Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Οὐσία vs Ένέργεια: What's the difference and how does this relate to 'θέωσησ'?

coptic_deacon
edited October 2014 in Coptic Orthodox Church
Pretty self-explanatory question. I know nothing about this so I might raise some other questions as people comment.

Comments

  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited October 2014
    The Coptic Church never really described theosis in those terms.  We never had Barlaamism to force us into Palamism (although these days, it might be coming soon).  Nevertheless, I will share two quotes from al-Safi ibn al-Assal, from the book "Coptic Christology in Practice":

    First quote:

    There is yet another way (of demonstrating the Incarnation), which is not theoretical in nature: namely, the certainty that results from (spiritual) exercise and inner purification.  The fathers, who along this path have arrived at the utmost end, have testified that the Christian faith alone is true. The proof of this is their attainment of contact with God to the extent that traces of Him became manifest in them, as well as their constancy in that faith and their devotion to it until they offered themselves up (in martyrdom) without separation from it and in obedience to it.


    The second quote:


    The learned scholars have mentioned many reasons for the union, and they fall into two categories.

    The First category concerns the Creator. The property on account of which he brought us into existence (namely, his generosity) was also that property on account of which he established contact with our nature, in order to perfect us—that is to say, (to bring us to) the perfection of his generosity. The (First) proof regarding the necessity of the union is the fact that the Creator (may he be exalted!) is the most excellent of benefactors. Now the most excellent of benefactors is the benefactor who bestows the most excellent of essences, and the most excellent of essences is the essence of the Creator. It necessarily follows then that the Creator has generously bestowed his essence upon us, and this took place in his contact with us. A second proof is the fact that his contact with us is possible, for the main objection to that contact is (the supposed) incompatibility (of the two uniting elements). But the Creator is not in fact opposed to his creature, since one opposing party would destroy its opposite, not bring it into existence. In the Torah, God said that he created humankind in his likeness, and this likeness is close to the (idea of) contact. If his contact with us is possible, and if we have the goal of honour(ing him), and if he possesses the perfection of generosity, then there can be no objection to it, apart from (claims that God is guilty of) impotence or greed. These two things are attributes of imperfection, and God is exalted above both of them. Therefore, his contact with us is necessary.

    The second category pertains to us. That is, when we fell short of attaining our human perfection, and when the prophets fell short in helping even the smallest number of people attain the First principles of the aforementioned perfection, God became incarnate so that he might cause the greatest number of people to attain the goal of human perfection and (true) existence. The Scriptures give witness to the condition of Christians as compared to the condition of those who came before them, as well to their movement away from the worship of false deities to the worship of God, and away from great licence to the goal of ascetic piety.


    So you see here that the famous 13th Century Coptic theology Al-Safi Ibn al-Assal (ASIAA) refutes the Islamic (which is also Platonic, and something Arius argued) concept that God cannot have communion or "contact" with man, because we are made in His image and likeness.  Otherwise, God would be greedy.  But man is unable to live up to that generosity. So God became incarnate, using His human nature as a vehicle of "contact with the essence of the Creator".  Proof of this in the first quote is that the saints and Church fathers attained this "contact", which lead to manifesting "traces of Him".  So was ASIAA making a contact/essence or traces/essence distinction in the same way as Palamas would say "energy/essence" in the Byzantine tradition?  Perhaps.

    Let's look at another important 13th Century theologian, Bishop Bulus al Bushi.  I'll also provide two quotes:


  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited October 2014

    First quote:
    As for everyone who came from [Adam's] descendants—from the prophets and the righteous ones—none of them was able to convey to us eternal life, for it was not in their essential nature; instead they remain under this singular affliction, just like all of humanity, for the life that has no end belongs only to the one with no beginning, because he exists outside the two ways—I mean to say, the beginning and the end. There have been none like that except God the Word.

    God has not provided us with (eternal life) by means of his divinity, because we are not from that eternal, creative substance, and we do not correspond to him in anything. In his compassion he willed to become incarnate, and became united with the body in his divinity. He conferred eternal life upon that body through his union with it. Then he conferred it upon us—that is, on all of those who believe in him, in relationship to that body that he took from us.

    Second quote:
    Then He said the greatest thing when He made the statement, "Just as the living Father sent me, and I have life on account of the Father, so too whoever eats Me lives on account of Me." (John 6:57).  He did not need to say here, "whoever eats my body," because He already established that in the preceding statement.  He said first, "the living bread" (John 6:51), and informed us that that bread was truly His body.  Then, He said third, "whoever eats me" (John 6:57).  He means (here) that He is God incarnate, and His divinity is not differentiated from His humanity.  Whoever partakes (of the Eucharist) in a worthy manner and with faith, (God) resides in him and gives him the life that He gave to the body united to Him.


    So here, Bishop Bulus al Bushi describes that eternal life is life of the divine nature, and it is only intrinsically the divine nature itself.  Therefore, mere human nature, since it is not divine, cannot impart eternal life.  Only in the incarnation is this imparted.  Therefore, could this imply that Bishop Bulus is making a eternal life/divine nature distinction?  That too is possible.

    The point it seems to me is that human nature is not divine nature.  So if it needs to truly live, that is have eternal life, it needs the divine nature.  That is the importance of the Eucharist as well, because we partake of the divine nature in this manner.  ASIAA talks about partaking of the divine essence from a standpoint of arguing for God's goodness.  It is out of God's intrinsic goodness that He wants to impart on us a contact with His divine essence.  If this is not possible, then God is greedy and impotent, which is unworthy of God.  So you see here, we cannot partake of the essence not because it is impossible, but because we as humans cannot do it on our own.  So to be even more generous, God became man.  So Bishop Bulus al Bushi looks at it from the point of view what we need (eternal life from the divine nature), whereas ASIAA looks at it from the point of view what God's true beneficence is (contact with the divine nature).

  • cyril
    +100000000
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    See this is Orthodoxy. With specific references like this, one cannot argue against it. I hope we start learning the importance of having references to support arguments, rather than the typical hearsay internet theologizing, which is nothing more than opinion, that has been happening here lately. Thank you Mina.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Thank you Rem! Although I do fear there are some lurking ready to argue against these :P
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi

    Ok. Let me rephrase. With specific references like this, one could argue against it and fail so miserably to discredit this argument that such a rebuttal against these references is more futile than Solomon's pursuit of happiness in material possessions. Let this be a warning for those lurking and ready to argue.

    How's that?

  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Lol...thanks
Sign In or Register to comment.