Theosis vs. Sancitification vs. Justification by Faith / Perseverance of the Saints
I've mentioned from time to time that I'm in the process of studying Eastern Orthodoxy, with an interest in converting. I have some questions, and my community leader has asked me to ask the priest for more info, but I don't know what questions to ask until I actually know what questions to ask, so I'll only contact him after I get my thoughts settled.
I also tend to learn very quickly through online conversations like these, so I'd be very grateful for whatever anyone can throw at me.
I'm having some difficulty accepting / understanding the Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis. As I understand it, the process of theosis is the 'goal' of the Eastern Orthodox faith, where human beings can transcend their fallen nature and become like God, in the sense one becomes like Christ.
At first, I was told that this process was similar to the Catholic concept of sanctification, ie. the process of becoming saints. In both it seems like the end goal is the same, but I still feel that there is a shift in the focus (or the perspective, at least). The Catholic concept seems to say that it is only possible after a person's death and once the believer undergoes a further process of refinement/cleansing through purgatory. The Orthodox concept seems to say that it is possible for a person to achieve this state while they are still alive.
For me this is a clear indication of the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, where Orthodoxy (or in this case, the Church of the East) says that the Church of the West tends to focus on the sin more than the end result. The Catholic process of sanctification also seems to focus purely on the purification of the self from sin, whereas the Orthodox process seems to view purification of the self from sin as only one of the steps.
In my imagination, the Orthodox version violates more of my previous understanding of the Christian faith. This is because, as a Protestant, my personal stance had always been Calvinist -- that human beings are born sinful and will never attain a state of purity, except through purely God-willed intervention. I only started to consider Arminianism after I learned that Arminus did not propose that human beings had a kind of independent free will through which one could 'choose' God, but that everyone had been granted a little bit of the Holy Spirit through which one can have the free will to accept or reject.
So I've pretty much come to the conclusion that although they sound the same, they are all different enough to be considered different models of the ultimate goal of the Christian faith. Theosis, sanctification and justification by faith / perseverance of the saints look the same, sound the same, but are not the same. If I am to convert from either one of the big three (Protestantism, Catholicism or Orthodoxy) to another, it seems to me that bigger than the issue of Mary or Pope Benny, is this.
When I think of 'But which understanding of salvation is the one based on Jesus?' it seems to me a really stupid question to ask myself, since all of the understandings are based on the Bible, and all equally claim to be reading Paul and Jesus and the Apostles correctly. All three versions would claim that they are the same thing, but at the same time, they are, well...really not the same thing.
I'd like some responses -- fill in info? correct misunderstandings? Say anything, really, because it gives me something I can jockey about in my head.
I also tend to learn very quickly through online conversations like these, so I'd be very grateful for whatever anyone can throw at me.
I'm having some difficulty accepting / understanding the Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis. As I understand it, the process of theosis is the 'goal' of the Eastern Orthodox faith, where human beings can transcend their fallen nature and become like God, in the sense one becomes like Christ.
At first, I was told that this process was similar to the Catholic concept of sanctification, ie. the process of becoming saints. In both it seems like the end goal is the same, but I still feel that there is a shift in the focus (or the perspective, at least). The Catholic concept seems to say that it is only possible after a person's death and once the believer undergoes a further process of refinement/cleansing through purgatory. The Orthodox concept seems to say that it is possible for a person to achieve this state while they are still alive.
For me this is a clear indication of the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, where Orthodoxy (or in this case, the Church of the East) says that the Church of the West tends to focus on the sin more than the end result. The Catholic process of sanctification also seems to focus purely on the purification of the self from sin, whereas the Orthodox process seems to view purification of the self from sin as only one of the steps.
In my imagination, the Orthodox version violates more of my previous understanding of the Christian faith. This is because, as a Protestant, my personal stance had always been Calvinist -- that human beings are born sinful and will never attain a state of purity, except through purely God-willed intervention. I only started to consider Arminianism after I learned that Arminus did not propose that human beings had a kind of independent free will through which one could 'choose' God, but that everyone had been granted a little bit of the Holy Spirit through which one can have the free will to accept or reject.
So I've pretty much come to the conclusion that although they sound the same, they are all different enough to be considered different models of the ultimate goal of the Christian faith. Theosis, sanctification and justification by faith / perseverance of the saints look the same, sound the same, but are not the same. If I am to convert from either one of the big three (Protestantism, Catholicism or Orthodoxy) to another, it seems to me that bigger than the issue of Mary or Pope Benny, is this.
When I think of 'But which understanding of salvation is the one based on Jesus?' it seems to me a really stupid question to ask myself, since all of the understandings are based on the Bible, and all equally claim to be reading Paul and Jesus and the Apostles correctly. All three versions would claim that they are the same thing, but at the same time, they are, well...really not the same thing.
I'd like some responses -- fill in info? correct misunderstandings? Say anything, really, because it gives me something I can jockey about in my head.