Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 35 of 89)

Déjà Vu All Over Again

November 22, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 14 Comments

Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick recently wrote “My Presbyterian Field Trip: A Fragmenting Tradition” in which he described a meeting at a church that was considering leaving the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA) for the smaller, more conservative ECO (A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians). The leader of the ECO was there to make the case for the move and a prominent member of the Missions Department of the PCUSA was there to urge the congregation to remain where they were.

My reaction to Fr. Andrew’s article was: “It’s déjà vu all over again.” As I read the article my mind went back to the early 1990s when my former home church had a meeting over whether to leave or stay in the liberal United Church of Christ (UCC). The UCC has historic roots going back to Puritan New England. The current controversy troubling the PCUSA faithful is nothing new. It is part of a widespread Protestant crisis-dynamic growing over the past several decades. As a matter of fact, this divisive-dynamic has been endemic to the Protestantism since its inception.

Source: Jacob Lupfer “Is the PCUSA *That* Liberal?”

Questions That Cannot Be Overlooked

As an interested outsider Fr. Andrew was able to see aspects of the theological dialogue that the participants were not aware of.

The differences between the two speakers were not always stark. For example, the PCUSA representative identified himself as an Evangelical. He noted that the PCUSA recognizes the authority of Scripture but that question was how one interprets Scripture. Fr. Andrew recognized this as a fundamental question that needed to be addressed but to his disappointment the ECO representative “just left it on the ground and essentially repeated himself.”

Probably one of the most insightful and probing question was the one posed by Fr. Andrew’s friend.

A related question was asked by my acquaintance (who works on the pastoral staff of the church), who inquired of the man from the PCUSA whether a tradition that has embraced as much diversity as they have can actually remain a coherent tradition. That was probably the biggest and most probing question of the evening, but it basically went unanswered.

Fr. Andrew recognized this as a crucial question that needed to be addressed, but because he was a visitor he remained quiet. In his mind came another question:

The question I would have liked to ask (and I did not, because I didn’t think it was my place; I was just an observer with no stake in the proceedings) would have been this: “How do you know that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one?”

Yet Father Damick’s question would likely have been ignored because Protestants have been trained to focus on Scripture and to ignore the critical role of tradition in our reading of Scripture. The issue of hermeneutics is something many Protestants are not prepared to question.

The Orthodox friend (former Presbyterian) who emailed me Fr. Andrew’s article asked: Why don’t they get it? Why aren’t they asking these questions? I wrote back saying that the two Presbyterian speakers were speaking from within their Protestant paradigm, and to ask deeper questions about the process by which one interprets Scripture and the criteria by which we know we have the right interpretation of Scripture would be far too unsettling and destabilizing for many Protestants.

The planetary axis of my Evangelical worldview tilted sideways when I began to question the hermeneutical basis for Protestant theology. The spread of theological liberalism in the United Church of Christ prompted me to join the Biblical Witness Fellowship, an Evangelical renewal group, and to go to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. I wanted to be part of movement that would reverse the situation. I knew that critical to the reform of the UCC was bringing it back to its biblical and Reformation roots. However, as I considered the plurality of interpretive traditions within Protestantism, the diversity of confessional standards within the Reformed tradition, and their discrepancy with the unity of the early Church I could sense the tectonic plates shifting underneath my theology.

Scripture + Interpretation = Tradition

Many people assume that we just read the Bible but things are not that simple. As we read the Bible we seek to understand what it means and in doing this we engage in the act of interpretation (hermeneutics). Many people enjoy reading the Bible in the privacy of their own home but the fact is we all belong to a faith community (local church). As we seek to follow the teachings of Scripture we join with others who share the same understanding of what the Bible teaches. This shared understanding of what the Bible teaches is tradition. Some people desire to be free of human tradition, but there is no escaping tradition. Every local church has a shared tradition. A shared tradition is what brings coherence to the local church. This is a sociological reality. If this were not the case, the local church would be like a Christian bookstore full of customers with no commitment to their fellow customers.

It is oversimplifying things to say: Our church is based on the Bible. It would be more accurate to say: Our church is based on someone’s interpretation of the Bible. For example, the popular “non-denomination” Calvary Chapel is based on Pastor Chuck Smith’s reading of the Bible. As a gifted bible teacher he soon drew a faithful following that in time became a church – Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa. As Chuck Smith’s teachings were disseminated over the radio and he trained younger men like Greg Laurie and Mike MacIntosh Calvary became a denomination – Calvary Chapel Association. Interestingly, while Calvary Chapel claims to have no theological tradition, it has a set of “distinctives.”

Every Protestant group believes their own tradition interprets Scripture rightly. The names: Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Lutheran, Baptist, Holiness, Anglican, etc., all refer to a particular interpretive tradition of the Bible. Differences in interpretations have led to new traditions and to church splits and new church groups giving rise to Protestantism’s perennial crisis. This includes even the two Presbyterian splinter groups here. Both PCUSA and ECO believe the Bible to be the word of God, they just interpret it differently which leads to the question: Who has the right interpretation?

This was the problem I faced when I took part in Evangelical-Liberal dialogues in the UCC. Rather than resort to detailed exegesis of the Greek text – the methodology of biblical studies, I argued for the Evangelical position making use of historical theology. I sought to show that it was the Evangelicals, not the Liberals, who were in historical continuity with the Protestant Reformers, and with the early Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. This strategy was to have surprising consequences for my Protestant theology.

By What Authority?

Unlike much of popular Evangelicalism which claims to be free of tradition, historic Protestant groups like the Presbyterians still see value in traditions like creeds. Yet despite their holding to historic confessions, a critically aware Reformed Christian cannot avoid certain unsettling questions. Fr. Andrew notes:

What exactly does a Presbyterian denominationalist point to say “This is the true Presbyterianism” or “This is the true Presbyterian church”? There are the various confessions and statements, of course, but no Reformed denomination is wholly faithful to them. After all, the ECO wants to be faithful to Presbyterian tradition by nixing homosexual sex yet wants to depart from that same tradition by ordaining women. If one element of tradition can be revised, why should another be sacrosanct? And on what authority were those original Reformed confessions ratified, anyway?

While Presbyterianism does have confessions but what good is it to have confessional statements if certain elements of the denomination disregard them for newer interpretations of Scripture? If the Reformation began with Luther putting forward a new interpretation of Romans against medieval Roman Catholicism, what is to stop subsequent generations of Protestants from putting forward newer interpretations that challenge the current status quo? Questions like these have caused increasing numbers of long-time Protestants to take a critical look at the hermeneutical basis for Reformed theology.

Protestantism’s Perennial Crisis

The theological crisis Fr. Andrew witnessed at his friend’s PCUSA church has been going on for a long time. It was there in the UCC in the 1990s. It occurred earlier with the formation of the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) in the 1970s. It came to a head in the Episcopal Church in the early 2000s when Gene Robinson was made bishop.

It is happening now in other denominations. Two years ago in the United Methodist Church the Rev. Adam Hamilton called for the “local option” that would allow churches to “agree to disagree” on the denomination’s stance on homosexuality. Surprisingly, it is happening in the conservative Southern Baptist denomination. This year, a Southern Baptist pastor, Danny Cortez, called for a Third Way in which people could “agree to disagree” on the issue of homosexuality. Subsequent to the church’s vote to retain him as pastor, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee voted to disfellowship Pastor Cortez’s church. This theological crisis is likely to go on for years to come. On both sides are people who affirm the authority of Scripture but disagree over how to interpret Scripture. What is a confused Protestant to do?

The Bosphorus Strait

A Way Out of the Hermeneutical Chaos

When I was studying the early church I came across a statement by Irenaeus of Lyons that haunted me as a Protestant. Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies at a time when the early Church was faced with the Gnostic heresy.

He wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth. Source

Though it had many problems and was full of sinners, the early Church was united in faith. This is so different from modern Protestantism which is tragically divided and confused. In contrast to modern Protestantism’s plurality of interpretive traditions, the early Church had resources for preserving a coherent reading of Scripture. It had the office of the bishop grounded in apostolic succession, the “rule of faith” (creed) which was taught to those about to undergo baptism, the Ecumenical Councils which settled matters of theological controversy, and the Liturgy which framed the reading of Scripture. All these together comprise Holy Tradition. Scripture is understood to be embedded within the Apostolic Tradition from which it emerged and safeguarded and passed on by the Church. Holy Tradition is in reality, life of the Holy Spirit who indwells the Church founded by Christ himself (Matthew 16:18).

Like many other Protestants frustrated with Protestantism’s hermeneutical chaos I began to critically reexamine sola scriptura and in the process was drawn to the early Church. As a way of responding to the crisis spawned by Protestantism’s theological incoherence I wrote two research papers that enabled me to make the critical transition from the Reformed tradition to Orthodoxy:

“Protestantism’s Fatal Genetic Flaw: Protestantism’s Sola Scriptura and Protestantism’s Hermeneutical Chaos,” and

“If Not Sola Scriptura, Then What? The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition.”

Like thousands of others before and after me I crossed the Bosphorus and became Orthodox. In Orthodoxy’s ancient Faith we have found safe haven in the Church. For those troubled by Protestantism’s theological woes, Orthodoxy offers the stability of an ancient Faith that has withstood the test of time and cultural shifts.

Robert Arakaki

Evangelicals Talking With Orthodox

November 17, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 2 Comments

Billy Graham and Metropolitan Hilarion (2014)

“God grant you many years!” sung version

Evangelicals Talking With Orthodox

In early November 2014, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of the Russian Orthodox Church visited the Rev. Billy Graham to wish him a happy 96^th birthday. The visit was more than a symbolic gesture. Soon afterward, Metropolitan Hilarion delivered a speech to a group of Evangelical leaders at a forum organized by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. In his address Metropolitan Hilarion reviewed the Russian Orthodox Church’s interaction with American Protestantism.

Among the vivid testimonies to the good cooperation between the Moscow Patriarchate and American Christians is our friendship with Billy Graham’s Evangelistic Association, the founder of which has visited Russia several times. We appreciated the understanding that representatives of the Association and the Rev. Graham personally expressed towards the stand taken by the Russian Orthodox Church in various historical periods. Source

He further noted that Orthodox and Evangelicals need to work more closely to uphold traditional biblical morality.

Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev addressing American Evangelicals (2014) Speech

Billy Graham and Russia

Billy Graham Being Received by the Patriarch of Moscow

Billy Graham’s interest in Russia goes back as early as 1959 when he made a personal visit to Moscow and prayed for Russia at Red Square (p. 232). In 1992, Billy Graham returned to Russia to conduct a three day evangelistic crusade (p. 235).

Billy Graham’s passion for preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ is not incompatible with Orthodoxy.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware noted:

The Orthodox have always had good cooperation with Billy Graham. When Billy Graham went to Russia, he was received by the patriarch, because he worked on the principle that those who came forward to make a commitment to Christ at his preaching were handed over to the clergy of their own church. He did not try to set up his own evangelical communities that would be rivals to the Orthodox. (Christianity Today) (St. Elias Church)

After decades of Soviet rule some of the Orthodox Christians have succumbed to nominalism and preachers like Billy Graham have played an important role in renewing their faith in Christ. What is important to Orthodoxy is the fact that Rev. Graham has been respectful of the Orthodox Church. His goal has been to bring people to faith in Christ, not establish rival Evangelical Churches as an alternative to the historic Russian Orthodox Church.

Ecumenicism Through Personal Friendship

Billy Graham approached ecumenicism through personal friendship rather than through theological negotiation. David Aikman in Billy Graham: His Life and Influence (2007) tells how Billy Graham met the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Pimen, in 1982 and 1984. In 1988, Billy Graham visited Patriarch Pimen by his bedside as he lay dying. He recounted:

I sat by his side for a long time and held his hand. . . . . He told me again, as he had on an earlier visit, that he wanted his priests to learn how to preach evangelistic sermons. I prayed with him as my brother in Christ. (Aikman 2007:168)

Billy Graham’s Example

I was delighted when I saw the picture of Billy Graham with Metropolitan Hilarion. This is a wonderful example of Evangelical-Orthodox friendship. If Billy Graham is open to talking with Metropolitan Hilarion, it then follows that Evangelicals should also be open to talking with Orthodox Christians and making friends with Orthodox Christians.

Probably the biggest impediment to Evangelical-Orthodox dialogue is ignorance. Many Evangelicals are unaware of the existence of Orthodoxy. Fortunately, this situation is changing as growing numbers of Protestants and Evangelicals are learning of Orthodoxy’s ancient roots and its liturgical style of worship.

At first sight Orthodoxy looks strange, foreign, or exotic to many Evangelicals. That is because so many Evangelicals do not know of Christianity’s ancient roots. Once they get over their initial shock Evangelical inquirers will be pleasantly surprised to find there are former Protestants and Evangelicals among the Orthodox. These former Protestants can explain the ancient Christian faith in terms familiar to Evangelicals. They thus become a bridge between two important religious traditions. For Evangelicals looking for something more the Orthodox response is: Come and see!

Robert Arakaki

See also

Rod Dreher. “An Orthodox-Evangelical Alliance?” In The American Conservative

Shirwood Eliot Wirt. Billy: A Personal Look at Billy Graham (1997) Ch. 26

Robert Arakaki. “Which Path to Church Unity: Recognition vs Reception”

Theosis and Our Salvation in Christ

November 3, 2014 / Robert Arakaki / 21 Comments

Athanasius the Great summed up the connection between the Incarnation and our salvation in the famous line: God became human, so that we might become god. The doctrine of theosis (deification) sums up the Orthodox understanding of salvation in Christ. It is also the source of friction between Reformed and Orthodox Christians. In this blog posting I will show how the Orthodox understanding of theosis is grounded in Scripture and affirmed in the teachings of the early Church Fathers. In light of the controversial nature of theosis I will be highlighting the Orthodox understanding of theosis through the comparing of paradigm differences between Orthodoxy and the Reformed tradition. I close with a discussion of the practical consequences of the paradigmatic differences.

2 Peter 1:3-4

Many Protestants find the doctrine of theosis dubious despite the fact it is found in Scripture. We read in 2 Peter 1:3-4:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (NIV)

This does not mean we participate in God’s essence (ousia). Rather we are transformed into the likeness of Christ through participation in his grace, i.e., divine energies. The footnote commentary in the Orthodox Study Bible for 2 Peter 1:4 reads:

This [Theosis] does not mean we become divine by nature. If we participated in God’s essence, the distinction between God and man would be abolished. What this does mean is that we participate in God’s energy, described by a number of terms in scripture, such as glory, life, love, virtue, and power. We are to become like God by his grace and truly His adopted children, but never becoming God by nature.

The phrase “participate in the divine nature” (NIV) or “partakers of the divine nature” (KJV, OSB) is a translation of: “γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως.” [Greek NT] The Greek for “participate” or “share” is κοινωνος (koinonos) which has a range of meanings. It has been used with reference to sharing in glory (1 Peter 5:1), sharing in Christ’s suffering (Philippians 3:10), and fellowship in the Holy Spirit (Philippians 2:1). It can have a spiritual/sacramental sense. Participation in a religious service, Christian or otherwise, has definite spiritual consequences. Participation in a pagan sacrifice results in participation with demonic forces (1 Corinthians 10:20) and likewise participation in the Eucharist results in participation in Christ’s body and blood (1 Corinthians 10:16). The emphasis here is on participation, transformation, and experiential change, rather than a judicial declaration of legal status. This distinction is central to the different attitude Orthodox and the Reformed have toward the fullness of salvation in Christ.

Koinonos can connote a sharing in similar circumstances, e.g., “just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort” (2 Corinthians 1:7). The word can have relational connotations, e.g. “you became companions of those who were so used” (Hebrews 10:33; KJV); “if you consider me a partner” (Philemon 17; NIV).

The other key word in 2 Peter 1:4 is φυσις (physis). It can mean biological descent/nature: “we who are Jews by nature” (Galatians 2:13; KJV) or spiritual condition: “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3; KJV). Paul in Romans uses the word physis in some rather interesting ways. In Romans chapter 2 he points out that there are Gentiles who are “not circumcised physically” (Romans 2:27; NIV) but who “do by nature things required by the law” (Romans 2:14; NIV). The expectation here is that both the outward and inward natures would complement the other. In other words our inner spiritual life ought to be expressed in our outward actions. So likewise our actions should flow from our inner life. And just as significant is the possibility that one’s nature can change, be transformed. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul wrote about “natural desires” (NIV) being “exchanged” (NIV) for unnatural ones. Just as sin results in the alteration of human nature so likewise salvation in Christ calls for a reverse alteration in human nature (cf. Romans 12:2).

While the original Greek koinonos (partaker) has a broad range of meanings, it is restricted by physis (nature). The relational and circumstantial meanings are excluded leaving either sacramental or biological meanings as the most likely options.

The Biblical Basis for Theosis

The biblical basis for theosis begins with the creation account in Genesis. Theosis is implicit in the doctrine of the imago dei: humanity being made in the divine image.

Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. (Genesis 1:26; NIV)

The divine likeness implies our calling to be in communion with God, this makes man unique to the rest of Creation. This goes beyond the legal model which focuses more on our external legal or judicial status and good moral behavior – rather than the transformation of our inner nature. As a result of Adam and Eve’s sin the image of God has become marred in us. In the Incarnation God came to restore the imago dei. Salvation as theosis is based on the restoration of the image of God in us which in turn calls for the restoration of communion with God resulting in a change in human nature, i.e., ontological consequences.

The Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians describes the Christian life as one of progressive transformation.

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into this likeness (image) with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18; NIV)

The reference to the visible transformation of Moses’ appearance in 2 Corinthians 3:13 points to an ontological transformation, not just behavioral and attitudinal changes.

Theosis also has eschatological implications; we find in the Apostle John’s first epistle:

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2-3; NIV; emphasis added)

Theosis finds its culmination in our entering into the life of the Trinity. In John 17 we read:

I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one. I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity . . . . (John 17:22-23; NIV)

As Christians we are called to be more than good people or even glorified beings like angels, we are called into the fellowship of love that is the Trinity. Thus, the Orthodox understanding of salvation is profoundly Trinitarian in implication.

Peter Walking on Water

In Scripture there are several accounts of theosis taking place. Theosis is implied in the account of Jesus walking on water in Matthew 14. Jesus’ walking on water was a sign of his divinity. Just as Jesus walked on water so did Peter implying Peter’s sharing in Jesus’ divinity. Note that Peter did not ask Jesus to grant him the ability to walk on water but that he be allowed to be with Jesus: “Lord, if it’s you tell me to come to you on the water.” (Matthew 14:28; NIV) This is the goal of theosis: union with Christ. Notice also that Peter was able to walk on water so long as he kept his eyes on Jesus, but the moment he became distracted and fearful he began to sink. Jesus reached out his hand and grabbed hold of Peter; this is a sign of God’s grace to us.

Icon – Holy Transfiguration

Theosis is also found in the Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration where the transfigured Christ speaks to the Old Testament saints Moses and Elijah. In Luke’s account we read that Moses and Elijah “appeared in glorious splendor” and that they talked to Jesus about his impending death (9:31). What happened was that the glory that Jesus had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5) was made manifest to his followers. Jesus’ glory is intrinsic to his nature. This glory attests to Jesus’ divinity. Just as striking is the fact that Moses and Elijah were also clothed in glory. This point to their having been transfigured into glorified beings by God’s grace. Their conversing with Christ points to their having acquired divine wisdom as to God’s will. The contrast between the two Old Testament saints standing up and the three disciples on the ground sleeping shows the progressive nature of Christian discipleship. Right now we are bumbling, fumbling followers of Christ but one day we will reach the state of enlightenment like that of Moses and Elijah. Sainthood is not for the fortunate few but for all Christians. The Orthodox approach to spiritual pedagogy is old school; the bar is set high and those who attain perfection are given due recognition. Orthodox spirituality is not like modern education where you win the prize just for being there. The term “saint” has a real meaning in Orthodoxy when it comes to spiritual advancement.

The Witness of the Church Fathers

In the early fourth century there took place a fierce controversy over whether or not Jesus was truly divine. For the early Christians this was not an abstract doctrinal dispute but one of immense consequence for our salvation. A Protestant would explain the necessity of Christ’s divinity in terms of his bearing the sins of the world. Such an argument is congruent with the penal substitutionary atonement theory but this is not the line of argumentation used by the early church fathers. Instead we read in Athanasius the Great’s On the Incarnation the reason for the Incarnation:

For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality. (§54; emphasis added)

This was not a novelty by Athanasius. One of the earliest witnesses to theosis is Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies.

. . . our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself. (AH 5 Preface; emphasis added)

Augustine on Theosis

The early church fathers took care to emphasize that deification is not intrinsic to human nature but a consequence of God’s mercy. Augustine of Hippo makes the critical point that we are deified by grace and not by nature.

See in the same Psalm those to whom he says, “I have said, You are gods, and children of the Highest all; but you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” It is evident then, that He has called men gods, that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance. For He does justify, who is just through His own self, and not of another; and He does deify who is God through Himself, not by the partaking of another. But He that justifies does Himself deify, in that by justifying He does make sons of God. “For He has given them power to become the sons of God.” John 1:12 If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating. (Augustine Exposition on Psalm 50)

Protestant Mistranslation

Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers series

Given the catholicity of the doctrine of theosis among the early church fathers, it is puzzling that Protestants would be so reluctant to embrace it.

This bias is so strong as to create a blind spot among its leading patristic scholars. Take for example Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration I in which he asserted:

Let us become like Christ, since Christ became like us. Let us become gods for his sake, since he for our sake became man.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF) series contains a serious mistranslation of the same passage. It reads:

Let us become like Christ, since Christ became like us. Let us become God’s for His sake, since He or ours became Man. (NPNF Second Series Vol. VII, p. 203)

The Greek text in Migne’s Patrologia Graecae Vol. 35 “Oration I – In Sanctum Pascha” (Section 17, p. 358) reads:

“γενωμεθα θεοι δι’ αυτον” (let us become gods for his sake).

It appears that the translators for the NPNF Church Fathers series mistranslated the text due to their Protestant biases! It is surprising and disheartening that there is no footnote offering an alternative reading. Caveat lector!

This leads to the question: Why is the doctrine of theosis so little known among Western Christians? And when they do learn about theosis why are Protestants often hostile to the doctrine of theosis? My suspicion is that what is at work here are differences in theological paradigms.

I. What’s Your Paradigm?

Creator-Creature Distinction

Paradigms provide the framework by which we organize data and exclude data. Because they frame the way we see reality, paradigms are often invisible to us. Because paradigms are not as explicit as doctrine, it takes a bit of detective work to discern the philosophical assumptions that shape a theological tradition.

The Creator-creature distinction that runs through Reformed theology has shaped its theory of knowledge (epistemology) as well as its theory of salvation (soteriology) and its understanding of the Christian life (spiritual formation). Karl Barth in his struggle against Liberalism and natural theology stressed the “infinite qualitative distinction” between the human the divine.It also forms the basis for the Reformed tradition’s radical understanding of grace in salvation, and in absolute categories where man can in no way contribute to his salvation; it is all divine grace. This leads to the principle of monergism which in turn leads to double predestination, that is, God alone determines who will be saved and who will be damned.

This Creator-creature distinction has become more explicit in recent theological discussions on the Internet. Derek Rishmawy in a 2012 blog article wrote:

So, the idea is that because there is a radical gap in reality between God and ourselves–he is necessary, infinite, transcendent, etc. and we are contingent, finite, bound–there is also a radical gap in our knowledge. In the same way that God’s reality is at a higher level than ours and sustains ours, the same is true of our knowledge. (Emphasis added.)

Reformed apologist Michael Horton affirmed the Creator-creature distinction in his criticism of the God of the gaps apologetic strategy:

Accordingly, to the extent that a certain state of affairs can be attributed to natural (human or nonhuman) causes, God is not involved. Again we meet the troubling univocity of being, which fails to recognize the Creator-creature distinction and the analogical character of creation in its relationship to God. (The Christian Faith, p. 338; emphasis added.)

Closer to the topic of theosis is Reformed pastor Steven Wedgeworth’s blog article: “Reforming Deification.” In it Wedgeworth expressed in colorful language his concerns about theosis.

The doctrine of deification (or theosis) is one of those doctrines that, in the words of one esteemed divine, “gives us the willies.”

He continues a little further:

The dangers of the wrong-kind of deification theology should be obvious. Collapsing the Creator-creature distinction, or even just smudging it a little, is seriously bad juju.

Milky Way Galaxy

The Reformed emphasis on the Creator-creature can be overstated at times. While the Bible does teach the Creator-creature distinction, it also situates humanity at the crux of the Creator-cosmos nexus. In Genesis God climaxes creation with the making of man in his image and conferring on humanity lordship over creation. The Creator-creature paradigm takes an interesting new direction with the Incarnation. The Creator God comes down from heaven and becomes a creature. The Infinite becomes finite. The invisible becomes visible. The intangible becomes tangible. The Eternal enters into history.

“The Unsleeping Eye” Source

The uncontainable Word becomes confined in the Virgin’s womb. The one who made the Milky Way galaxy becomes a babe who suckles at the Theotokos’ breast. The Immortal God dies on the Cross for our salvation.

Mankind doomed to nothingness is rescued by Christ’s dying on the Cross, his third day Resurrection, and his Ascension. Then in the mystery of Pentecost Jesus we are given the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

Did Calvin Follow the Church Fathers on Theosis?

The doctrine of theosis challenges the Reformed theological paradigm because of its explicit endorsement in 2 Peter 1:3-4. This leads to two questions: (1) How did Calvin understand 2 Peter 1:3-4? and (2) Did Calvin in fact believe in theosis? When we look at Institutes 3.25.10 we find something quite close to the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. The only difference is that Calvin seems to understand the conferring of divine glory, power, and righteousness as future events that accompany the resurrection, not as blessings for the current age. Calvin writes:

Indeed, Peter declares that believers are called in this to become partakers of the divine nature [II Peter 1:4]. How is this? Because “he will be . . . glorified in all his saints, and will be marveled at in all who have believed” [II Thess. 1:10]. If the Lord will share his glory, power, and righteousness with the elect—nay, will give himself to be enjoyed by them and, what is more excellent, will somehow make them to become one with himself, let us remember that every sort of happiness is included under this benefit. (Institutes 3.25.10)

Did Calvin affirm theosis? Consider the following:

Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us. (Commentary 2 Peter 1:4)

But as we read on we find Calvin qualifying his earlier statement:

But the word nature is not here essence but quality. The Manicheans formerly dreamt that we are a part of God, and that, after having run the race of life we shall at length revert to our original. There are also at this day fanatics who imagine that we thus pass over into the nature of God, so that his swallows up our nature. (Commentary 2 Peter 1:4)

Thus, Calvin’s concern that theosis not be understood as our sharing in God’s essence is identical to Orthodoxy’s.

So, what did theosis mean for Calvin? He writes:

They [the Apostles] only intended to say that when divested of all the vices of the flesh, we shall be partakers of divine and blessed immortality and glory, so as to be as it were one with God as far as our capacities will allow. (Commentary 2 Peter)

For Calvin theosis consists of our “reverting to our original” state, that is, a return to Adam’s original pre-Fall condition. It appears that Calvin did not give much thought to the possibility that our union with Christ the Second Adam may result in something rather different. In other words, Calvin underestimated the significance of the Incarnation for our salvation. Morna Hooker writes:

If Christ has become what we are in order that we might become what he is, then those things which governed and characterized the old life of alienation from God in Adam no longer apply. It is the old man, i.e. the Adamic existence, which is crucified with Christ, Rom. 6.6 . . . [St. Paul] writes continually to his converts – Be what you are! Man has been recreated, called to be ‘holy’ – he should believe it and behave accordingly. (In Fr. Ted’s blog)

Calvin assumes that theosis is accomplished through a process of the removing of the “vices of the flesh.” This is consistent with the moral or juridical understanding of salvation but to share in immortality and divine glory has ontological implications that Calvin seems reticent to pursue. Prof. J. Todd Billings in a 2005 Harvard Theological Review article examined Calvin’s understanding of deification and found that although Calvin interacted with the early church fathers his understanding of deification is “distinctive” (p. 334). Rather than follow in the hermeneutical tradition of the early church fathers, Calvin here is venturing off in his own direction with a new interpretation. In time this would give rise to a new form of spirituality.

II. What’s Your Paradigm?

Sanctification = Theosis?

Is theosis another name for sanctification? The Protestant doctrine of sanctification does bear a certain resemblance to Orthodoxy’s theosis. Both involve the healing of the effects of sin, are progressive in nature, and culminate at the Second Coming. Another important similarity is that both are the result of the Holy Spirit in the Christian. But there are significant paradigm differences beneath the surface.

The Orthodox understanding of theosis is based on a sacramental worldview in which matter is viewed as capable of conveying divine grace. In this worldview the possibility is there for human beings to become channels of divine grace. As we grow in holiness, as our hearts become cleansed of the passions the life of God pervades our whole being with spillover effects. In contrast, Protestantism understands sanctification as moral transformation or an attitudinal change that leads to behavioral change. This is congruent with its dominant legal approach to salvation. Protestantism not only suspicious of, it implicitly denies the ontological transformation foundational to the Orthodox understanding on theosis.

But the question I have for my Protestant friends is this: Does your understanding of sanctification also allow for ontological transformation? When one reads the history of Protestantism one has to wonder: Where are the saints? Where are the believers whose lives are marked by extraordinary sanctity, steeped in prayer, and transfigured by the Divine Light that shone at Mount Tabor? The prominent personalities in Protestant history tend to be theologians known for their theological insights, e.g., Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wesley, Charles Hodge, Jonathan Edwards, or Karl Barth. Or for their preaching ministries, e.g., George Whitefield, Billy Sunday, Charles Spurgeon, D.L. Moody, Billy Graham; or missionaries, e.g., Hiram Bingham, Adoniram Judson, Samuel Zwemer, Jim Elliot, etc. Implicit in the culture of Protestantism is the priority on theology, preaching, and evangelism, and the downplaying of lives transformed through prayer and ascesis.

www.uncutmountainsupply.com

When one reads the history of Orthodoxy one comes across the lives of the saints: Anthony the Great, Mary of Egypt, Seraphim of Sarov, John of Kronstadt, Elder Paisios, John of Shanghai and San Francisco the Wonderworker, Father Arseny, Matushka Olga, etc. — all in the tradition of ‘holy men’ and ‘holy women.’ Ordinary people drawn to these saints because of their sanctity sought the saints’ counsel and their prayers. The saints are empirical proofs of theosis.

The absence of visible saints in Protestantism is something Fr. Stephen Freeman has touched on. He posed the question: “What would Christianity mean if there were no saints?”

What would be the meaning of the Christian gospel if there were no wonderworkers, no people who had been transfigured with the Divine Light, no clairvoyant prophets, no healers, no people who had raised the dead, no ascetics living alone in the deserts for years on end, no beacons of radical, all-forgiving love? (“Saintless Christianity“)

He continues:

The Christian gospel, as recorded in the Scriptures and maintained in Classical Christianity, is replete with the artifacts of holiness – tangible, living examples of transfigured lives – not morally improved but something other. Human beings becoming gods (in the bold language of the early fathers).

He points out that the Protestant Reformation with its rejection of good works and the sacramental worldview resulted in a two story universe in which the world below is separated from the spiritual world of heaven. Many Evangelicals will recognize the unsettling similarity to what the Protestant apologist Francis Schaeffer called the two-story model of modernity. This has resulted in a sort of egalitarian democratization of Christiana spirituality in which all Christians are saints thereby implicitly denying any extraordinary sainthood. However, the New Testament Scriptures speak openly of the full gamut of Christian: from babes in Christ blown about by every whim of doctrine to those of “full age” able to handle strong meat. Just as significant is the fact that the Apostle Paul whom so many Protestants admire as a theologian was a wonder worker (Acts 19:11) and a visionary (2 Corinthians 12:1-4). This flattening of all Christians into one mold has been consequential for Protestant spirituality. The striking absence of visible saints makes one wonder if the emphasis on spiritual equality was worth the price.

In contrast to Protestantism’s two story universe, Irenaeus of Lyons held to the pre-modern one story model of the universe. In his understanding of salvation Irenaeus anticipates a change in Christians like that promised in 2 Peter 13-4. He affirmed the possibility of the flesh of the Christian partaking of the divine life.

But if they are now alive, and if their whole body partakes of life, how can they venture the assertion that the flesh is not qualified to be a partaker of life, when they do confess that they have life at the present moment? It is just as if anybody were to take up a sponge full of water, or a torch on fire, and to declare that the sponge could not possibly partake of the water, or the torch of the fire. (AH 5.3.3; emphasis added)

The tendency in Orthodoxy has been to take the image of the flame quite literally. There is a well known story in Orthodoxy’s mystical tradition:

Abba Lot went to see Abba Joseph and said to him, ‘Abba as far as I can I say my little office, I fast a little, I pray and meditate, I live in peace, and, as far as I can, I purify my thoughts. What else can I do?’ Then the old man stood up and stretched his hands towards heaven. His fingers became like ten lamps of fire and he said to him, ‘If you will, you can become all flame.’

The Goal of Our Salvation

While theosis is ongoing in this life, it finds its fulfillment at the Second Coming of Christ. Is the doctrine of theosis part of the Western theological tradition? I would say that while salvation as theosis is not prominent, it is there.

One good example of theosis is the conclusion of C.S. Lewis’ sermon “Weight of Glory”:

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare.

All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.

Orthodoxy’s teaching on theosis offers a vision of Chrstian discipleship that is much more daunting and challenging than that of Protestantism. What it aspires to is far more exhilarating and exciting than what many Protestants imagine. For inquirers investigating Orthodoxy theosis points to the possibility of Christianity being more than rational theological systems and practical self improvement, it offers access to an enchanted one story universe of incense, chants, ancient hymns, fragrant oils, holy sacraments, miraculous icons, relics, and ordinary people who become extraordinary saints. The ordinary everyday world becomes one charged with possibilities and sacred moments as we say ‘hi’ to possible gods and goddesses during the week. Sunday morning worship is no longer just a half hour sermon with hymns or a relevant message with praise songs, but the moment when heaven strikes earth like lightning and people are swept up into heaven to be with the cherubim and seraphim before the Throne of Glory.

Robert Arakaki

Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 35 of 89)

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Evangelicals Talking With Orthodox

Theosis and Our Salvation in Christ

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives