Jonesboy

BECOMING LIKE GOD: AN EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE OF THEOSIS ROBERT V. RAKESTRAW* While the concept of theosis has roots in the ante-Nicene period, it is not an antiquated historical curiosity. The idea of divinization, of redeemed human nature somehow participating in the very life of God, is found to a surprising extent throughout Christian history, although it is practically unknown to the majority of Christians (and even many theologians) in the west. In Orthodox theology, however, it is the controlling doctrine. Furthermore “it is not too much to say that the divinization of humanity is the central theme, chief aim, basic purpose, or primary religious ideal of Orthodoxy.” ...It is not easy to give a definition of theosis, since so many aspects of Christian truth are utilized by those who advance the teaching, and different writers and traditions emphasize different truths. The word “theosis” is the transliteration of a Greek word meaning “deifcation” (being made God). ..Archbishop Basil Krivocheine, expressing the thought of St. Symeon the New Theologian, writes: Divinization is the state of man’s total transformation, effected by the Holy Spirit, when man observes the commandments of God, acquires the evangelical virtues and shares in the sufferings of Christ. The Holy Spirit then gives man a divine intelligence and incorruptibility. Man does not receive a new soul, but the Holy Spirit unites essentially with the whole man, body and soul. He makes of him a son of God, a god by adoption, though man does not cease being a man, a simple creature, even when he clearly sees the Father. He may be called man and god at the same time.21 ...Hughes goes on to explain—correctly, I believe—what Athanasius did mean, and in so doing he gives us a useful defnition of theosis as the reintegration of the divine image of man’s creation through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit conforming the redeemed into the likeness of Christ, and also of the believer’s transition from mortality to immortality so that he is enabled to participate in the eternal bliss and glory of the kingdom of God.22 Above all, theosis is the restoration and reintegration of the “image” or, as some prefer, “likeness” of God, seriously distorted by the fall, in the children of God. In this life Christians grow more and more into the very likeness and character of God as God was revealed in the man Jesus Christ. This is more than the customary Protestant concept of sanctification, however. In theosis, while there is no ontological change of humanity into deity there is a very real impartation of the divine life to the whole human being—body and soul. ..John Meyendorˆ speaks of the never-ending nature of deifcation: Man is not fully man unless he is in communion with God. . . . However, because God remains absolutely transcendent in his essence, man’s communion with Him has no limit. It never reaches an End, which would be a dead end. God is both transcendent and inexhaustible. . . . In Christ [according to Palamas], man enters into communion not with “the God of the philosophers and the savants” but with the one who in human language can only be called “more than God.”28 While the doctrine of theosis is associated primarily with the Orthodox churches of the east, it has similarities with the teaching about sancti˜cation in the west. As noted above, however, the two are not identical. In the western churches, as Bray notes, the concept of the imitation of Christ is the closest analogy to the theosis doctrine of the east. In Orthodox theology, while we are called to imitate Christ we are also called to manifest the energies of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit who proceeds from the Father rests on the Son and becomes his energies. The Spirit then, by adopting us as sons of God, makes accessible to us the spiritual power that belongs to Christ. ...Another strength of theosis teaching is that it may offer hope to some Christians who despair of fnding the truly abundant life here on earth. Many of us are weary of the expression “paradigm shift.” But while we may not care for the term because of its familiarity, we dare not ignore the signi fcance of fundamentally new ways of perceiving reality. Perhaps some Christians today will be helped considerably by a paradigm shift in their view of holiness and ministry. Rather than seeing our progressive sancti fcation as something done for us by God from outside, by God’s acting upon our minds and wills from some external habitation, or as something we do from below as we pray to God above and seek to obey God here on earth, we may take a kind of quantum leap forward by understanding sanctifcation as the very life and energy of God in us. We are becoming increasingly like God because we are participating more and more in his divine nature. As Christians, our bodies are in very truth temples of the indwelling Spirit, who radiates his presence and power through us to others. Aden correctly notes that, to the Orthodox, grace is not a divine pardon, attitude, or promise as it is for the Lutherans, who tend to focus grace primarily on justifcation. It is the divine dynamic (energy) that comes from God, unites us to Christ, and changes us so that “Christ is formed in us” (Gal. 4:19). Thus deifcation is a process of transformation and driven by deifying grace.52

If you don't like the practice then you don't have to do it. Nobody has attachments to individuals. People come and go, work with people or they don't. It is all up to them. That is just something you are trying to make into an issue. You are wrong, everyone associated was accused. Uh, you mentioned my name and my practices. Now you are trying to side step it.. We left it open, asked her to comment on it and she refused. When we created a new site we closed the thread as it was just an attack with no other dialogue. Can you show examples of us gaslighting people? Again, it is just you attacking people and assigning motives. There is Bindi and you who do the most attacking. Most just don't agree with his view or think shared energy work is bad. I am referring to your interaction in the chat room with an individual that created a serious issue you were warned about before you started. Glad you stopped. I am not here to attack you. That seems to be your job. Spider on the wall because you would sit in chat quietly until you would attack me for some wrong. I never, ever ask anyone to recruit anyone. Nice side step. I seem to have messed up the quote system.. No, you asking me to hide long posts was in a thread here at the bums. Our conversation was in chat. If you remember when you first came around you tried to change me. Told me how I was acting wrong, shouldn't debate even when I was right. How you could feel peoples emotions just from a post. Their fears, anger, etc. I do agree. Sometimes you just have to stop. Not all the advice was bad but we did have it. You would prefer? Okay, that is your view. There is no dependency on what we do. I also don't see how it is not empowering to others. It is a different view on the issue. You are sustaining the narrative with your anger at Jeff. Why? We were friends, my wife was your friend and now you are attacking everyone. For what purpose indeed? There is no dependence, that is just your personal view. The change in being is empowerment. We are free to disagree. People reach higher levels by clearing out issues and fears. One can be helped or taken deeper but the only way to remain at them is to clear out the underlying junk. Nothing wrong with some help. I would agree with that from many here.

It's called attachments. Pretty basic spirituality. We don't go after anyone. I have gone after one person because they accused me and others of astral rape which you KNOW is not true. They had a dream and then wanted to blame it on us. Then went on to attack us for years. There are tons of threads here at the bums with people attacking us and we rarely answer back. Has anyone went after you? Mentioned your actions and the effects your practices have had on others even after being warned? Nope. You attack and we don't say a thing. Nobody is expected to recruit anyone. I have never asked anyone to recruit people. I have never, ever been mad at you for not recruiting anyone. If i remember correctly you were upset with me because my posts at the bums would wake you up. That even when I was right in a debate about Rigpa I should have just stopped instead of debating others. You were upset that I lead dives and didn't give you and others more of an opportunity to lead them. You can be upset with Jeff all you want but you don't have to lie and make up stuff. Also, yes I do believe Jeff, I and others can help people. I have seen it to many times to doubt it. Offering help is not a bad thing. You don't have to stay, you don't have to accept. Maybe you try it and it is not your thing. No other explanation? No other reason possibility beyond what you think was going on? You really think it is all about power? You are just assuming but never asked? Maybe it was about the other person and had nothing to do with you? Also, thank you for the blanket method. I use it all the time. Clear your obstructions and realize the clarity underneath it all. I have never heard Jeff or anyone at PW use the term weak or that someone is bad. I have also never heard Jeff use the term powerful as a reference to himself when working with someone. Again, no need to respond. I won't be checking back for an answer. I just thought I would add a little perspective.

Edited.. Always interesting to see how people really think of you that you thought were friends and had respect for each other. Never mind responding..

No, no he wasn't. He still brings a smile to my face. He was pretty unique.

Imagine tolerance in an online spiritual forum. Not all countries have the same values but with tolerance one could come to such places to learn and grow.

I don’t understand what you are asking apech. First you are saying prove mind streams merge and is a bunch of straw manning and then guru yoga merges mind streams. So what are you asking for?

Well, it was 5:45 am.. I hadn't had any coffee yet.. I am always a little slow till bedtime anyways.. Thank God it's Friday!!

Thank you Rex for that explanation. Yes, I still merge/connect with Divine Beings. Where to me Buddhism is wrong is that there is no such thing as the last few pages has demonstrated where there are two beings that can merge. Buddhism also doesn't believe that another person can directly introduce others to differing states of mind or to give one a direct taste of different states of being. It does not believe in a sharing of oneness with others. It does not believe that one being can help another let go of obstructions through the sharing of ones clarity for instance All the above is part of my practice and also very much a part of Kashmir Shaivism. Yet, KS get's some stuff wrong that Buddhism get's right in my view. I would like to say I don't teach others to connect to sources of wisdom, irrespective of source and traditionalist views. I think it is important and very respectful to understand those traditional views. If I am in a Hindu section of the forum I will stay within KS, if in the Buddhism section I try to stay pure Buddhism, if in the general.. well I am free to share my views a little more openly.

Clarity to me has many aspects.. I am just quoting a Dzogchen Master and going from there.. We can say it is the ground of all thought but then again.. from that ground, thoughts arise.. what then is thinking?

I know Siva, I liked your post but I was referring to Steve's post..

I would agree that there are clear differences between Buddhism and it's terms and meanings compared to Vedantins and Shaivites. I do have my view but I have not really tried to express it. They are all separate. My view does incorporate many aspects of different traditions but that is not what I have been doing.

I didn't say it was a state of mind, different states of mind is a perfect reference of one still in local mind. Yet that essence still has thoughts...

I am referring to Buddhist teachings that does say that some Buddha's are limited.

I agree yet ones attachment or clarity can have a huge impact on ones life.

Thank you Steve for jumping in. Always have fun discussing things with you. First, with regard to clarity and thoughts. The Lankavatara Sutra discusses Universal Mind. Differing levels of realization is me referring to the different types of Buddha's as was discussed earlier. I should have been clearer.. but to me if a Buddha is restricted or limited.. it is about realization/clarity.

I found this on another forum. If others agrees it can help answer my question.

Maybe truth is the wrong term. More my realizations have been in line with much of Buddhist teachings.. I am not talking ownership of a thought or an "I" from a Buddhist perspective. Yet Dudjom Rinpoche formed thoughts to say the above. Is it the Universal Mind? There is no self, some place somewhere made up of things in some location. Again, the point is showing there is a unique.. something of differing levels of realization that expresses it. Clarity is very important which is why Dzogchen talks about it being an aspect of the Primordial State.

Thank you CT. I do reserve the right to bring in a different traditions teachings to help clarify my meaning on a topic. The last few pages have pretty much stayed within Buddhism. Another way of looking at it for me, within my tradition, is finding the truth in all traditions so with that being said one shouldn't be surprised if I do sneak in a post here or there. This thread isn't just about Buddhism. A pure Buddhist question is who/what is having thoughts of clarity when one has realized the Primordial State? Purely on topic before people decided to start asking me why I am asking Buddhist questions about Buddhism on a spiritual forum

I have found many truths and parallels in my path in Buddhism, the same could be said for Kashmir Shaivism and the teachings of Jesus. I like to learn and study all traditions. Every moment of every day is working on my current path. Having these discussions is just a small part of that. I am more than willing to discuss Buddhism on it's own terms. I do it all the time. If you were to search for the term Rigpa you would see lot's of discussions from me on the topic. Asking clarifying questions about Buddhism is what a student of the art is suppose to do is it not? My latest question in the thread is for a Buddha, who/what is having thoughts of clarity? That seems to be a tough question. This thread was a split from what does Buddhism get wrong. You will see in an depth discussion of merging and guru stuff that is far different than Buddhism. Much of which Buddhism say's isn't possible. A thread ebbs and flows from Buddhism to my own practices and back and forth. People ask me tough questions and I hope, I ask them back. I find nothing wrong with it whatsoever. All the best.

I think I am challenging concepts not building them. As this thread describes from the very beginning, I am not a Buddhist and my practices are much different than anything in Buddhism.

No, I had not. Thank you.

Thinking more of intent. If a Buddha wanted to grow in size it is will/intent that does it. Mixing traditions but to help with my meaning. From the Shiva Sutras.

More of a KS thinking but one could look at it much like Apech mentioned. The Buddha could teleport, see with his Divine Eye. He would choose to do so or not depending on the audience and if it would help or not. The Primordial State has 3 aspects. Void, energy and clarity. What then is having thoughts? What is then using intent/will to do anything like see or teleport or to reprimand a student?