Theosis

"Indeed the mystery of Christ runs the risk of being disbelieved precisely because it is so incredibly wonderful."-- Cyril, the Pillar of Faith

The concept and doctrine of kenosis as it was expounded in the writings of Origen, Athanasius and Cyril in Alexandria, as with the early Desert Fathers. It was later included in a commentary by Gregory of Nyssa, and Hilary of Poitiers. Maximus the Confessor, a student of Origen calls it "an eternal movement of love." The kenosis of Christ was thus depicted in terms of these Trinitarian theologians.

This kenotic action whereby the gift of God was understood as the operation of love within the Trinity, the abandoning of one to the other; and salvation issued from a participation within this intra-Trinitarian procession made possible through the incarnation of Christ, the revelation of the true image of God the Father, revealed by all. We are deified and redeemed through the economy of love, distinctive nature of which is to give in a continuing act of kenosis.

Origen, De Princip., 1.II.8
But since He is called by the apostle not only the brightness of His glory, but also the express figure of His person or subsistence, it does not seem idle to inquire how there can be said to be another figure of that person besides the person of God Himself, whatever be the meaning of person and subsistence. Consider, then, whether the Son of God, seeing He is His Word and Wisdom, and alone knows the Father, and reveals Him to whom He will (to those who are capable of receiving His word and wisdom), may not, in regard of this very point of making God to be understood and acknowledg- ed, be called the figure of His person and subsistence; that is, when that Wisdom, which desires to make known to others the means by which God is acknowledged and understood by them, describes Himself first of all.

It may by so doing be called the express figure of the person of God. In order, however, to arrive at a fuller understanding of the manner in which the Savior is the figure of the person or subsistence of God, let us take an instance, which, although it does not describe the subject of which we are treating either fully or appropriately, may never-theless be seen to be employed for this purpose only, to show that the Son of God, who was in the form of God, divesting Himself (of His glory), makes it His object, by this very divesting of Himself, to demonstrate to us the fullness of His deity. For instance, suppose that there were a statue of so enormous a size as to fill the whole world, which on that account could be seen by no one; and that another statue were formed altogether resembling it in the shape of the limbs.

And in the features of the countenance, and in form and material, but without the same immensity of size, so that those who were unable to behold the one of enormous proportions, should, on seeing the latter, acknowledge that they had seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and countenance, and even the very form and material, so closely, as to be altogether not distinguishable from it; by some such similitude, the Son of God, divesting Himself of His equality with the Father. Showing to us the way to the knowledge of Him, is made the express image of His person: so that we, who were unable to look upon the glory of that marvelous light when placed in the greatness of His Godhead.

May, by His being revealed to us in brightness, has the means of beholding the divine light by looking upon the brightness. This comparison, of course, of statues, as belonging to material things, is employed for no other purpose than to show that the Son of God, though placed in the very insignificant form of a human body, in consequence of the resemblance of His works and power to the Father, showed that there was in Him an immense and invisible greatness, inasmuch as He said to His disciples, "He who sees Me, sees the Father also;" and, "I and the Father are one." And to these belong also the similar expression, "The Father is in Me, and I in the Father." 

Athanasius, God became Man
The philosophers of Athanasius’ time viewed God as being a static entity who by His very nature could not change nor experience suffering. Athanasius argues for Christ as the incarnate Logos through tackling of the Platonic notions of God where the attributes of immutability and impassibility are paramount.  In order to argue for the divinity of Christ, he had to have a strong defense against these notions. Athanasius asserts that the incarnation of Christ is a physical indwelling of the divine being of Christ in the body of Jesus and not an individual that only shows up that way.

Athanasius indicates that there is a purposeful lived experience in the Logos coming into humanity since humanity has forgotten who God is, accordingly every work of Jesus during his earthly ministry was acted to bring humanity into a revelation of the providence of God. Human race has made created things into objects of monolateral idolatrous  worship, through enchanted irrationality, that could not recognize God. Christ being the visible icon of the invisible God points the Father in His works. 

Athanasius confirms that although the Word dwells fully in Jesus human body and did have some acquired human limitations, none of which has reduced His divine person. Athanasius uses the notion of hunger to portray this. He declares that although Jesus Christ got hungry during His mundane life, He did not abstain from it because Christ being God would not be defeated by death through hunger. Similarly, theologians portray that Christ would be subdued by sickness as evidently confirmed by His miracles, demonstrating  that Christ divine power over all ills.

It is fair to conclude that His divine nature protected Him from being susceptible to sickness. It is evident that Athanasius attempts to be confirm the nature of any  limitations the Logos allows Himself to experience for the sake of human redemption, “Any physical weakness experienced by Jesus must be voluntarily assumed by the Word himself and not imposed upon Him against his own will." Athanasius asserts that if Christ experienced suffering for whatever reason, it is because He has allowed Himself to do so and not because it occurred for reasons outside of His control.

Those above notions express Athanasius elaboration on Kenosis in  as pouring Himself out, explained to Pagan philosophers. C.S. Lewis wrote, "When I first opened his "De Incarnatione verbi Dei," I soon discovered by a very simple test that I was reading a masterpiece. . . only a master mind could, in the fourth century, have written so deeply on such a subject with such classical simplicity. Every page I read confirmed this impression. His approach to the Miracles is badly needed today, for it is the final answer to those who object to them as arbitrary and violations of the laws of nature 

Cyril's Theology of the Divine Kenosis, by Paul Gavrilyuk
Having briefly surveyed various inadequate approaches to the Nestorian controversy, the author shows that the protection of the unqualified divine impassibility from being compromised by any involvement in suffering was at the heart of Theodore’s and and Nestorius’ christology. Nestorians charged Cyril with being an advocate of theopatheia. In response, Cyril developed a doctrine of God’s appropriation of human suffering and insisted upon the divine self-emptying in the incarnation.

Kenotic Economy, Balthasar to Barth 
It is this abandonment in love which characterises kenosis that Balthasar's theology, as its economy, both preserve the condition for the possibility of ego emptying theology in its core, that "there is only one way to approach the Trinitarian life in God: manifested in divine perichoresis as God's kenosis in the theology of the covenant — and thence in the theology of the Cross — feeling our way back into the eternal mystery. 

'This primary kenosis makes possible all other kenotic movement of God into the world; being simply its consequences. Here comes Karl Barth's understanding of kenosis, God's freedom to love is a self-giving not a giving up. The doctrine of kenosis outlines, then, the giving of the gift of life; a giving that cannot be given if the giving is not part of an economy that includes reception.

I argue how Christianity baptized Hellenism in patristic theology.  In doing so, theology transformed philosophical terms and concepts.  Theology cannot do away with philosophy but must and does move beyond philosophy to enter the mystery or to be initiated into the mystery (mystagogia).  I demonstrate the above points by citing St. Gregory Palamas, Maximus, and Dionysius the Areopagite.

Not only the question, but the reality of selfhood is basic to all thought and action. Patristic, theological anthropology addresses both the question and the reality by framing man not only in terms of his divine origin through the inbreathing of the spirit of life by God, but also and especially as the one who ontologically bears God's image. According to this anthropology, to bear God's image is what it means for man to be man, and so no profound anthropological knowledge of man can be obtained apart from this revealed theological truth. In the Patris-tic, Orthodox theology of the East, however, the apophatic dimension of God's essence is preeminently emphasized , and as such the supra-rational mystery of God is highlighted, 50 Joshua Schooping a mystery not only in the sense of exceeding gnoseological or epistemological limits but mystery of an ontological nature. Yet what is arguably underdiscussed is the impact this emphasis on apophaticism has on anthropology, specifically as regards man's experience of God in terms of man's own mysterious, divinely apophatic, albeit created, nature. Since man is made in God's image, and God is ultimately and essentially mysterious, then in a very profound sense the imago dei that is man must also bear the image of this apophatic mystery as a fundamental dimension of his own being. Looking primarily at the work of two Twentieth Century Orthodox theologians, the present research attempts to demonstrate the consequence of divine apophaticism on theological anthropology, not only with an eye towards its dogmatic logicality, but with reference to the necessary bond of theology, spiritual life, and spiritual practice, specifically hesychasm and nepsis.

Christ came to save us from sin and death. But what did he save us for? One beautiful and compelling answer to this question is that God saved us for union with him so that we might become "partakers of the divine nature" (1 Pet 2:4), what the Christian tradition has called "deification." This term refers to a particular vision of salvation which claims that God wants to share his own divine life with us, uniting us to himself and transforming us into his likeness. While often thought to be either a heretical notion or the provenance of Eastern Orthodoxy, this book shows that deification is an integral part of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and many Protestant denominations. Drawing on the resources of their own Christian heritages, eleven scholars share the riches of their respective traditions on the doctrine of deification. In this book, scholars and pastor-scholars from diverse Christian expressions write for both a scholarly and lay audience about what God created us to be: adopted children of God who are called, even now, to "be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:19).

This is a book review of Michael Gorman's 2015 work, 'Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation and Mission'.  Working at the intersection of Biblical Studies and Missiology, Gorman shows how participation in the life of God is designed to advance the Gospel, as well as being fundamental to interpreting the writings of the Apostle Paul.

UPDATE: The full book is now on Amazon - a Kindle edition:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Union-God-Life-Theoria-KATAFYGIOTIS-ebook/dp/B084NX1RC5/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=christos+konstas&qid=1581428268&sr=8-1
&
https://www.amazon.com/Union-God-Life-Theoria-KATAFYGIOTIS-ebook/dp/B084NX1RC5/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=christos+konstas+philokalia&qid=1581428487&sr=8-1

The pinnacle of the Philokalia:
On the Union with God, and the Life of Theoria by Kalistos Katafygiotis (possibly Kalistos Angelikoudis?)

This is to present and discuss a text found in the fabled volume 5 of the Philokalia* titled: On the Union with God, and the Life of Theoria [sometimes translated as: contemplative life].
It’s a text that to my knowledge had not been translated into English until now*.
For this present translation I used the Greek text from volume 2 of the 1893 text of the 2nd Greek edition of the Philokalia. I also consulted sometimes the modern Greek text from volume 5 of the 1st edition of the modern Greek edition of the Philokalia (1985-1989.)
The current stage of the translation is still a rough draft form.

It's attributed to an unknown 14th century monk named Kalistos Katafygiotis.
It's not the last text of the Philokalia but it's probably the most "advanced" and as it is placed at the end of the texts making up the collection it seems that the Philokalia's compilers intended it to be the apex of their collection. All texts that follow it can be regarded as recapping the whole work, as the conclusion and the appendices of the collection. The true final text of the Philokalia, I argue, is the "On the Union with God, and the Life of Theoria."
Its Greek title is "Περί της ενώσεως με το Θεό και του θεωρητικου βίου" - On the Union with God, and the theoretical life (meaning the Life of Theoria)
It was written in the 14th century, probably sometime between 1350 and 1397, in the Macedonia (Northern Greece,) in Greek, by an unknown monk referred as: Kalistos Katafygiotis. Some think that he was a little-known monk who lived a life of monastic retreat to a monastery called "Katafyfiotissa" (meaning in Greek, 'shelter', or 'retreat'.)
Others believe that "Katafygiotis" (meaning in Greek "one living in a retreat) it's a nickname or an eponym of Callistus II, briefly Patriarch of Constantinople in 1397.

The text is written in the popular in antiquity form of a collection of short texts. Some of these texts are very short, 2-3 lines only, others longer than a page.
They were meant to be used for instruction and in many ways are more like prompts than fully developed arguments.
Sometimes such texts (called “kephalaia” – chapters or headings) would be the authors own notes, or something equivalent to today’s “bullet-points,” aiming to assist the actual teaching. Sometimes they are notes taken by disciples or observers during the teaching. Sometimes they were something equivalent to today’s “hand-outs.” Texts that the disciples were supposed to take with them and read them and contemplate them and study them during a course of days or weeks and then go back to the teacher for feedback and advice.
In a case like this one the texts are very much experiential advice given to people striving to experience “union with God” and “the life of Theoria.” So they are not formed or structured in an academic way. The author cares little about scholarship, or formal Aristotelian structure. There is a strong autobiographical element there too: Some of the texts are just personal prayers, written down or personal observations during states of Theoria. “The spiritual things are spiritually discerned” for writters like Kalistos Katafygiotis. So intellectual approval or rational arguments were not in their mind unless they served the main purpose: to edify towards union with God and the life of Theoria.”

The text can be approached from a multiple of angles but here the most relevant are:
1. The original author's intent behind the text for the original recipients.
2. The intent of the compilers of the Philokalia both in choosing to include this text int their collection and their choice to place it towards the end of their collection.

1. It seems that the author of the text meant it both as a personal record of perceptions and as an edifying text for disciples or correspondents.
The way such text were approached included the ancient practice of "Melete" ("meditare" in Latin) which was essentialy a form of ancient way of mediation, incorporating both meditation (as we understand today the word) and study.
For "melete" the procedure is to take (or be given as a disciple) a short text like the kephalaia of "On the Union with God, and the Life of Theoria" with the task to read it aloud several times a day, for several days or as long as instructed or needed. At the same time the reader was to apply or put into practice any practical task or advice the text offered. All that, until the purpose of the text "sunk into" the reader's mind and until it was finally internalized. Once this was accomplished or at least approached, the teacher would give to the disciple another text (the next of the treatise, more likely than not) and the procedure of "melete" would be repeated.
2. The compilers of the Philokalia probably had in mind a more modern approach. Like study the texts and use them as reference material. Also, by putting towards the end of the Philokalia this text they showed their intent to "wrap" the whole Philokalia "up" by a text of sublime matters that only a careful reader of the whole Philokalia might fully appreciate.

What follows in the uploaded document is the treatise plus some clarifying notes, a glossary and an example study guide.

Note:
• The first 12 text (out of 92) appeared in English translation at: https://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/union_with_god_kallistos_katafytiotis_angelikoudis.html?fbclid=IwAR1wbSnEFW6g40N8bYzMDRUH0It59yanUozJUyC5i2-hkV-aAPB5MlQecqw --- A note explains: “This American English version is based on Antonios G. Galitis's (+) modern Greek translation, published by Perivoli Tis Panagias publishers, Thessaloniki, Greece, 4th edition, 1998. It will be incomplete while I am in the process of translation. I post each segment as I finish it, subject to revision. The complete work consists of 92 numbered chapters.”

This research paper will demonstrate the context of the ani\anawim as integral in understanding, communicating, and exploring kenosis concerning both Jesus and His followers. Discussions of kenosis seemingly diminish anawimic components to secondary results or subordinate of kenotic action and participation. This tendency tilts the conversation and understandings away from covenantal history and the First Testament's  prophetic tradition, thus diminishing and distorting the significant import of the ani\anawim in all areas of theology and life.

This paper will argue that kenosis is better understood through an anawimic context and possibly only achievable within that position. This paper will posit that kenosis is better understood within the posture and position within the salvific narrative, which is intrinsically anawimic. The ani\anawim is the “How” of kenosis.  This will be demonstrated by defining terminology vital to understanding this thesis supported by scriptural witness and supplemented with historical examples that illustrate this idea. Research and literature from various sources and Christian traditions over the last two thousand years will be utilized to establish the argument of the necessity of kenosis embedded and interpenetrating within an anawimic context. This interpenetration of ani/ anawim and kenosis may prove beneficial to better understanding, listening, communicating, and participating in a devoted response to Jesus.
Additionally, the importance of trauma will be tangled within this document for potential further discussion and assisting on this journey as there is a significant connection with ani/anawim.

This article describes the ontological problem of theosis or deification in terms of two dimensions: the relationship between the finite and the infinite, and the relationship between human nature and sin. Both problems are clarified through the thinking of Saint Maximus the Confessor and his distinction between logos and tropos, that is, the constitutive nature of a thing and its existential mode of being. Theosis is presented not as a transformation of the human nature, but a transformation of our mode of being by its healing and elevation by divine grace. Maximus’ theological anthropology explains how the effects of sin should not be situated at the level of human nature but its mode of being. His conceptual distinctions may help to  clarify the thought of Luther, at least as it is presented in the Finnish interpretation of Luther.

Within Christian theology, the doctrine of the economic Trinity concerns the relation between the Triune God and living creatures like human beings. Roughly speaking, the orthodox view is that, though no Trinitarian person acts without the other two, God the Father creates, God the Son redeems, and God the Holy Spirit sanctifies. Instead of focusing upon the truth or falsity of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the present essay attempts to make sense of this doctrine through an appeal to the anthropological side of the divine-human relationship. Specifically, I will appeal to the process of symbolic interpretation by which human beings relate themselves to Ultimate Reality, arguing that the differentiated roles of the Trinitarian persons can be understood as reflections of the triadic relationship that defines the process of semiosis or sign-interpretation. 

This essay consists of three sections. Section 1 explains Charles Sanders Peirce's conception of semiosis as a process constituted by an irreducibly triadic relation between three relata: (1) a sign that represents, (2) an object that is represented, and (3) an interpretant that interprets the object on the basis of the sign. Section 2 demonstrates, through extensive quotations from the New Testament and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), that the relation posited between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit corresponds quite closely with the relation between object, sign, and interpretant, respectively, in semiosis. Finally, section 3 considers two alternative explanations of this surprising correlation: Andrew Robinson's vestigia Trinitatis explanation and a naturalistic alternative that construes the doctrine of the Trinity as a reflection of the processes of symbolic semiosis that are central to all human religions.

This is a sort of Venn diagram I devised in conjunction with my paper, "Key Themes in Orthodox Theology and Spirituality."  It attempts to represent, graphically, the inter-relationship of three key aspects of Orthodox theology:  the nature of the Trinity, theosis, and the energies / essence distinction.  As with all such graphical simplifications, it produces helpful clarity in some areas at the possible expense of glossing over important distinctions in others!

Orthodox gnosiology is not merely an intellectual question,  but is also a phenomenological, existential, ontological, personal and mystical one.  This is how orthodox theology can develop its methodology without reducing itself to a simple philosophical system.

This study is an exploration of how Cyril of Jerusalem constructed Christian identity for those who were preparing to enter into full communion with the church at Easter. In order to include the full catechetical teachings of the fourth-century hagiopolite tradition, the study examined the history of liturgy arguments against Cyrillian authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses and has found, based upon the most recent scholarship, no reason to date the text to after Cyril’s bishopric. Having also used codicological and textual critical analysis to support the claim of Cyrillian authorship, the study argues for a different preferred manuscript tradition than what is presented in the critical edition.
Since Cyril provided an identity-clarifying attribute for the new Christians to associate with each of the rites of initiation, the study looks at the scholarly literature regarding Cyril’s sacramental theology. Taking the Jerusalem catechetical writings as a pedagogical unit and examining it through word studies and flow-of-thought analysis, this study constructs a new model for Cyril’s sacramental theology based upon his doctrine of theosis, which has not been examined with sufficient academic rigor to date. It demonstrates that not only does Cyril have a fully-developed doctrine of theosis, but his expression of theosis is Trinitarian, sacramental, and inseparable from his ethical and identity forming teachings.

This paper is a critical essay clarifying the issues at stake in the contemporary discussion of the relationship between justification and sanctification from a Lutheran perspective. Through out it contrasts these doctrines with the understanding of other churches (Roman Catholic, Reformed etc.) In addition it closely engages with three articles from Bayer, Chester and Marshall as well as a range of other articles and books appropriate to the level of this unit. Some brief comments have been made about these doctrine’s implications for Pastoral Ministry. Through out my research I have learned that deification is orthodox and contrary to popular opinion—is compatible with Lutheran doctrine. Whilst theosis raises more questions than can answered on a practical level, I have grown much in appreciation of theology from the Eastern Orthodox tradition, New Perspective(s) on Paul and how this all contrasts with Lutheran theology.

There is more that separates Western Christianity from its Eastern counterpart beyond the historical rifts of the Filioque clause. Indeed, the very nature of salvation is perceived in radically different ways. While Western Christianity (largely) views salvation as remission of guilt from sin, Eastern Orthodoxy views salvation as “becoming god” or “deification.” Some (such as Tuomo Mannermaa) attempt to minimalize (and even harmonize) these differences. This article argues that notions of theosis (as proposed by historic and modern theologians within and surrounding Eastern Orthodoxy) prevent unification of these two branches given the synergism required to its attainment.

Agreement about theosis in the Orthodox-Reformed dialogues played a strategic role in the ecumenical recovery of the patristic doctrine of deification and its emergence as a locus of Reformed theology. Ecumenical dialogue helped dispel the idea that theosis is a distinctively Orthodox doctrine incompatible with the Western tradition. This idea was first propounded in the nineteenth-century by Albrecht Ritschl, Ferdinand Kattenbusch, Adolf von Harnack and others associated with the Ritschlian school. It was later appropriated by Émigré Orthodox scholars. Orthodox-Reformed dialogue helped correct this and other misconceptions about theosis. This began informally in correspondence between Thomas F. Torrance and Georges Florovsky and continued in formal dialogue meetings. Orthodox-Reformed dialogue also highlighted patristic ways of thinking about salvation that were not then prominent in Reformed theology. However, as the Reformed participants consulted the works of John Calvin, they realized that he shared those patristic ways of thinking. Today Reformed theologians are eager contributors to the ecumenical recovery of theosis. They increasingly discuss theosis as a doctrine native to the Reformed tradition.

Ray Kurzweil and others have posited that the confluence of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and genetic engineering will soon produce posthuman beings that will far surpass us in power and intelligence. Just as black holes constitute a ldquo;singularityrdquo; from which no information can escape, posthumans will constitute a ldquo;singularity:rdquo; whose aims and capacities lie beyond our ken. I argue that technological posthumanists, whether wittingly or unwittingly, draw upon the long-standing Christian discourse of ldquo;theosis,rdquo; according to which humans are capable of being God or god-like. From St. Paul and Luther to Hegel and Kurzweil, the idea of human self-deification plays a prominent role. Hegel in particular emphasizes that God becomes wholly actualized only in the process by which humanity achieves absolute consciousness. Kurzweil agrees that God becomes fully actual only through historical processes that illuminate and thus transform the entir...

Religious Celebrations: An Encyclopedia of Holidays, Festivals, Solemn Observances, and Spiritual Commemorations. By J. Gordon Melton, Editor, with James A. Beverley, Christopher Buck, and Constance A. Jones. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2011. ISBN: 978-1-59884-205-0. eISBN: 978-1-59884-206-7 Pub. date: September 13, 2011. [See below for entries.]

From the "Introduction" (p. xxi):

A review of the Baha’i Faith is particularly edifying. It is the newest of the major world religions and underwent some significant repression during its founding years. Through the twentieth century, it went through a lengthy process of establishing a new Baha’i calendar and designating holy days, including commemorations of the birth and death of the faith’s early founder/leaders. In a century, the Baha’is accomplished what it sometimes took other religions multiple centuries to complete. Meanwhile, a few of the twentieth-century new religions have moved to create an annual cycle of celebration within their first generation of existence.

Articles on Baha’i Holy Days in: Religious Celebrations: An Encyclopedia of Holidays, Festivals, Solemn Observances, and Spiritual Commemorations:

1. “‘Abdu’l-Baha, Ascension of (November 28).” (Vol. 1, pp. 1–4.)  
2. “Ayyam-i-Ha (Baha’i Intercalary Days) (February 25–March 1).” (Vol. 1, pp. 60–63.)  
3. “Bab, Festival of the Birth of the (October 20).” (Christopher Buck and J. Gordon Melton.)  (Vol. 1, pp. 65–67.) 
4. “Bab, Festival of the Declaration of the (May 23).” (Vol. 1, pp. 67–73.)  
5. “Bab, Martyrdom of the (July 9).”  (Vol. 1, pp. 73–76.)  
6. “Baha’i Calendar and Rhythms of Worship.” (Christopher Buck and J. Gordon Melton.)  (Vol. 1, pp. 79–86.) 
7. “Baha’i Fast (March 2–20).”  (Vol. 1, pp. 94–96.)  
8. “Baha’u’llah, Ascension of (May 29).” (Vol. 1, pp. 96–99.)  
9. “Baha’u’llah, Festival of the Birth of (November 12).” (Christopher Buck and J. Gordon Melton.)  (Vol. 1, pp. 99–102.) 
10. “Covenant, Day of the (November 26).” (Vol. 1, pp. 225–228.)  
11. “Naw-Rúz, Festival of (March 21).” (Vol. 2, pp. 225–228.)  
12. “Nineteen-Day Feast (Baha’i).”  (Vol. 2, pp. 641–645.)
13. “Race Unity Day.”  (Vol. 2, pp. 727–731.)   
14. “Ridvan, Festival of (April 20–May 2).”  (Vol. 2, pp. 744–747.)  
15. “World Religion Day (January).”  (Vol. 2, pp. 936–939.)  

This is the first of the two articles by this author that research the doctrine of theosis, sometimes also called deification or divinization. The second article presents theosis as a New Testament and evangelical doctrine. This first article presents theosis as a biblical and historical doctrine. The first major section of this article analyzes the main biblical texts for the doctrine of theosis; their interpretation and appropriation for theosis. The second major section of this article gives an overview of historical development of the doctrine of theosis, from the beginning of Christian thought to modern era. It shows that theosis was not limited to Eastern theologians but was also represented in the West in certain mainstream theologians and movements. Because of its biblicity and historicity, theosis should be considered an essential historical doctrine of the Church.

There are few Christian doctrines as all-embracing as the doctrine of deification. For this reason alone, the doctrine of deification deserves to be included in the Oxford Handbook series, which already has excellent volumes on the Trinity, Christology, Mary, the Sacraments, and so on. But the doctrine of deification has also been a point of sharp ecumenical disagreement and controversy among Christians, especially in the last one hundred years. This is so because in the Orthodox East, there is a strong concern that the doctrine has been either neglected or rendered inoperative in the Catholic and Protestant West. Indeed, most Western theologians will admit that the doctrine has been neglected at least verbally: the term “deification” has fallen into disuse due to a fear of misunderstanding, as well as, perhaps, due to embarrassment over Christian failures and divisions. At least in general, it is safe to say that Christians hardly look like a “deified” people in any sense of this term. For many Orthodox scholars, the Western rejection of the Palamite distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies has also rendered otiose any attempt by Catholics and Protestants to reclaim the doctrine of deification, at least while continuing to reject Palamite orthodoxy.

The patristic doctrine of deification found in such writers as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine is a biblical doctrine of the universal church affirmed by the Reformers and their immediate heirs. It is neither an exotic import nor invasive species in the garden of Reformed theology. Like Nicene Trinitarianism, creatio ex nihilo, and the canon of the New Testament, it is a constitutive part of the catholic inheritance which the Reformers sought to uphold and defend. Early Reformed theologians like Huldrych Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and John Calvin affirmed that it is appropriate to describe the goal or telos of salvation in terms of deification.

This study of Greek-American theologian John S. Romanides explores the first half-decade of his career, a span which includes his seminal book Ancestral Sin. Each chapter of this book is adapted from a lecture written by theologian James L. Kelley, one of the world's foremost authorities on Fr. John's work.

A popular-level summary of some of my work in progress challenging misconceptions about the Christian doctrine of deification's biblical warrant, terminology, and Protestant pedigree. It also briefly tells the story of how deification was cast as an Eastern Orthodox doctrine for apologetic purposes.

When Paul employs the motif of oneness in 1 Corinthians 12 and joins it to the metaphor of Christ's body, he is drawing not only on Greco-Roman political rhetoric as argued by the majority of interpreters; the apostle is simultaneously, and at times more directly, drawing from theological wells found within his Jewish theological heritage: the use of the phrase "one body" 1 Corinthians is an ecclesial application of the Shema. Paul's oneness language expresses not simply a call to internal unity or social harmony; ultimately, the ecclesial designation "one" is a succinct articulation of an ecclesiology of Christological monotheism.

This study seeks to explore the way of Christian salvation through its relation to life in the community. Salvation in the West is often understood in an individualistic way.  This dissertation is an attempt to look at the concept of salvation from a different perspective, which represents life in the community as the way of salvation. A similar approach was developed by the Eastern wing of the Church that “insists on the essential sociality of salvation.”  For this reason insights from Eastern theological thought will be used in this study.

It has become a commonplace to say that the Latin Fathers did not really hold a doctrine of deification. Indeed, it is often asserted that Western theologians have neglected this teaching, that their occasional references to it are borrowed from the Greeks, and that the Latins have generally reduced the rich biblical and Greek Patristic understanding of salvation to a narrow view of redemption. The essays in this volume challenge this common interpretation by exploring, often for the first time, the role this doctrine plays in a range of Latin Patristic authors.

The introductory essay on the Latin liturgy shows the wide-ranging use of deification themes in Latin worship, while the last one comparing the Greek and Latin Fathers provides the first serious study of the East and West's understanding of deification in light of substantial evidence. The essays in between explore the theology of deification in Perpetua and Felicity, Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Peter Chrysologus, Leo the Great, Boethius, Benedict and Gregory. Together, these essays demonstrate that deification is a native part of early Latin theology which was consistently and creatively employed.

This volume on deification in the Latin Patristic tradition will be the beginning of a long-overdue conversation. It promises to stimulate further inquiry into the place deification holds in the grammar of Latin Patristic thought and its relation to the Greek tradition.

In this Master's thesis, Fr. Ian lays out a theology of Christian transformation whereby Christians are brought into relationship with God and discover his will. The work integrates insights from Catholic and Orthodox theology as well as both post and pre-Vatican II developments in Spiritual Theology.

My Master's research on Starseeds, a new religious movement, and the inter-relationship between digital realities, the social imaginary and the nature of belief.
Philosophical, reflexive musings on the connectedness between ideas, old and new, through the prism of a group of people that believe their souls come from another planet.
An attempt at structuring and layering of ideas to reflect the multi-faceted, or indeed, the multi-dimensional shapes and impact of the life and worldview of a Starseed.

Late antique teaching on deification and the patristic reception of the Book of Revelation are two topics that have drawn focused attention in recent scholarship; yet they have hardly been brought into conversation with one another. In this thesis, I build on a brief essay which I wrote last year and look at the New Jerusalem (NJ) and its significance as a sign of deification to the two earliest writers to have composed full surviving exegeses of the Book of Revelation in Greek—the late-sixth-century exegetes Oecumenius (Commentarius in Apocalypsin) and Andrew of Caesarea (Commentarii in Apocalypsin). Using a blend of literary-critical and historical-critical methods, I argue that together, these two neglected but influential commentators take the NJ sign to be spiritual, as opposed to literal, and personal, as opposed to historical. As such, the NJ represents the mystical union of the two main persons that the writers interpret the sign as encompassing: God and man.

Chapter one introduces these two unfamiliar Byzantine figures, accounts for their work, presents their hermeneutical approaches, and discusses the contents of their commentaries both in general terms and in terms of how the contents relate to the topic at hand. The second chapter begins by exploring each author’s general conception of the New Jerusalem and leads into an in-depth study of their interpretations of the NJ vision in Revelation 21.2—22.5. This study surfaces the commentators’ preference for an understanding of the sign in which all of its primary components signify persons. Thereafter, a conceptual analysis is undertaken in which the relationships between the signified persons signified are characterized in terms of various kinds of union. The chapter concludes with an analysis of a metaphor that is closely related both to the NJ and deification in patristic literature. In the third chapter, a historical-critical methodology is adopted to discern why Oecumenius and Andrew elected to interpret the New Jerusalem mystically. A study encompassing persisting literalist interpretations, the condition of the Eastern Roman Empire, climatological factors, and popular apocalypticism leads to the conclusion that the commentators interpreted the NJ against the current of history in most respects but one: they adhered closely to several interconnected lines of theological tradition, particularly the Alexandrine tradition. Finally, their interpretation of the New Jerusalem is shown to be both a faithful continuation of traditional Alexandrian notions of deification and a creative application of those notions to Revelation’s final sign.

In conclusion, this study (1) shows how the biblical image of the NJ is interpreted as a sign bespeaking deification in the Revelation commentaries of Oecumenius and Andrew and (2) demonstrates that this interpretation is grounded in the Alexandrian theological tradition to which the commentators were heir. It is intended that this thesis is a small first step toward a the first full-length scholarly monograph to deals comprehensively, analytically, and contextually with the NJ image’s leading interpretations throughout the patristic era as represented in its Greek and Latin writings.

In his discussion of the nature of the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:35–49, Paul employs the metaphor of God’s sowing of the natural/earthly body and the raising of the spiritual/heavenly body, distinct bodies fit for their respective habitats. In order to demonstrate this, Paul enumerates a list of the creatures who inhabit the earth followed by those who inhabit the heavens, the resurrection body being likened to the later. Scholars have generally understood the background of this list to be found in the creatures from Genesis 1, even though they do not follow the same order. Some suggest the reason for this discrepancy is that the list simply evokes the cosmology of popular Greek philosophy. This article seeks to propose an alternate answer to this problem. The enumeration of terrestrial and celestial creatures here in 1 Cor 15:39–42 follows the same order as the aniconic discourse of Deut 4:15–19. If this is the text to which Paul alludes, he is likely drawing on an exegetical tradition in the Second Temple period. This tradition reads Deut 4:15–19 as part of a wider Deuteronomic scriptural matrix employed to describe the nature of the cosmos, constructed and administered by God, having appointed the celestial bodies as divine or angelic delegates in his cosmic polis (e.g. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.13–19). This reading not only supplies a strong argument for Paul’s particular enumeration of creatures, but also provides a more robust account of the passage in its wider context, connecting the language of the abolishing of the principalities and powers (1 Cor 15:24) with his earlier discussion regarding the judgment of the cosmos and the angels (1 Cor 6:2–3).