"I grant that I may be misinterpreting what you mean here, but statements like these still raise huge red flags for me. I'm not accusing you of thinking that you will become your own "gods", but the language that has been used on this thread by the Orthodox just has a certain tenor to it that I think might be a little confusing to some."
FK, the language we are using is the language of The Church from its earliest days, even from +Paul and +Peter. Unfortunately, since the Reformation, much of the West simply doesn't talk about, or believe in God and "salvation" the way it did for the first 1500 years of its existence. You know I like +Gregory Palamas; here's a snip from one of his works:
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him - as St. Paul said, 'He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him' (I Cor. 6:17) - are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.
Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.
Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the 'spirit', according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God..." Topics of Natural and Theological Science no. 75.
This concept of divinization is rejected only by Protestants so far as I know. The Latin Church has always ascribed to it. Indeed, Aquinas wrote of it many times and the Calvinists' favorite father, +Augustine, described theosis the exact same way with the exact same words that +Athanasius did.
Try this link, FK; it might explain theosis to you, complete with scriptural references:
http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/grace3.html
"What did she do to deserve credit?"
She said "Yes", FK. Here's a bit more from near the end of the Akathist Hymn to the Most Holy Theotokos (Parts of which I will be chanting tomorrow night) which will explain a bit more:
Priest: An angel of the first rank was sent down from heaven to say to the Theotokos: Hail! (3) And perceiving You, 0 Lord, taking bodily form, he stood in awe and with his bodiless voice, cried aloud to her as follows:
Hail, through whom joy shall shine forth;
Hail, through whom the curse shall vanish.
Hail, fallen Adam's restoration;
Hail, the redemption of Eve's tears.
Hail, height that is too difficult for human thought to ascend;
Hail, depth that is too strenuous for Angels' eyes to perceive.
Hail, for you are the throne of the King;
Hail, for you hold him who sustains everything.
Hail, star that shows forth the Sun;
Hail, womb in which God became incarnate.
Hail, through whom creation is renewed;
Hail, through whom the Creator becomes an infant.
Hail, 0 Bride unwedded.
People: Hail, 0 Bride unwedded.
Priest: The holy one, beholding himself in innocence, says to Gabriel: the incredible tidings of your voice appear difficult for my soul to accept. For how do you speak of childbirth from a seedless conception, crying: Alleluia.
People: Alleluia.
I rather like the way Palamis puts this. But unless people have had a semester or two of Greek, most Protestants are not going to find the language appealing, but rather strange.
Discussions on this thread have argued the merits of a literal translation versus translating the sense of the text. Would it be too much of a distortion of the Greek to say "a trinity of Holy Persons" instead of "triad of divine hypostases"? If it is possible to translate with these words, I think it would open an avenue to discussion with Protestants.
Also talking about the uncreated engergy of God sounds like something out of a physics class to most Protestants. I believe that Palamas is talking about the ways in which God communicates himself by means of grace. So, would it be a distortion of the text to say "uncreated grace" instead of "uncreated energy"? Then we might have a good discussion of whether grace is a created or uncreated.
As for the essence (ousia) of God, substance would not be an adequate way of translating this. Again, it sounds too much like physics class. How about God in Himself? At any rate I have the impression that Catholics believe that the beatific vision is of God's essence, but this is impossible for Orthodox Christians as I understand it. Finding the corresponding language for Protestants might be more challenging because Protestents do not ususlly talk of the beatific vision. How about this: meeting the Risen Christ or meeting the Risen Lord?
My intention here is to facilitate discussion by translating meaning for meaning, not word for word.
This is what I thought your position was, and I was only talking about the terminology used because, as Stripes notes very well in his follow-up post, it is difficult for us Protestants to wrap our arms around it. :)
[from your link:] "Since divinity and humanity are infinitely different, the latter cannot evolve into the former either. So theosis has nothing in common with the Mormon doctrine of Eternal Progression, that is, the belief that men can achieve "Godship". Human nature is not embryonic Divine Nature. Finite creatures cannot be transformed into Uncreated, Infinite Divinity." (emphasis added)
Thanks for the link, Kolo. This part is exactly what I was thinking of, that some people could miss the distinction in beliefs based on the terminology.
FK: "What did she [Mary] do to deserve credit?"
She said "Yes", FK.
I still don't understand this part. If Mary was free to say "No", then what would God have done if she did? If no one else had spent a sinless life, then no one else would have been worthy by the standards you use, right? In the way we experience time, would God have started from scratch and graced someone else? I don't see how it was even POSSIBLE for Mary to have said "No", which is why I have trouble giving her independent credit.
Thank you for the Hymn.