Transcript Rhetorical Application of Theosis in Greek patristic theology

RHETORICAL APPLICATION OF THEOSIS IN
GREEK PATRISTIC THEOLOGY
Vladimir Kharlamov
VLADIMIR KHARLAMOV
•
Assistant Professor of Spiritual Theology at Sioux Falls Seminary which is affiliated with
the North American Baptist Conference.
•
He holds Bachelor degrees from Pacific International University and the Moscow Medical
College, an M.A. from the Odessa Theological Seminary, an M.Div from Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, a M.Phil from Drew University and a Ph.D from Drew University as
well, specializing in Theological and Religious Studies.
•
He has authored numerous books including “The Beauty of the Unity and the Harmony of
the Whole: The Concept of Theosis in the
Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite” and is the co-editor of
“Theosis: Deificationin Christian Theology.
•
He is married to his wife Anna .
•
He is an ordained Baptist minister in
Sioux Falls.
INTRODUCTION
•
While Theosis may be a foreign or controversial concept in this day and age, it was not so
in the 4th century, be it for the intellectuals or the common people as it was simply part of
popular Christian theology, reminiscent of current evangelical “born again” theology.
•
Theosis language was very common, for example in Cyril of
Jerusalem’s Catechecheses ad illuminandos, there are
frequent references to the Holy Spirit as deifier, even though
he does not explain what that exactly means.
•
This language was almost exclusively found only in Alexandria
and Cappadocia and until Nestorius, there was no patristic
author who was openly against the concept of Theosis.
•
This notion of Theosis was not a front and centre issue in the
4th century, often found on the outside of other theological
issues and controversies.
•
It was rather seen as an appeal to the common knowledge of
the Christian community.
DEIFICATION AS RHETORIC
•
Rhetoric enhanced the notion of Theosis and
made it applicable to a larger Christian audience.
•
Theology was the common theme of the times,
a topic that would never grow old.
•
The patristic writers were influential in developing
rhetoric in order to construct a meaningful
message.
•
This was not rhetoric for the sake of impressive or
beautiful speech; rather, it was meant as a means
of making Theosis popular.
•
Theosis was used as a vehicle to win an argument
against a foe, even though the whole concept was
not definitively explained.
DEIFICATION AS RHETORIC IN ATHANASIUS
•
Θεοποιεω – this word is commonly used by Athanasius in reference to Christian and
pagan deification; just like Cyril of Jerusalem and other Fathers of the 4 th century,
Athanasius used similar terminology as the pagans but had different meanings to the
notion of deification in pagan and Christian practice.
•
Θεοποιεω is used by Athanasius not only to criticize nonChristian practices but also in his fight against Arianism.
•
While he only uses this word thirty-three times, the battle
against Arianism allowed for the development of Athanasian
theology.
•
The notion of deification was used against pagan worship in
reference to the pagan worship of created things instead of
the uncreated Creator.
•
“How can mortals make somebody both immortal and divine?”
This is the main problem of pagan worship and deification.
DEIFICATION AS RHETORIC IN ATHANASIUS 2
•
In his fight against pagan worship, Athanasius shifts his argumentation to fight Arianism.
•
Arius also used deification language which was very popular among Christians; in fact, by
using deification language against Arius, it is possible that this type of language was more
popular among Arians than non-Arians.
•
Athanasius used his
rhetorical skills and a
common language of
deification to refute the
Arian heresy.
•
The notion of deification
was a tool for
Athanasius as it played
an auxiliary role in the
main fight; the defeat of
Arianism.
DEIFICATION AS RHETORIC IN ATHANASIUS 3
•
Athanasius saw deification as a process of participation.
•
Participation is an indicator of the deification process; God deifies,
we participate.
•
Deification is the other side of the incarnation: “For He [the Logos]
was made man that we might be made god.” (120)
•
The Logos is the principle deifying power, fully consubstantial with
the Father; if we had been deified by someone who was deified
before us, our deification would be an illusion.
•
There is a direct relationship between deification and divine sonship.
•
“Deification of a human being to some degree parallels the incarnation of the Logos as a
gradual and transcending process of revelation and manifestation of God himself in the
life of the human individual.” (121)
•
In deification, we do not become equal or identical to our Deifier; we become like Him but
we do not cease being our human selves.
GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS’S
RHETORIC OF DEIFICATION
•
Gregory’s vast vocabulary and great rhetorical talent make his contribution significant and
considerably more profound and direct than Athanasius.
•
Gregory preferred the word Θεοω, which is found at least twenty-three times in his
writings and his love for the word Theosis was great, even thought the term did not
become popular until it was more frequently used by Dionysius
the Areopagitein the 5th c. and Maximus the Confessor in the 7th c.
•
His direct references to deification are within the Christian context
of human deification.
•
His use of Theosis is very metaphorical, poetic and analogical,
especially in his application of Theosis in regards to the office of
priesthood, who in his opinion, “has a deifying effect on others.”
•
Gregory did not have to deal with a non-Christian context as much
as Athanasius did but in his few encounters, especially with the
father of Greek rhetoric, Empedocles, Gregory’s focus in deification
was on the epistemological and ethical aspects.
GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS’S
RHETORIC OF DEIFICATION 2
•
In Gregory’s estimation, every noetic or rational nature longs to be closer to
God; failure is the proper contemplation of God and the ability to go beyond
visible images.
•
For Gregory, love for God is the way to Theosis while asceticism and
celibacy are important practical elements of the process.
•
Theosis is a two-part process: humans have a natural inclination toward
God and there is the salvific action of God.
•
Gregory asserts that deification of a human as being equal with God is a
matter of speech rather than actual occurrence.
•
Even though we are deified through the contemplative life or baptism, we
become gods only by analogy.
•
Theosis is more than just salvation; it is a “ontological, transformative, spiritual process that
perfects beyond the salvific restoration of the image of God in a human being.”
•
In the afterlife, we cease to be what we are now, which is a person of many impulses and
emotions that is without God; instead we mature into fully being like God and only God.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Athanasius says that the Logos is the principle of deifying power and that deification is a
participatory activity for us. But isn’t it the Holy Spirit that is everywhere present and filling
all things? How does this participation work?
2. Imitation of God and the virtuous life are two necessary aspects of deification and
Athanasius states that these are only possible if one knows God? Is deification possible
for someone who practices these two aspects but does not know God?
3. Gregory states that love for God is the way to Theosis and that asceticism and celibacy
are important practical elements in this process. Does this mean that marriage is not a
path to Theosis? Is monasticism the preferred path?
4. Gregory frequently speaks of analogies and metaphors when discussing deification and
the acquisition of the likeness of God. Does this mean we really do not become like God?
What does he mean by liberation from materiality? Does this mean all my physically
material experiences on earth will not be possible in God’s presence?