Theosis vs Christlikeness

[face2face]

You have also had objections from others about the way you behave in discussions, in flooding the discussions with long posts and cutting and pasting so much. This should have been of benefit as useful feedback. But I do not wish to offend you brother as I have appreciated your knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and grown in respect for you otherwise.

@Johann tut tut! Maybe it's time to put away your commentaries and start to open the Word for yourself?

F2F

 

[face2face]

That's exactly what he implies @ProDeo.

J.

Johann

Do you know how many times I've ask you a question and you have refused to answer? The number is double digits. Do you know why you can't answer?

F2F

 

[face2face]

Let's try again @Johann as I doubt @ProDeo will tackle it!

How many times did Jesus die to sin?

F2F

 

[face2face]

It's almost comical how deeply focused you all are on the Trinity, yet you can't even address the most fundamental principles of the Gospel.

Your house won't stand on a Trinatarian foundation - its quicksand!

F2F

 

[face2face]

For the prize of the high calling of God: The reward which God from above calls me, by Christ Jesus, to receive. The apostle still keeps in view his crown of martyrdom and his glorious resurrection.

Only let us hold true to what we have attained. Php 3:16.

A crown of righteousness awaited the Apostle, reserved in Heaven, ready to be reveal as Peter stated at the Masters coming.

F2F

 

[Johann]

Yes Johann, I did the same to prove my point, and you even confirmed my suspicions that you would dislike the thing that you have been doing, often, including #21 on this thread, in which I critiqued the author of the commentary you provided in response to my words without complaining.

A stinger-the rebuttal against theosis. Instead of critiquing the post, you’ve chosen to critique me, and it seems you’re still doing so.

Advice

Third, the doctrine of theosis has been given a more friendly reception by Reformed scholars recently. I refer you to W. Bradford Littlejohn’s Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity. You can read my review of his book here. I would caution Theodore against uncritically repeating the party line. Reformed theology is complex and nuanced than many have thought it to be. The same can be said for Orthodox theology. I would urge Theodore to examine the evidence and arguments before passing judgment on another religious tradition.

Fourth, one must be careful about resorting to ad hominem attacks or imputing impure motives to those who hold to a certain belief. His accusation that theosis was “invented by men to satisfy their fallen pride” is an ad hominem attack. Furthermore, it claims to know the inner motives of those who hold to it. Theodore would be better off presenting biblical and historical evidence showing that Scripture repudiates theosis and that the early church likewise rejected this teaching. One cannot uncritically repeat what one has learned from secondary sources.

You have also had objections from others about the way you behave in discussions, in flooding the discussions with long posts and cutting and pasting so much. This should have been of benefit as useful feedback. But I do not wish to offend you brother as I have appreciated your knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and grown in respect for you otherwise.

I’m not on this platform constantly, and when I do post, it’s done very selectively.

One cannot just dive into their writings without guidance and the problem is that anyone can cherry pick to have them agree with anything one believes. The Orthodox have always taken a consensus, and not looking to a few (or even just one), as you have done regarding Theosis ie event v gradual sanctification. It is an entirely different culture and one must understand the mindset, as you must know, having so many languages, you told me, at your disposal.

I adhere to the Scriptures, as the Early Church Fathers are not my source of authority.

I very much recommend Orthodox-Reformed Bridge – A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians which is a meeting place for Protestants, and Orthodox, authored by the very knowledgeable Orthodox, ex-Protestant Robert Arakaki for anyone attempting to read the ECF's, to give one a much better basis for debate. I do appreciate that you have made an effort there, but it is not enough.

The concept of theosis is not biblical.

J.

 

[face2face]

I adhere to the Scriptures, as the Early Church Fathers are not my source of authority.

This isn't true, is it, J?

All of your commentaries are based on the early writings of those church fathers, and you frequently post their works ad nauseam in this forum.

However, you are right to state "The concept of theosis is not biblical"

Lets not confuse this with the eternal reward to share in God's Divine Nature

1:4 Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire 2 Pe 1:4.

F2F

 

[Johann]

I very much recommend Orthodox-Reformed Bridge – A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians which is a meeting place for Protestants, and Orthodox, authored by the very knowledgeable Orthodox, ex-Protestant Robert Arakaki for anyone attempting to read the ECF's, to give one a much better basis for debate. I do appreciate that you have made an effort there, but it is not enough.

Early Christian Authorities Teach Theosis

Early Christian authorities teach that humanity should become God, which is the doctrine of theosis, also known as deification.

new-god-argument.com

CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES TEACH THEOSIS
Catholic authorities teach that humanity should become God. This is the doctrine of theosis, also known as divinization or deification. Overt examples are below. More examples of the doctrine of theosis are in The Bible, and in teachings of early Christian authorities.

EXAMPLES
Pope John Paul II (1920 to 2005 CE)
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Hepzibah]

I adhere to the Scriptures, as the Early Church Fathers are not my source of authority.

It is ironic that, nowhere in scripture does it say that its writings are the only authority for the church. rather it says:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15; RSV)

To understand the role of scripture please check out the Orthodox Bridge on sola scriptura. The Orthodox hold the scriptures in a very high place, to confirm or deny any teaching from divine inspiration.

On the ECF's, there are only some of the early writers who were classed as theologians or fathers - just a handful. The others were allowed to contribute but their writings are not considered dogma, after rightful understanding of scripture from those who were in Theosis, which is early years was required in bishops.

There has been teachings in the RCC on perfection from such as St John of the Cross but he and the others were persecuted by the authorities. I have not seen quotations provided to make a comment on them but anyway it was never a prominent doctrine as it was in EO.

 

[Johann]

On the ECF's, there are only some of the early writers who were classed as theologians or fathers - just a handful.

Name them.

J.

 

[Lizbeth]

Yes, the perfection was not in nature but in Character...an important distiction otherwise God would not have made such an open show of a crucified body.

Once all know and understand that even in Christ "dwells no good thing!" - evil was always but a moment away and he was in agony everyday till the nature was put to death.

F2F

God is spirit, that is His nature.......we who are born of Him are His spiritual sons/daughters. We share in His nature now, through our new man. "Our new man has been created after the image of He who created it"....so it was created/born perfect and spiritual. It's our old man that is unspiritual and is of the earth earthy like Adam and prone to sin and weakness. We need to choose which one we are going to live through...the life of the new man or the living death, we might say, of the old man. Most of us are on the fence and still trying to do both in a way, with only limited or occasional success. We're trying to live our own life and live for the Lord at the same time.

But oh dear, Jesus had no sin, the bible explicitly says that. He dwelt in weak flesh but never sinned.....He walked in the spirit every split second of every day, waking or sleeping. His flesh was tempted in all ways that we are, but He always, every nano-second of His sinless life, walked above the flesh, with His flesh completely under His feet, His life completely 110% surrendered and submitted to the Father. In Him dwelt the Spirit of God....because that is who He was/is....God. In Him dwelt only perfection!

 

[Lizbeth]

@amigo de christo

It's a difficult truth to accept, I get it but in time you will come to understand.

John 2:25 states, He did not need anyone to testify about man, for he knew what was in man"

Had not John not already seen Jesus as the Brazen Serpent? John 3:14?

What are you both missing?

F2F

Brazen serpent........only because all sin and evil was laid on Him as the scapegoat. Not His own sins/iniquity because He didn't have any.

 

[MatthewG]

Brazen serpent........only because all sin and evil was laid on Him as the scapegoat. Not His own sins/iniquity because He didn't have any.

Hello @Lizbeth,

The other day, I had a man tell me "Do you not think when Jesus said "Why have you forsaken me oh God" was not a sin." I told him no. It was not a sin, but he said that was the sin that put him to death. I just said nothing afterwards cause I know it is not true, but he may think and believe whatever he wants to.

(We were on a trip to get blood work done for some clients.)

We found in scripture 1 John 3:5 And you know that Jesus came to take away our sins, and there is no sin in him. Asking "God why have you forsaken me" wasn't a sin at all.

I don't understand why the man would have thought it was a sin to begin with. There are sometimes where there is just a need to remain silent and let people think what they will think and believe whatever they will. I find the bible will help us in learning about the truths that God needs us to know, and Jesus was most certainly not a sinner, he was an innocent person whom gave up his life for the sake of the Father, and for the sake of the whole world.

 

[David in NJ]

@amigo de christo

It's a difficult truth to accept, I get it but in time you will come to understand.

John 2:25 states, He did not need anyone to testify about man, for he knew what was in man"

Had not John not already seen Jesus as the Brazen Serpent? John 3:14?

What are you both missing?

F2F

John 2:25 states, He did not need anyone to testify about man, for he knew what was in man"

FYI - JESUS separates Himself from fallen man in this statement = and in so doing declares Himself from ABOVE

Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us:
we implore @Aunty Jane and @face2face on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[Hepzibah]

Name them.

J.

Those considered the pillars of the church were from the Antiocene School: Sts. Basil the Great (379 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (394 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (374 AD) and John Chrysostom (407 AD).

Then there was the Alexandrine School was founded in 312 AD. St. John Chrysostom,
Sts. Clement (150 AD), Origen (202 AD), who was later classed as a heretic, Dionysius 248 AD), Peter (300 AD), Athanasius (328 AD), Didymus (358 AD), and Cyril (431 AD).

Some were considered the apologists of the church.

However, this is where it ends once again, due to your refusal to keep it friendly, answer questions and generally behave in debate. You do not seem to be able to remain friendly and civil with those with whom you disagree. I will just add that you seriously misunderstand the teachings of the Orthodox church.

Good wishes to you and I hope that you enjoy the pack of protein powder I sent a few days ago out of the good will of my heart, and is due to arrive soon.

 

[David in NJ]

That's exactly what he implies @ProDeo.

J.

The fruit of jw/watchtower

 

[Lizbeth]

Hello @Lizbeth,

The other day, I had a man tell me "Do you not think when Jesus said "Why have you forsaken me oh God" was not a sin." I told him no. It was not a sin, but he said that was the sin that put him to death. I just said nothing afterwards cause I know it is not true, but he may think and believe whatever he wants to.

(We were on a trip to get blood work done for some clients.)

We found in scripture 1 John 3:5 And you know that Jesus came to take away our sins, and there is no sin in him. Asking "God why have you forsaken me" wasn't a sin at all.

I don't understand why the man would have thought it was a sin to begin with. There are sometimes where there is just a need to remain silent and let people think what they will think and believe whatever they will. I find the bible will help us in learning about the truths that God needs us to know, and Jesus was most certainly not a sinner, he was an innocent person whom gave up his life for the sake of the Father, and for the sake of the whole world.

All kinds of strange and unbiblical ideas floating around Christendom. As to speaking or not speaking, there is a time for everything under heaven, I believe.

 

[MatthewG]

All kinds of strange and unbiblical ideas floating around Christendom. As to speaking or not speaking, there is a time for everything under heaven, I believe.

No doubt @Lizbeth. When the spirit leads speak. There are times where I try my best effort to remain in Christ, and sometimes he was even silent. All the best to you, and the rest of the community on this forum website.

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I demand in the name of the living God—tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

 

[Johann]

However, this is where it ends once again, due to your refusal to keep it friendly, answer questions and generally behave in debate. You do not seem to be able to remain friendly and civil with those with whom you disagree. I will just add that you seriously misunderstand the teachings of the Orthodox church.

Good wishes to you and I hope that you enjoy the pack of protein powder I sent a few days ago out of the good will of my heart, and is due to arrive soon.

What you are doing is misrepresenting me, painting me in a bad light simply because I disagree with you. Disagreement does not equate to being "unfriendly," nor does it make me a monster.

Your approach is neither biblical nor Christlike, as Scripture calls us to engage with one another in love and humility (Ephesians 4:2-3).

Other members can attest that I strive to keep discussions friendly and civil, even when there are differences of opinion. However, it seems you are making this personal rather than focusing on the issues at hand.

I ask that you refrain from further responses, as I will have to place you on ignore if this continues. (Proverbs 15:1: "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.")

Thanks.

J.

 

[ProDeo]

That's exactly what he implies @ProDeo.

J.

Ouch....