of our Lord, that is an affirmation of the doctrine of theosis.
This is directed to those Copts who believe in theosis.
Are there any mentions of theosis in the Coptic liturgy? I don't recall any.
It seems quite odd that such an essential doctrine would not be contained in the liturgy.
I'm kind of flying by feel and bad memory, but it has just occurred to me that "theosis" is another EO self-defined, fabricated traditional slander of OO (starting with SS. Athanasius and Cyril??). Similar to "monophysite," "monothyletiticism (sp)," etc. etc.. My experience is that these self-made EO pseudo-theologians have no clue of the spiritual speculations they are espousing (criticizing) . Ask them to fully explain Chalcedonian Christology. That is a Gordian knot. I've yet to receive a full, comprehensible objective definition, only fabricated, self-defined OO criticisms. Who can fully define Divine Nature? Or even human nature? Only the Emperor? Where has he gone to? Ask Diogenese (more sp). If any of these curious EO are sincere, let them come and see (for about six months). Starting with Saturday midnight praises (is this tasbeha?). Even my miserable Irish/english can comprehend enough of this Coptic/Arabic to understand its validity. This is a very small investment for its eternal potential. Happy "Gregorian" New Year.
Pick up a book. No-one cares for "your feel." While everyone has put up reason for believing in theosis, and have portrayed patristic evidence, you have not. What you have given is another dim-witted excuse for reason. An EO invention?
Try Bishop Bishoy El-Bushy, a 13th century Coptic bishop who speaks about theosis. Was he EO as well? I expect an answer to that question. Put up or shut up!
Our liturgy explains the unity with God over and over again. Do you mind pointing out where it is denied in our liturgies? Put up or shut up!
At least these "EO pseudo-theologians" have given reason. You have given nothing more than the maniac ramblings of an idiot. Care to back what you say by proof? Put up or shut up!
Chalcedonian Christology is 100% irrelavent to the issue of Theosis (though, yes, I could explain Chalcedonian Christology to you. I just wouldn't waste my voice.) I believe in Jesus Christ. Should I explain how computers are made for you to believe my theory?
You speak of Tasbeha. Let me show you Theosis in our Coptic Tasbeha.
"He took what is ours, and gave us what is his." - Friday Theotokia. Would you care to explain what this means without speaking of a unity with God or a partaking of the divine nature? Put up or shut up.
"He took our body, and gave us His Holy Spirit, and made us one with Him, through His goodness." - Friday theotokia. Made us one with him. EO invention? I put up. I don't have to shut up. Give it a try. Put up, or shut up! It is not a criticism of the OO. It is not even a criticism of the Coptic church. The OO sister churches have always believed in it. Did you not yourself say that Paulos Mor Gregorios was a good man? He spoke in plenty about it. Likewise Fr. Matthew the Poor. Look at the sister OO churches and make a judgement. Only recently have some Copts denied it. So is it a criticism of the OO? No. It is nothing but the teaching of the Orthodox church for centuries. OO and EO. But since you like to reject everything the EO say, just because they are EO, I will deny the trinity (they believe in that), the incarnation etc.
You assume that I do not attend Tasbeha. I only wish you would have stepped back and realized that I do pray Tasbeha, and to a much greater degree than you would expect. But you are not interested in facts, are you? You are interested in your own unsupported pre-conceived notions. This results in you falling in heresy. For the reason of not spitting my spiritual life to you, I will remain silent, but suffice it to say I am well aquainted with Tasbeha.
How is theosis a slander of Cyril and Athanasius?! It is a doctrine based from their Holy works? Have you read them? Since we christians have shown over and over from the writings of these two great saints a support for theosis, would you kindly portray these saints speaking against it? Put up or shut up!
I leave you with one thought. PUT UP OR SHUT UP! If you attack a person, that is no reason for me to be upset. But when you attack doctrine of the Church, you are a heretic. A heretic cannot receive any treatment other than that of Arius. My anger is warranted, and I will not repent. The truth of the doctrines of the Holy Church must stand above the vain ramblings of an angry unsupported man.
Raymond Melika
Here I am putting up...
irishpilgrim,
Pick up a book. No-one cares for "your feel." While everyone has put up reason for believing in theosis, and have portrayed patristic evidence, you have not. What you have given is another dim-witted excuse for reason. An EO invention?
Try Bishop Bishoy El-Bushy, a 13th century Coptic bishop who speaks about theosis. Was he EO as well? I expect an answer to that question. Put up or shut up!
RO,
I'm sorry for having mislead you to understand that I have any problem with your concept of theosis, and by whom and how the theology developed. My point is that it seems to me, over a relatively long period of experiencing this EO/OO contention, that this is another general area of "blind" polemical EO criticism of OO theology, generally related to EO defense of Chalcedon, Seven Ecumenical Councils, etc.. I believe that several EO visitors have made and implied this criticism as a deficiency of the OO.
I'm fearful of my making any claims to deep understandings of Divine (or human) spiritual natures. I hope that is not heretical. It is not my thing. I'd like to see strong, open efforts to stop wife rebellion and divorce in Orthodox marriages with children (of all ages). Then Orthodox strugglers can have the foundation for etherial theology, such as theosis, nature and will of J.C. Sorry, bless me, pray for me.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14084.msg162341#msg162341 date=1357009820]
irishpilgrim,
Pick up a book. No-one cares for "your feel." While everyone has put up reason for believing in theosis, and have portrayed patristic evidence, you have not. What you have given is another dim-witted excuse for reason. An EO invention?
Try Bishop Bishoy El-Bushy, a 13th century Coptic bishop who speaks about theosis. Was he EO as well? I expect an answer to that question. Put up or shut up!
RO,
I'm sorry for having mislead you to understand that I have any problem with your concept of theosis, and by whom and how the theology developed. My point is that it seems to me, over a relatively long period of experiencing this EO/OO contention, that this is another general area of "blind" polemical EO criticism of OO theology, generally related to EO defense of Chalcedon, Seven Ecumenical Councils, etc.. I believe that several EO visitors have made and implied this criticism as a deficiency of the OO.
I'm fearful of my making any claims to deep understandings of Divine (or human) spiritual natures. I hope that is not heretical. It is not my thing. I'd like to see strong, open efforts to stop wife rebellion and divorce in Orthodox marriages with children (of all ages). Then Orthodox strugglers can have the foundation for etherial theology, such as theosis, nature and will of J.C. Sorry, bless me, pray for me.
Yes, sure, I would like to see the same with marriages. I have no problem in assuming that there is a problem with marriage in the church. But you have, on more than one count, called anything outside the sphere of the coptic church currently as being mere EO innovation. This is my only problem. As well as you, I do not want to make claims on the divine nature that I cannot handle. I know onthing of this divine nature. But I have a duty, as do you, to uphold the teachings of the Bible, the fathers, and the church. This is Theosis. We must uphold this teaching. It cannot be brushed of as EO innovation or an attack on OO.
I also did not mean to imply that you were a heretic (I reserve that name for a select few lol) but only that my attack against your first comment was warranted as a defense of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.
I will pray for you, as you pray for me.
[quote author=irishpilgrim link=topic=14084.msg162343#msg162343 date=1357013774]
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14084.msg162341#msg162341 date=1357009820]
irishpilgrim,
Pick up a book. No-one cares for "your feel." While everyone has put up reason for believing in theosis, and have portrayed patristic evidence, you have not. What you have given is another dim-witted excuse for reason. An EO invention?
Try Bishop Bishoy El-Bushy, a 13th century Coptic bishop who speaks about theosis. Was he EO as well? I expect an answer to that question. Put up or shut up!
RO,
I'm sorry for having mislead you to understand that I have any problem with your concept of theosis, and by whom and how the theology developed. My point is that it seems to me, over a relatively long period of experiencing this EO/OO contention, that this is another general area of "blind" polemical EO criticism of OO theology, generally related to EO defense of Chalcedon, Seven Ecumenical Councils, etc.. I believe that several EO visitors have made and implied this criticism as a deficiency of the OO.
I'm fearful of my making any claims to deep understandings of Divine (or human) spiritual natures. I hope that is not heretical. It is not my thing. I'd like to see strong, open efforts to stop wife rebellion and divorce in Orthodox marriages with children (of all ages). Then Orthodox strugglers can have the foundation for etherial theology, such as theosis, nature and will of J.C. Sorry, bless me, pray for me.
Yes, sure, I would like to see the same with marriages. I have no problem in assuming that there is a problem with marriage in the church. But you have, on more than one count, called anything outside the sphere of the coptic church currently as being mere EO innovation. This is my only problem. As well as you, I do not want to make claims on the divine nature that I cannot handle. I know onthing of this divine nature. But I have a duty, as do you, to uphold the teachings of the Bible, the fathers, and the church. This is Theosis. We must uphold this teaching. It cannot be brushed of as EO innovation or an attack on OO.
I also did not mean to imply that you were a heretic (I reserve that name for a select few lol) but only that my attack against your first comment was warranted as a defense of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.
I will pray for you, as you pray for me.
RO,
I used to think that EO theology, morality, philosophy. hierarchy, liturgy, etc. was the ultimate - compared to the only such that I had experienced [Roman Catholic]. I still think that the EO win that comparison. It was not easy to then step up to some understanding of Coptic/Ethiopean life. This has been more helpful to me. If you will carefully read my criticisms of EO, it doesn't regard EO traditional theology at all. My problems are primarily with modern EO lax morality, hierarchy, philosophy, discipline, etc. I have tried to give specific examples of each criticism. I enjoy and appreciate discussions and readings with traditionalist EO, for example, ROCOR. I benefit from these discussions. I don't favor formal unity with the mainline EO jurisdictions because of their generally lax compromises with "normal" modern western culture, mentlity and morality. I think that formal unity would give detrimental credibility to their "barely" orthodox mentality. I've given too many itemized examples. I've deceived you to think that I somehow generally condemn everything EO. This is not the case. I think that with formal unity, our treasured Orthodox pearls would be devalued to the EO lowest common denominator. If OO keep our higher values, hopefully they will always be preserved to also benefit EO who "come and see," temporarily or permanently. Thank you for reminding me to try to be clearer and more precise.
What is Theosis? Like mitosis but with God?
Greatest Comment in tasbehaorg history.
Just Saying,
Ray
The recent controversy of theosis in the Coptic Church has to do with once again errors in translation. Theosis translation in arabic sounds borderline heretical, therefore I believe thats why the controversy arose. We become God-like through grace, what God is already by nature.
I had a discussion with Bishop David regarding this and to my surprise he told me one time "We don't believe in Theosis", I quickly replied with sayings and writings of the Fathers.
His Grace Bishop Youssef has said the term "Glorification of man" is more acceptable especially in the translation in Arabic.
But with regards of man becoming God-like, this is in line with the Fathers, and is no way heretical, and the Coptic Psalmody and Liturgy attest to this.
We may not like the term theosis from a translational stand point, but with regards to doctrine it is a cornerstone of our faith and hope for unity in Christ.
"God became man, so that you may learn from a Man how to be like God."- St. Gregory Nazianzen
Blessed Nativity to all of you,
Abraham
http://www.stminahamilton.ca/download/Books/Various Authors/Doctrine of Sanctification - Fr. Matthias Wahba.pdf
This blessed work provides a good understanding of the subject approachable for the layman & it was blessed by Pope Shenouda III. And the forward to the book is by Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia (Bishop Kallistos Ware).
An excerpt of Bishop Kallistos Ware's forward to Fr Matthias' book:
As a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Fr.Matthias feels an especial closeness to St. Athanasius. But the Archbishop of Alexandria is also our common father. Along with St.Cyril of Alexandria, he is part of the shared Patristic inheritance that belongs to all of us, whether non Chalcedonians or Chalcedonians. Reading St.Athanasius and St.Cyril, we rediscover our unity. At a time when Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are drawing closer to each other in mutual dialogue, Fr. Matthias’ scholarly study has thus a practical ecumenical value. Through his original research he has made St.Athanasius better Known to us, and we are deeply grateful to him. -1988
St. Peter tells us in 2Peter 1:3,4 the meaning of Theosis. Let us attend:
" ....as His divine power has give to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."
We partake by grace NOT by nature! Rabena's Nature is infinite and ours finite. But by His grace ( glory, life, love, virtue and power) we can become like Him because of our merciful adoption as children of the Most High. Again, we cannot ever be divine by our nature but through his grace.
St John of Damascus gives us an example by saying if a metal sword is thrust into a fire it will acquires the characteristics of fire (light, heat) but it never becomes fire, for fire is fire and metal is metal.
We become deified (on fire) but never Diety (the Fire) !
Glory to the Father+ and to the Son+ and to the Holy Spirit+, the One True God. Amen!