Tom: I just argue the person we become is distinct from the person the Son is.

Clay: "From the hip" and "off the cuff"... using the image of a vine and branches, I'd expect to have to embrace BOTH the non-distinction the vine and branches share AND ALSO the distinction you'd find between them.

D, T and C, what do you think of that?

Tom: I think it’s very important to define the limits of any particular metaphor contextually. I mean, to know what specific point, in context, a particular biblical metaphor in intended to express. I get the feeling that some think that metaphors, like the vine & the braches, are repositories of pretty much anything our imaginations can turn out, as if absolutely everything that’s true about vines and branches has to have a specific counterpart in Christ and us, so that anything one could say about the vine/branch relationship can be said about the Christ/us relationship. It’s like metaphors are blank checks on which you can write in any amount you’d like and cash it in for theological value.

It’s a mistake to think metaphorical speech works this way, for several reasons. One, there are different metaphors which, if interpreted along these lines, yield contradictory information about the same subject. Two, it encourages hermeneutical chaos and irresponsibility. My goodness, metaphors can yield endless points of similarity. If they’re all valid interpretations of the text’s meaning, where are we? Usually the context will clue you in on just what particular point of similarity (say, between vines and branches) is meant to furnish what bit of truth-value.

Do I think Jesus is the vine and we are the braches? Of course. But I don’t at all think the metaphor directly yields any metaphysical data, especially nothing along the lines of what we’re debating. It’s just not intended to inform the sort of abstract metaphysical claims D seeks to use them for.

I’d be happy to explore the biblical metaphors and passages relevant to Orthodoxy’s teaching on theosis if someone wants to start a separate thread. I think the evidence is paltry at best. That doesn’t mean theosis is theologically mistaken. It just means it’s a secondary level theological claim not directly supported by the text.

Back to the vine and the braches. Yes, the vine and the braches are distinct. And yes, they together constitute a single entity if you will. Both these points (the unity and the differentiation) are entirely beside the point. Saying anything about either isn't of interest here. The point is just to say that we are as dependent upon Christ as our source (of strength, inspiration, and life) as are branches upon the vines that support them. Cut the branch loose and it dies. It “can do nothing.” Braches don’t generate their own life-support; they’re not self-sufficient. THAT’S the point. And that’s the only point. It can’t really be pushed much beyond that.

If one wanted to get anal about it, one could say, “Well, vines can be ripped out of the ground that supports them too, which might suggest they’re just as dependent on some other source for life as are branches.” But though that’s true of vines it’s NOT true of Christ. So we have to watch our step. Any metaphor can be pushed to absurdity. But within the limits of the context it’s not usually difficult to find the main point. John is not interested in theosis or the eschaton, nor in any detail of metaphysics or ontology or personhood, and any such application is wholly unwarranted by the text. Make them if you want, but don’t claim biblical support per se. Jesus just wants to remind us by way of a word picture how much we need him, how dependent we are upon him, how our life can be directed and supported and enriched by the Spirit’s presence in us. If it turns out that theosis is an utterly false belief, Jesus’ words will suffer no loss in applicability since such speculations don’t at all lie in scope of his words.

Do Jesus’ words expressly contradict theosis? Well, no. But they don’t expressly contradict non-theotic views either. See what that gets us? I thought we were interested in OTHODOXY, that is, what the fundamental faith is. And orthodoxy can never be about defining what at best isn’t contradicted by the text. Orthodoxy HAS to be about what is expressly and positively grounded in the text. If my view is just as consistent with all the texts to which supporters of theosis appeal, then I’m just as orthodox (biblically speaking) as others. But orthodoxy, as we all know, has become something not always related to exegesis. That’s another issue.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 3/19/2008 10:10:49 AM (GMT-5)

All I can say is that, speaking for myself, my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of God (and growing understanding of reality) correlates totally with the Church's concepts of theosis.  Concepts that have been in duration in the Church for years and years, experienced by different Christian mystics and hesychasts. (Again, I'm very Johnny-Come-Lately to ALL of this! ) Hearing the idea that "theosis" may be an "utterly false belief" seems...well...

Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/19/2008 7:52:14 AM (GMT-5)

Whoever is one with the Lord is one with him IN SPIRIT.

Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/19/2008 8:09:47 AM (GMT-5)

Tom: If it turns out that theosis is an utterly false belief, Jesus’ words will suffer no loss in applicability since such speculations don’t at all lie in scope of his words.

D: I want to get this really straight in my own mind.  Just want to make sure I'm clear on our experiences. First, there was a remark made about choosing between "Chalcedon or the Bible"...that you'd take the Bible over Chalcedon. (Remember that?) Next, we didn't know if Jesus had a human spirit or not (despite direct statements in the Bible, it was still "I don't know for sure."). Next, epiklesis was likened unto "superstitious magic" and darn near "cannibalism". Now, there is actual consideration that theosis (of all things), in your mind, may "turn out" to be an "utterly false belief"...after ALL the experience of the Saints and the Church on this stuff?

Dude...I'm wiggin'...totally.

Tom: I don’t mean to startle anybody. Sorry. No one of those statements seems very surprising though. Sure, IF I had to choose between Chalcedon and the Bible, I’d go with Scripture. You wouldn’t? The ‘if’ makes it a conditional sentence.

And you won’t let the whole ‘Jesus’ human spirit’ thing go in spite of what I’ve said to qualify myself. So commenting on that won’t help. As for the elements, I think the notion that they actually become the body and blood of Jesus is very mistaken. There is zero biblical grounds for making that particular claim. I’m sorry D. You got nothing on me there Bro. I’ll be nice and not call it superstitious magic, fine. I just disagree with it. And as for theosis, I only said that “IF” it turns out that it’s a false belief, Jesus’ words are not left without a very sensible application. The point is just that we don’t need theosis to give Jesus’ words plausible meaning. I didn’t say I think theosis will turn out to be false.

D: All I can say is that, speaking for myself, my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of God (and growing understanding of reality) correlates totally with the Church's concepts of theosis. Concepts that have been in duration in the Church for years and years, experienced by different Christian mystics and hesychasts. (Again, I'm very Johnny-Come-Lately to ALL of this! ) Hearing the idea that "theosis" may be an "utterly false belief" seems...well...

Tom: Well I’m not suggesting human beings have NO eschatological hope or goal, or that there’s no biblical grounds for supposing fully realized human being to be this and not that. I’m just saying that there’s nothing in any text that says, “Interpret me in theotic fashion”; no text that can’t make perfect sense on the assumption that we ARE personally distinct from God, finite persons standing in inter-personal relationship to God, not “made God” or “divinized.” Neither the language nor the concept of theosis is expressly present in the Bible—not Genesis, not the Psalms, not Ephesians, not John, not Peter, none of the key ‘theosis’ passages upon close examination really makes theotic claims. Again, this doesn’t have to mean theosis is a false belief. It just means it’s theological construct and not biblical data.

-----------------------------

D: (When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) [I am's Question to Tom: Is this a "metaphysical" statement?] The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ…

Tom: I’m not saying we can avoid thinking about metaphysics or ontology. We may not be able to. But I don’t see any specific metaphysical claims in Paul’s words, no. Why don’t you spell that statement out? Instead of quoting Paul, restate, in philosophical terms, what specific metaphysical claim you think Paul’s making.

Sure, there are some metaphysical assumptions we should make if Paul’s words are to make sense (that there is some sort of division between ‘heaven’ and the earth’s ‘lower parts’, that Christ’s life and existence has universal consequences for all creation, etc.). But there’s nothing specific that renders a verdict on our dispute. That Christ shall ‘fill’ all things? Sure. I don’t deny this. The sort of union with God I imagine doesn’t suppose God is shut out of certain corners of the universe. I just don’t think this ‘filling’ means there can exist no personal distinction between Christ and us. Why think that? But it seems to me D, that you quote these passages as if the truth of your view is just laying there right on the surface obvious to all. You quote a passage and then just ask “Do you see?” Well, no. I don’t see what you see in the passage.

D: One more...Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her  to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,  and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, people have never hated their own bodies, but they feed and care for them, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Tom: This is a good example. If we press the analogy, then we are obligated to say husbands aren’t personally distinct from their wives, something nobody wants to say (I hope). People don’t hate their own ‘bodies’ but care for them, just as Christ cares for his body, us, the Church. So should we reason then that since ‘bodies’ aren’t ‘persons’ or ‘selves’ but just ‘containers’ or ‘embodied’ expressions OF selves that wives are just the embodied expressions of the ‘self’ or ‘person’ of their husbands? Or that we are merely the embodied expression of Christ’s person and not personally distinct entities? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s the POINT of the head/body metaphor. It seems to me that the simplest point is most likely to be the intended one—fully realized human being is communal existence. That’s it. We understand that, we ‘get’ it because we experience it. But there’s no attempt to break it down into a deeply metaphysical construct about identities within identities and persons with little p’s inside a Person with a capital P. It’s just not there. Husbands should love and sacrifice themselves for their wives, the way Christ did the church. If I only go on that much, I’d have to conclude that the church is VERY MUCH personally distinct from Christ since wives are personally distinct from their husbands. They’re one flesh, yes, not one person. that is, they’re not one and distinct in the same respect, and that’s where I think we disagree D. You want the distinction/differentiation to be WITHIN a larger oneness that somehow encompasses the differences. But that feels more like a monism which views oneness as more real and prior to difference and diversity (and so less trinitarian). To my mind, the difference IS a difference, a real difference, substantial differences, and not just different ‘ways’ the larger ONE expresses itself. This is what Hart’s essential point seemed to me to be and why I posted his comments.

Gotta run.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 3/19/2008 2:54:01 PM (GMT-5)

:)

D: When you JUST ARE...and you are NOT trying to despairingly "be something"...WHAT IS THAT THAT YOU "JUST ARE"?

Tom: I’ve already said what that is. I’m a:

·         non—divine center of experience,

·         who thinks, feels, and chooses,

·         self-determining/self-disposing in the freely creative expression of love,

·         self-perceiving in my apprehension of all of the above,

·         stand, in all of the above, in relationship to God.

But because this self-perceiving center is endowed by God with the freedom to determine in unique and free ways the shape of its loving expression, it is unique and unrepeatable. To me that means I’m a person-in-relation to God and others, a son of God and a brother to you and others.

D: Dude, really...REALLY...think about this.

Tom: What can I say or do differently to convince you that I really really do think about this? Is it just because we disagree that you conclude I must not really be thinking about this? Can I co-obsess with you over this issue any more desperately? After all we’ve gone though, all the time I’ve invested in this with you, all the posts…you gotta tell me to “REALLY think about this”? I’m not choosing to be offended, Bro. Really I’m not. I’m fine. I’m just trying to help you see that this is condescension on your part. It’s condescending of you to tell me at THIS point, at THIS stage, to really think about this. I can’t NOT mention this to you Bro, for what it’s worth.

T

I love you, bro. 

Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/20/2008 11:01:36 AM (GMT-5)

I ask a sensual man, “Who are you?” and he replies, “I am I,” and he thinks of his body.

I ask a thinking man, “Who are you?” and he replies, “I see two sides in myself and I make my way between them, associating first with one and then the other,” and he is thinking of his instinctive and conscious soul.

I ask a spiritual man, “Who are you?” and he replies, “There is someone in the depths of my soul. I stretch out my hand to grasp him but see that to do that I would need arms longer than the universe. Ask him who I am.”

St. Nicholai of Zicha (Velimirovich)

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/who-am-i/

Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/20/2008 11:29:01 AM (GMT-5)

D: Dude, from what I'm understanding, condescension (from a negative point of view) is when a person believes that another person is inferior in some kind of way. I don't believe that you are inferior to me. I don't believe that I am inferior to you. If you are interpreting my statement as implicitly declaring my own self-perceived self-superiority of thought, you've got me mixed up. I hope that you see that. If you don't want me to say that phrase (which I've used tons of times before) again, I won't. That's fine. But condescension is pointless to me...and not intended.

Tom: I know it’s not intended. And you do say it a lot. I’m just wondering if it’s just ‘fill’ or if you there’s something behind it. I’m just trying to understand what you could mean.

--------------------

Tom: But because this self-perceiving center is endowed by God with the freedom to determine in unique and free ways the shape of its loving expression, it is unique and unrepeatable. To me that means I’m a person-in-relation to God and others, a son of God and a brother to you and others.

D: This is a conceptual description of who you believe yourself to be. And this conceptual description would be true of all other human beings, in your mind.

Tom: All descriptions are conceptual. It’s the best I can do!

And yes, persons-in-relation are what we all are (just as we all are sons of God). There IS a shared identity. But like I say, the hypostatic ‘shape’ or personal expressive form that this relationship takes in each person’s case is unique and unrepeatable IF each is self-determining of their expressive form. That irreducible ‘freedom’ to determine one’s loving expression is what gives the unique shape and unrepeatable character of each human being, so that what’s ecclesially true of all (all sons of God) only find concrete expression in particular, freely determined, expression of that relationship. Thus, all are sons. No two are the SAME son.

D: That which is most unique to you, however, is your most internal self-relational experience. The BEING of "I am-ness".  Your SUBJECTIVE experience. NO ONE ELSE human being who has lived, does live, or will live will EVER experience "I am-ness" in the way that you do. No other human being will have the exactitude of your perpspective. It's unique and unrepeatable.

Tom: You’re sounding like me!

D: But when you are just in your deepest "I am-ness"...in that which is MOST UNIQUE, MOST PERSONAL, and MOST INDIVIDUAL to yourself...at that moment...Where is the ego-identity, "Tom Belt", with all of it's unconscious and preconscious predispositions, presuppositions, and preferences about it's self-reflected human existence, including all interpretations of it's biological hypostatic relationships (family of origin, etc)? Does "Tom" still exist in your deepest "I am-ness" self-relationship?

Tom: The name ‘Tom’ is just a handle. The real core, the subjective center, is, as I said, just a unique, unrepeatable, freely determining, center of experience beloved by God and held in existence by him. There’s no personal existence that is only individual existence (as you know). So I can’t self-perceive as a person, that is, I can’t attribute meaning to my unique and unrepeatable experience, apart from my relating to God in freely creative ways. So I see a unique creature loved by God and invited to worship and love him in freely creative ways. That’s what we all are, yes. But not all freely determine their creative expression the same way. I think you want to establish your individual meaning, the meaning of your existence, apart from any choice or movement on your part. It’s ALL done by God and given to you. For me, the meaning of an individual’s existence is established and expressed through SYNGERY, God and the individual relating, mutually, sharing, in ways God and no other individual relate, that determines the particular meaning of the individual’s existence.

T