Theosis. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ and anti-Eunomian polemics the Cappadocian limited evidence for the support of the essence/energies distinction is, at best, inconclusive, but more likely accidental. Even in Basil’s Ep. 234.1, the key text for the evidence of this distinction, this distinction is only conceptual, with very limited application for human epistemological and contemplative realization of the divine reality. If, for Palamas, the essence/energies distinction is a characteristic of real authenticity within God, in the case of the Cappadocians we can only speak about the cognitive differentiation between the essence and energies that refers to a human’s earthly ability to know God, but not to the divine reality itself.

      Joel Elowsky in his essay, “Bridging the Gap: Theosis in Antioch and Alexandria,” analyzes the difference between Theodore of Mopsuestia, a key representative of the Antiochene approach to Scripture, and Cyril of Alexandria, who represents the zenith of Alexandrian interpretation, in their treatment of theosis. Preceding trends in christology, anthropology, terminology, and exegetical approach informed by the differing Christian cultures of Alexandria and Antioch demonstrate a marked influence on the commentaries on the Gospel of John of Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Their exposition and commentary of Jesus’ words, “That they may be one,” in John 17 in particular reflect an approach to the text that is focused on our union with God and secondarily on our union with one another—the exact opposite of how this passage is interpreted in most contemporary ecumenical discussions.

      Theodore of Mopsuestia interprets this union in terms of a conjunction, or connection between the human and divine in Christ and between human beings and the Father. Such a union is at heart relational, reflecting Antiochene two-subject christology expressed in a single person, although the Greek word Theodore used was prosōpon. Alexandria understands the union with the Father to entail not just an association or relationship, but essentially a deification of the human nature that “well-nigh” transforms it into another nature. Cyril speaks of Christ in terms of a single subject as God and Man in the one Nature of God the Word. In Elowsky’s opinion, Theodore and Cyril offer two contrasting approaches to deification: the acceptance of theosis by Alexandria along with the visceral rejection of theosis by Antioch, that reflect, in many ways the contemporary tendencies of Protestants and other Western churches in contrast to the churches of the East.

      Paul Collins’ first essay, “Theosis, Texts and Identity: the Philokalia (1782) a Case Study,” investigates the construal of the doctrine of deification in the context of the framing of Orthodox identity in the twentieth century in relation to the reception of the Philokalia. He begins with an examination of imperatives, which led to the publication of the Philokalia in 1782, and of the rationale, which the editors Makarios and Nikodimos provide for its publication; and then he reviews the reception of the Philokalia in Russia during the course of the nineteenth century. Further, Collins discusses how the use of the Philokalia by Russian Orthodox theologians who emigrated to the West after the Bolshevik revolution informed these constructs. The Philokalia as a “canon” of the hesychast tradition and the doctrine of deification, in his assessment, produces a “hermeneutical filter,” which has formed and informed a Neopalamite construal of modern Orthodox identity.

Collins’ second essay, “Between Creation and Salvation: Theosis and Theurgy,” explores the potential to construct an understanding of “Christian Theurgy” as the expression and means of deification, which provides the basis for a synthesis of the doctrines of creation and salvation. This construction Collins develops over five steps. Firstly, he discusses the reasons for the polarization of the doctrines of creation and salvation in mainstream Western theological discourse. Secondly, he investigates the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist as instances in which created matter is used to celebrate the salvation of the cosmos. In the third section, he draws on Bulgakov’s construal of a theurgic understanding of theology in which “God only reaches us through the liturgical invocations latent in all human creative bringing forth of the unanticipated.”23 In the fourth section, Collins draws together the sacramental understanding of matter with Bulgakov’s understanding of theurgy to establish the grounds for understanding the sacraments as instances in which the divine purposes of creating and redeeming suggest the deification of the cosmos. Finally, he draws out the implications, which emerge from this construction of a theurgic understanding of theosis, in which doctrinal construals of creation and salvation are brought together in synthesis.

      Mark Medley in his essay, “Participation in God: The Appropriation of Theosis by Contemporary Baptist Theologians,” offers a detailed assessment of several modern Baptist theologians who, by applying the concept of theosis, have challenged the common contemporary Baptist approach to salvation as a transactional, immediate, voluntary, individual moment of conversion. If in North American Baptist theology salvation has been understood, for the most part, in such a way as to overemphasize justification, where justification is conceptualized as a legal-forensic remedying of the defective human condition through the atoning death of Christ—Clark H. Pinnock, Stanley J. Grenz, Paul S. Fiddes, and Doug Harink proffer an understanding of salvation as participation in God. These four Baptist theologians do not develop their own approaches to theosis, rather they thematically appeal to the broad soteriological significance of the deification theme, especially as it is represented in Eastern Orthodox theology.

      Medley describes how: (i) Pinnock appropriates theosis in developing a pneumatic soteriology; (ii) Grenz appeals to deification to extend insights in trinitarian theology to anthropology in order to offer a vision of theological personhood as ecclesial selfhood in terms of participation in God in Christ through the Spirit; (iii) Fiddes constructively turns to theosis as he offers a Baptist interpretation of the ancient dictum “no salvation outside the church,” and he appeals to the concept in his ongoing development of a theology of participation in God; and (iv) Harink, in his theological commentary on 1 & 2 Peter, considers the meaning of “sharing in the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) and the connection of this unique New Testament phrase to living the virtuous life and to the glimpse of humanity’s eschatological existence in the transfiguration of Jesus in 2 Peter.

      While soteriological concerns are important to these Baptist theologians, theosis also assists their thinking about theological anthropology, ecclesiology, and pneumatology. Their thematic appropriation of theosis corroborates the continued development of a more truly “catholic” theology among Baptists. Engagement with theosis, according to Medley, also has the potential to release Baptist theology to expand its reflection on christology, on the one hand, by turning to a “new” source for theological reflection, Orthodox theology, and, on the other hand, by giving due attention to the transfiguration of Jesus.

      By offering in this volume both historical and innovative approaches to the deification theme, we hope that the significance of this issue of Christian theology can provide not only a refreshing, but also a constructive perspective on Christian spirituality and practice. The theological complexity of theosis should not be underestimated. However, we hope that the essentially scriptural, soteriological, trinitarian, christological, anthropological, ecclesial, metaphysical, and ontological importance of the deification theme can help to view cultural and denominational theologies in a new and unifying way as the common ground that transcends boundaries and divisions.

      1. Allchin, Participation, 63.

      2. See also Anstall, Aspects of Theosis and Capsanis, The Deification as the Purpose of Man’s Life.

      3. Philip, Theosis and Mission, 9.

      4. Gross, Divinization.

      5. Theodorou, Ἡ περὶ θεώσεως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [The Teaching on the Human Deifi-cation].

      СКАЧАТЬ