Vladimir Kharlamov

RHETORICAL APPLICATION OF THEOSIS IN GREEK PATRISTIC THEOLOGY

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 inSioux 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 thoughhe does not explain what that exactly means.

• This language was almost exclusively found only in Alexandriaand 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 theologicalissues 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 developingrhetoric in order to construct a meaningful message.

• This was not rhetoric for the sake of impressive orbeautiful speech; rather, it was meant as a means of making Theosis popular.

• Theosis was used as a vehicle to win an argumentagainst a foe, even though the whole concept wasnot 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 non-Christian practices but also in his fight against Arianism.

• While he only uses this word thirty-three times, the battleagainst Arianism allowed for the development of Athanasiantheology.

• 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 deificationwas a tool for Athanasius as it played an auxiliary role in the main fight; the defeat ofArianism.

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 Dionysiusthe Areopagitein the 5 th c. and Maximus the Confessor in the 7 th c.

• His direct references to deification are within the Christian contextof 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 muchas Athanasius did but in his few encounters, especially with the father of Greek rhetoric, Empedocles, Gregory’s focus in deificationwas 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 andcelibacy 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 QUESTIONS1. 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?