[Tj3]

Will be saved? You aren't yet?

Please don't twist my words. You asked about the future, when I will be in heaven and I was referring to what my state will be at that time thus the future tense. I was not even discussing present, but as you well know I have stated many times that I am saved.

I read the entire article with the quote in context and looked up the appropriate references to further understand it. Did you?

Yes I did. And yes I told you that many times before, just as I told yopu that reading it and understanding it (BTW, there was nothing new to me in his post) does not mean or obligate me to agree that he is right in his conclusions or that he even has his facts right.

Do you wish to go around in circles for another cycle, or can we actually at some point get off the mery-go-round and discuss the topic rather than keep asking the same questions as though you think that the answer you got the 15th time may change if you just repeat it a 16th time.

[Wondergirl]

can we actually at some point get off the mery-go-round and discuss the topic rather than keep asking the same questions as though you think that the answer you got the 15th time may change if you just repeat it a 16th time.

Apparently there is nothing left to discuss as long as you maintain that deification means only that men become gods/God.

[Tj3]

Apparently there is nothing left to discuss as long as you maintain that deification means only that men become gods/God.

Yeah, I am a real stickler for staying with the accepted English definitions for words.

[Akoue]

So let me see if I understand.

Because the English word "deification" is defined a certain way, the Catholic doctrine of deification--a doctrine that is formulated not in English but in Latin and Greek--can't be what I've described in my posts. It can only be about what the English dictionary says "deification" means... in English.

Using this same reasoning, we could say that String Theory is about cords that are used to bind things because this is what the dictionary I just looked at says that the word "string" means. I wonder what all those physicists working on String Theory would think about this...

The Latin word "deificatio" is used to translate the Greek word "theosis". So, if instead of using the English word "deification" we use the original Greek word "theosis", what then is your objection to the doctrine of theosis? Is it going to be that the doctrine of theosis is wrong because in English the word "deification" means such-and-such? That certainly doesn't seem plausible. So what then is the precise nature of your objection to the doctrine? I have a deep interest in the doctrine of theosis, and I'm sure we can agree that understanding the nature of salvation is of great importance, so I am interested to know why you find the doctrine to be false.

You have continued to claim that you are quite knowledgeable about the doctrine of theosis. You have also implied that my explanation of that doctrine is in error. Perhaps you could set things straight by:

1. explaining in a precise way how you take me to have misunderstood or misrepresented what Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Aquinas have in mind, and by

2. explaining in a precise way how you take Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Aquinas to have misunderstood or misrepresented the meaning of Scripture.

Wondergirl has kindly provided independent accounts of the doctrine of theosis. So far, you haven't explained why you take these accounts to err in their explanation of the doctrine of theosis. So how do you understand that doctrine? What you you take the doctrine of So how do you understand that doctrine? what you you take the doctrine of theosis to say, exactly? to say, exactly? (Since, as you've often said, we aren't interested in merely subjective opinion here, please provide references to the primary sources you discuss, taking special account of Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Aquinas, since these are quoted at CCC 460 which you claim to understand better than the rest of us.) Please explain what you take Athanasius to mean when he says that we will become God--be sure to do so by examining his statement in the context of the work in which it appears, On the Incarnation of the Logos. You take it to mean something other than the way it is understood by others. Please explain, again in a precise and rigorous way, what exactly you take Athanasius to mean by this.

This should go a long way toward freeing the terminological log-jam which has frozen the conversation. I've explained my understanding of these matters to the best of my ability. Kindly take a few minutes to set me, and others, straight, by explaining through engagement with the primary texts (those of Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Aquinas) the nature of my error regarding the doctrine of theosis. This may show that you are right and that the CCC was wrong to have quoted Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Aquinas.

[Tj3]

So let me see if I understand.

Because the English word "deification" is defined a certain way, the Catholic doctrine of deification--a doctrine that is formulated not in English but in Latin and Greek--can't be what I've described in my posts. It can only be about what the English dictionary says "deification" means... in English.

Akoue,

I am not going to try go point by point - there is little need. The fact is that whether you reject English definitions for English words or not does not matter. Read the CCC Article 460 which is what you first responded to in the discussion in any case. What it says agrees with the dictionary definition of deification.

[Wondergirl]

from en.allexperts.com (bolding is mine)--

Question
Can you explain the following paragraph in the Catholic Catechism #460:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

I ran across this while studying the Catholic religion. I was shocked to read the statement "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

Answer
Greg,

Thank you for your question; I apologize for the delay in my response. First of all, this is generally something outside of my expertise. I will try to give you an adequate answer though.

Without being able to refer to and read the original documents by the Saints these quotes come from, I can't give you a full interpretation of their meaning.

This part of the Catechism does not mean that we become omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. But the best and simplest explanation that I can give for this is that to "become God" and be "sharers in [Christ's] divinity" refers to the fact that the individual members of Christ's church make up his body, and thus him.

Remember the words of Jesus to Saul in Acts 9:1-5.

'Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting."'

Notice that although Saul was persecuting the followers of Christ, Jesus said he was persecuting HIM.

Furthermore, CCC 460 also refers to our goal of holiness. Here is the full text of 2 Peter 1:4.

"Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire."

So, by becoming free from sin and of the evils in the world, we share in the divine nature. That is, by becoming so holy we become like God and, in a certain sense, become God.

I hope this answered your questions.

With many prayers,
-Cody

[Wondergirl]

Deification/divinization is not really that scary a term. Even as a Protestant, I can fully appreciate and even get quite excited about it. For years, our Sunday School and Bible class teachers drummed it into our heads that, as Christians, we become "little Christs." Here's a related term, explained in Wikipedia (bolding is mine) --

Divine filiation is the condition of being a child of God, and thus a sharer in the life and role of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God and Redeemer of all human beings, according to Christian doctrine.

Divine filiation, said John Paul II, constitutes the essence of the Good News. This is the purpose of Christ's redemption and through baptism, each Christian's fundamental state is being a child of God.

Divine filiation implies divinization: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" (Athenasius of Alexandria), "sharers in the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), oter "Christs" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem).

Christians are said to be children of God because they have the same nature as God the Father. St. Peter referred to Christians as "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4)

Thus, the Fathers of the Church referred to the deification or divinization of the baptized. We are made gods, said St. Augustine.

St. Thomas Aquinas explained the terminology of the Fathers that Christians are "sons in the Son." He said that Christians enter the trinity through the Son, and they "have a certain participation in the filiation of the Second Person."

Thus, John Paul II said that divine filiation is "the culminating point of the mystery of our Christian life. In fact, the name 'Christian' indicates a new way of being, to be in the likeness of the Son of God. As sons in the Son, we share in salvation, which is not only the deliverance from evil, but is first of all the fullness of good: of the supreme good of the sonship of God."

Divine filiation is at the core of Christianity. "Our divine filiation is the centerpiece of the Gospel as Jesus preached it. It is the very meaning of the salvation He won for us. For he did not merely save us from our sins; He saved us for sonship." (Scott Hahn, Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH)

Thus the incarnation and the redemption is for this:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."[St. Irenaeus] "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[St. Athanasius] "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."[St. Thomas Aquinas] (CCC 460)

The Christian then is another "Christ": "We can adore the Father because he has caused us to be reborn to his life by adopting us as his children in his only Son: .. through the anointing of his Spirit who flows from the head to the members, he makes us other "Christs." "...you who have become sharers in Christ are appropriately called "Christs." (CCC 2782)

The divinization of man through sonship is real and metaphysical. It is not metaphorical, i.e. a mere comparison with a real thing that is similar. In the Christian religion, God is really Father, and does not just act like human fathers. And God really made us share in his nature, and thus we are really children. Not in the same level as the Only Begotten Son, but truly sharing in his filiation and his divinity.

St. John the Evangelist: "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are!" (1 John 3:1)

[Tj3]

Deification/divinization is not really that scary a term. Even as a Protestant, I can fully appreciate and even get quite excited about it. For years, our Sunday School and Bible class teachers drummed it into our heads that, as Christians, we become "little Christs." Here's a related term, explained in Wikipedia (bolding is mine) --

I don't find the term scarey. I find it unBiblical - well that is not entirely true - it is the desire of Satan and was the promise that he made in the garden, but I find it to be not endorsed by scripture. It is an effort to exalt ourselves, something which is not Biblical.

As for little Christs, you will also spend a lot of time trying to find that in scripture - it is not there. Christ was the Messiah who died on the cross for our sins. We are in no way a "christ" of any size or magnitude. Check 2 Cor 11:4. There is only one Christ.

Christians are said to be children of God because they have the same nature as God the Father.

That is not what scripture says. Scripture says that we are "adopted" as children of God, and an adopted son never takes the nature of the father. Jesus is the only Son by nature.

St. Peter referred to Christians as "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4)

Right. The Holy Spirit indwells those who are saved and in that way we partake of the divine nature. But the Holy Spirit does not alter our nature to become divine.

[Wondergirl]

I don't find the term scarey. I find it unBiblical - well that is not entirely true - it is the desire of Satan and was the promise that he made in the garden, but I find it to be not endorsed by scripture. It is an effort to exalt ourselves, something which is not Biblical.

It has NOTHING to do with exalting ourselves!!

As for little Christs, you will also spend a lot of time trying to find that in scripture - it is not there.

Neither is the Trinity.

Christians are "little Christs" (definition of "Christian"). We seek to be like Jesus. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:1 "Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ." Philippians 2:5 tells us to have the same mind He had. Because God in Christ has been righteous both for Himself and for us, we are freed, in the words of Martin Luther, to be "little Christs" for our neighbor. This means that we faithfully live out our relationship with God as we work at living in a right (i.e. Christlike) relationship with God's whole creation.

Right. The Holy Spirit indwells those who are saved and in that way we partake of the divine nature.

I'm so glad you finally understand and we agree!!

But the Holy Spirit does not alter our nature to become divine.

No one said he did.

We become, here on earth, more and more in God's image and more and more God-like. We grow in grace. Don't we believe, as did Tilhard DeChardin, the great anthropologist, that the destiny of man is to rise toward spiritual perfection until at last he is united with God? God gives us the power to become better than we are. He gives us the ability and the grace to evolve not only intellectually but also spiritually. We do not have to be enslaved by our past or by our smallness or by our sins. With God's power, we can rise to new heights of intellectual and spiritual perfection. Chardin called this "the ladder of divine ascent [that] is there for us to ascend, to climb each day, that we may [in heaven, at the pinnacle of sanctification] achieve theosis and be united with God.

[Akoue]

Akoue,

I am not going to try go point by point - there is little need.

Well, we have you saying one thing and adam7gur, Fred, Wondergirl, and me saying something else. The only reason for you to go point by point would be an interest on your part in participating in a rational discussion. Your unwillingness to do the one is indicative of your unwillingness to do the other.

What it says agrees with the dictionary definition of deification.

With this you have committed a formal fallacy called "begging the question". Wondergirl and I have argued that CCC 460 does not in fact "agree" with the dictionary definition of "deification", that what is being said in the three quotes (from Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Aquinas) is not what is canvassed by the definition of the word "deification". We have even taken the time to explain several times and in several ways what the doctrine of theosis is. You have offered no alternative argument or account; you have instead assumed, taken for granted, that the two agree. Since this is the very point at issue, it isn't something that can be assumed, but must be demonstrated. This would, of course, require you to go point by point--the very thing you have said you are unwilling to do.

Notice also that CCC 460 does not use the word "deification". It offers several quotes, two of which you have found objectionable. But your finding them objectionable is predicated upon your failure to understand what the quotes mean, this despite their being explained to you and despite your having proven yourself unable to offer some explanation to show that we have misunderstood them. You are, therefore, being dogmatic, surrendering the canons of reason in order to cling doggedly and irrationally to an assumption which has been shown to be unwarranted.

Since you have, with this, given voice to a refusal to engage in rational discourse about the matter there is no point in continuing the discussion. One cannot engage in rational conversation with someone who has announced his intention to be irrational.

[Tj3]

It has NOTHING to do with exalting ourselves!!

Well, let's see. There is one man who walked the earth who had the perfect right to call Himself God because He was an is God. But He humbled Himself to walk amongst us as a man.

Now men who are not gods, take it upon themselves to call themselves gods and God.

Yes, that is exalting one's self.

Christians are "little Christs" (definition of "Christian").

No it isn't. The definition of Christian is a follower of Christ. Christ is the one and only Messiah who died on the cross for our sins. You aren't even a little one - nor is any one else. There is one and one only.

Show me anyplace in scripture where God endorsed a person calling themselves a christ or a god (other than Jesus).

I'm so glad you finally understand and we agree!!

Then you are conceding that it ONLY the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that we are not gods, not God and deified?

No one said he did.

That is what deification means.

[Tj3]

Well, we have you saying one thing and adam7gur, Fred, Wondergirl, and me saying something else. The only reason for you to go point by point would be an interest on your part in participating in a rational discussion. Your unwillingness to do the one is indicative of your unwillingness to do the other.

Getting back into your usually line of argument. If the facts don't cut it, blame on whoever disagrees with you.

[Fr_Chuck]

Closed