260
edits
Changes
Clarification of Theosis
:Looks like it. Though I would note that the orthodoxize tag was added in August of this year, and that seems entirely different from the cleanup tag. Personally, the only part of the article I would say is non-Orthodox is the East/West part in "comparative considerations." It seems to be saying that Catholicism, whether it be using the Tridentine Mass or the Novus Ordo Missae, is completely valid and even equal to Orthodoxy. That seems pretty skewed. Perhaps I'll change it. [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] 22:37, September 22, 2006 (CDT)
== Clarification of Theosis ==
This beginning is ontologically inaccurate.
''Theosis, meaning '''deification''' or divinization, is the process of man becoming holy and being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection. Theosis is the understanding that humans from the beginning are made to share in the '''life''' of the Trinity. Therefore, we are saved from sin for participation in the '''life''' of the Trinity, which is life-giving and therefore eternal.''
Three things:
1: ''Deification'' (Apotheosis) by essence is heresy. No created being can participate in the Divine Essence of GOD. This language is extremely deontological in the fact that it has at it's base a western-minded theological theoria, which is condemned by the Hesychast fathers and all the Councils. Orthodoxy in its truest form is deeply ontological, this can be attributed to the brilliant Holy Fathers who were able to define such theology through deep mysticism, contemplation and most importantly prayer. [[Gregory Palamas]] is one, [[Symeon the New Theologian]] is another.
St. Peter was precise in his epistle, "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be '''partakers''' of the '''divine nature''', having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Peter 1:4) This simple (and overlooked) verse '''is''' salvation in Orthodox theology. Through the Divine Nature of God we partake of His Energies.
2. ''Life'' is fine, but the energies of the Divine Nature (not Essence) is the most crucial, this should be included in the article.
3. Perhaps the "comparative with other religions" on the bottom of the article should be included on a subpage or a different page altogether. The reason is that I was reading this article and was deeply confused by it? Did Orthodox spiritual theology change recently? I then realised I was reading '''Mormon''' theology. People will be confused and assume that this is Our theology. A different page dedicated to comparing Orthodox Spirituality (in it's ontic expression) with other religions would be a better idea than mixing it together on a page dedicated to "Orthodox Spirituality." The article also gives the impression that Roman (Papal) western theology was (and is?) the same as Orthodox Eastern Theology. Western Spiritual theology diverged as early as the 3rd century, with Jerome, Augustine and others. This view is also shared by such brilliant modern day theologians; George Gabriel and Athanasios Bailey.
An infant is not saved from sin (hamártema) but from the ontic condition of hamártía - unholiness. God can easily forgive sin; getting rid of hamártía is the problem. This requires "work" from the worshiper. Christ was clear on this, '''"Your sins are forgiven you, GO, and sin no more."'''
What do you think? [[User:Nectarios|Nectarios]] 14:12, June 8, 2007 (PDT)