The Orthodox Idea of Theosis VS the Protestant Ideas of Salvation & Sanctification | Jonathan Pageau 

have you heard the story of Wesley and his brothers being ordained by Orthodox ministers? its sad to see protestantism as it is. but there's still some measure of hope, I believe

I grew up a Cajun and Catholic in the deep South, hearing Protestant preachers on the radio. I thought of Protestantism as simply missing something, like Mary and the Saints, the Eucharist etc... But I also experienced a gut-felt emptiness listening to the preachers that was filled attending Mass, even with mediocre priests. I hope you make your way to the Church and her liturgy in some form or another. For all my theological studies, lex orandi lex credendi.

Calvinism cringe, return to Luther and to the Fathers

Calvinism is not about the pursuit of moral perfection.

The fracturing has nothing to do with doctrine and more with the intellectual predisposition of how protestantism arose. It means "to protest." One cannot force their ideas on another, but each individual is responsible for their decisions before God. This idea is more responsible for fracturing. One must remember that Orthodox faith also has many fractures.

@@Brian-Ahavah Wrong.

Unfortunately, there is a Roman Catholic dogma of created grace based on the false ground of a misunderstood divine simplicity! Both Trent and Vatican I affirm that false dogma, which dictates that man could only get created forms or stamps of divine grace. Ultimately, such a doctrime denies any participation in the Uncreated divine energy and life of God! The supposed experience of God through created grace puts our trust in a creation. In such a case, the gap between a supposed created grace and the Essence of God is infinite. This leads to abstention from any real experience of God.

@@dimitrispeiraias this is completely false. It is orthodox who insist on the E&E distinction who have that problem, not Thomistic Catholics. For Catholics, your entire existence is due to God's essence (which is pure esse, being itself, that which grants existence to everything), whereas in E&E thinking, you are created by some amorphous concept of energies that are somehow not created and somehow don't lead you into pantheism and definitely mean you can never apprehend God's essence. This you fundamentally don't know what you're talking about, and I recommend you and everyone who understands as you do to study more, and ask more questions, and stop thinking you know the catholic position, because you don't.

@@VACatholic Direct experience of the Divine Essence necessitates communing with the Essence of God. By misrepresenting the Divine Essence as communicable to creatures, polytheism or even pantheism are endorsed, since the Divine Essence is solely common to the Persons of the Trinity. On the other hand, the supposed experience of the Divine Essence through created grace puts our trust in a creation. In such a case, the gap between a supposed created grace and the Essence of God is infinite. This leads to abstention from any real experience of God, which is applied atheism.

@@dimitrispeiraias what you said is a complete strawman, and total nonsense. Show me a Thomist who be ame a pantheist or polytheist. If you cannot, you are lying about the strength of your arguments, and should repent. But if you are able, I will show you people who believe in the E&E distinction who became pantheistic due to the implications of not needing God's essence. Given that, you have literally no point.

@@VACatholic it isn't that you can't see the solution. It is that you can't see the problem. The philosophical contradictions of Aquinas should have already rung a bell. Just think how Aquinas contradicts himself when he asserts that God knows all creation solely as an eternal reflection of uncreated creation within himself. If the creation is known to God only by His reflecting on Himself in eternity outside of the creation, then how is the incarnation even possible?

Wesley was pretty close to converting to Orthodoxy himself and he actually directly and knowingly based a lot of that idea on the teachings of theosis

But the mind does that’s why we have to continuously renew our mind in the word

One can not have an improved moral character without a changed heart and being, it's not possible. They can say they do, or fake it but it doesn't make sense to differentiate the two like you do here or like Jonathan dies in this video. Moral character starts at the heart. Circumcision of the heart via the spirit. Even most church leaders in Catholicism can say they get it but don't actually get it or practice it, instead they hide behind a facade of holiness, sainthood and iconography.

I would say it has to do with theosis being a better picture of what the end goal of the Christian life is: being one with God, eternally in his presence and his love. If moral transformation was the main pursuit of the Christian, then it would beg the question of why would it be important to become more moral? Doing only means anything if it is for the sake of being, not being for the sake of doing.

The difference between you and jonathon is be quite likely would not say your being born again is counterfeit....

Theosis isn't about serving God. It's about become God and participating in divinity. You are a divine being and can merge with God where your identity is not separate. Protestants think they will go to heaven in their same bodies and kneel before God.. and anthropomorphized image of a king of the universe. Very different.

The problem of course is that 'Protestants' could mean any of a hundred denominations that believe different things. I'm going to a non-denominational Protestant church right now, despite being essentially Catholic in my theology, because this church also has correct theology and lives it out in a more meaningful way than my local Catholic parish.

Theosis has to do with ontological change (the way you actually exist) rather an insistence on a legalistic moral dogma, brow-beating bible thumping. I grew up in a protestant household and I'm definitely not going back to Protestantism after learning about theosis. It's much more cosmic, connects you with the divine and the great chain of being. This makes so much more sense. I'm not an orthodox either, but if I had to decide that's what I would consider. In Protestantism, there is this perpetually lingering guilt hanging over you. I detested that to the core my being. No matter how much I pretended to be a good Christian and go through the motions.

@@Jacob011 Bro...me too. What attracts me most about Orthodoxy is this idea that we don't have guilt looming over us, that life is a process. There was nothing but guilt and legalism in my protestant lifestyle. Orthodoxy helped to take that legalism away!

Tbh I think the problem isn't with Protestantism itself, but with (1) how many types of Protestantism, one being much closer to secularism (like the pastor above), and (2) how many 2IQ lazy "Protestants" who didn't bother to actually study what the reformers said and jumpt into conclusion that Orthodoxy or Catholicism are better and "more cosmic", like these two idi*ts above me who obviously have no idea what they're talking about. These people are why Protestantism got such a bad name.

That’s the purpose for regeneration! This is a true statement. Regeneration is ontological… How can you experience a theosis in sin nature? Preposterous

Cut out the one sin that easily entangles you my beloved and you won't fall back to your old or new temptations 🙏 Hebrews 12:1-2

​@@supercoopers8688 Because we Orthodox don't nelieve in sin nature. That idea came from St. Augustine.

@@EpistemicAnthony Augustine’s concept on original sin is distinct from the orthodox view but the Orthodox Church does believe in sin nature as the sickness of the soul.,

@@EpistemicAnthony it is the sickness of the soul which is sin that hinders theosis! There’s a need for illumination & purgation before theosis!

This is explicitly NOT the Reformed teaching. According to Reformed teaching, salvation is *forensic* justification, full stop. All the rest is something that happens to saved people.

@@EpistemicAnthony I don't disagree. I think you are perhaps getting hung up on my usage of the word "process" and may have inferred that righteousness isn't imputed upon justification (which I believe it is). The question is what happens after justification. You are also perhaps conflating Calvinism with Reformed theology. On strict Calvinism, there is no process whatsoever. You're either fully saved or fully damned before the fact. Calvinism ≠ Reformed theology. To do Reformed theology, all one needs to do is simply accept a set of principles (namely, the authority and primacy of scripture). Calvinism is *an application* of Reformed theology, but it is not the only application, nor is it exclusive (in the sense that any non-Calvinist Reformed views are "wrong").

It's mostly Methodists and those inspired by Wesley because he was a big fan of the Cappadocians and Desert Fathers.

Yes! I go to a reformed Protestant church and the way salvation and sanctification are taught it is indistinguishable to me to the way Jonathan describes theosis. I am learning how vastly different we as Protestants are from each other and it’s os a problem.

@@Chris_Traylor well, that's protestantism in a nutshell. Somebody applied sola scriptura and reached a subjective conclusion and started their own sect. This began with Luther and continues, to this day, in Protestantism. The solution is to look at which Church has a claim to apostolic succesion (true Church) and there's only 2 alternatives: Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Between the two, the Catholic Church is the true Church because of many reasons (far too many for me to type by hand on my phone) but the main reason is because of the Papacy being biblical, established by Jesus Christ himself. I recommend checking out Trent Horn if you wish to look into this yourself.

@@csongorarpad4670 no, because the catholic church split from the other 4 patriarchates over innovated doctrines. (Papal supremacy, filioquism, scholsaticism etc.) St. Peter was never Bishop of Rome, he was Bishop of Antioch. You can see this in iconagraphy of Ss. Peter and Paul. St. Peter is not in Bishopric vestments. St. Peter is not addressed in the greeting or closing of the Epistle to the Romans which is odd if he were bishop of the church in Rome. The Apostolic Constitutions Book VII, which ironically are hosted on many catholic sites, list the first two Bishops of Rome as St. Linus, ordained by St. Paul and St. Clement, ordained by St. Peter. Showing the power of binding and loosing was given to all the apostles. So all that innovated medival petrine line stuff is utter nonsense. Come Home to the One Holy Catholic Aposotlic Church. 🙏🏻☦

@@NavelOrangeGazer I'm not saying that any other bishops like the patriarchs in EO are not legitimate authorities in their own right. I am saying that they're still subservient under the authority of Christ which, was granteed to St. Peter and continues to this day on the Holy See. I don't see how "innovated doctrines" are a refutation of the Catholic Church if the Catholic Church is, indeed, guided by the Holy Spirit. Not to mention the major problems of authority in the EO whom ex-communicates each other almost willy-nilly, having no legitimate ultimate claim on authority, which they, themselves, concede as a matter of fact - That, it is only the Roman "patriarch" that has the authority to call for a meeting of the EO patriarchs and anything else, really, that would constitute a meeting of the patriarchs. That's one of the major and crucial role that the Pope plays and holds. It all falls apart unless you have the papacy.

I'm in the opposite position in a way. I'm from the church of Christ branch of Protestantism, and I work at a Bible Church as a sound tech. After finding Orthodoxy I feel more at home. However i'm still bound to my Protestant church for now. I'de love to attend an Orthodox church physically but for now i'm going threw the online experience. We are where we are I guess. If we are judged then let tongues flap, we know where we belong brother.

Why not have a longing for Christ Jesus than a longing for a man-contrived "...liturgy..."? This exposes the inherent problem within the one body of Christ... Individual members constantly desiring to not deny themselves... Constantly desiring to not give up their soul life. There is no way to theosis while holding to our fallen old man... Just not happening in the earthly life that God has given us. This is why God hates religion... Because religion tries to insert a human-contrived mediator-type institution. The way of God for His people is to come out of religion and realize our being in Christ. What do you think being born-again of God is for... Not to be in a religion, but to be in Christ. And when you are realizing (in the fullest experience of the word) the reality of your being in Christ... His Person becomes your person (Gal. 2:20)... And the Person of Christ never worshipped Mary, never participated in "...orthodox liturgy...", never held to a denomination. Born-again of God believers need to just allow the God in us to be us... Which is what the reality of theosis is. Amen.

​@@aboveandbeyond9844 Liturgy comes from God just as much as the scriptures do. God does not hate religion. God participated in religion when He became a man.

@@Michael_Office888 Also coming from the church of Christ, I entered the Orthodox Church 3 years ago and have never looked back. Absolutely no regrets. Come home, brother.

@@Brian-Ahavah Christ participated in organized liturgical worship in the temple. The book of Revelation describes the ongoing, liturgical, priestly worship that occurs in heaven. The apostles laid down a liturgical pattern of worship (modeled after the heavenly worship) for the Church as per the universal witness of the post apostolic Church. Smart and honest protestants at least admit this much. But in spite of all of that, you think we should follow your private and completely ahistorical opinion. You're just making things up and repeating modernist, protestant tropes. No thanks. You cannot have Christ without His Body, which is the Church He established.

This is how I've always thought as well.

The main problem Protestants have with the idea of salvation as "a life long battle" would be that you did nothing to earn salvation (it is by grace alone) and therefore you cannot sin so badly that you lose it. If you accept Christ, you cannot be more sinful than He is merciful and gracious. The battle in Protestant eyes is sanctification, which is drawing closer to God and, as a result, becoming more like Him. This is where temptation threatens to lead us into sin and suffering.

I read this as “non-demon” at first

You do not become like God "for God." God makes you like Himself for Himself. And you are poor in Spirit, having nothing in your own nature which is like Himself, but only contrary to His own nature. But He is forming His own nature in us by our surrender in poverty.

You should read about the thief on the cross. Or just the rest of the Bible for that matter.

I always felt he knew that Love, but did not display it because his work is public and in the realm of reason.

The conversation with the Calvinist pastor probably doesnt help, since his emphasis on a moral change doesn't sound exactly like orthodox Protestant teaching to my ear, but more of modernist perspective.

@James Whitley I think he shouldn't base an entire doctrine from one conversation with one pastor. Maybe things were lost in communication. And I mean, the pastor wasn't wrong, a moral change is required, and the orthodox guy isn't wrong, a spiritual change is required. It's two sides of the same coin.

Unfortunately, there is a Roman Catholic dogma of created grace based on the false ground of a misunderstood divine simplicity! Both Trent and Vatican I affirm that false dogma, which dictates that man could only get created forms or stamps of divine grace. Ultimately, such a doctrime denies any participation in the Uncreated divine energy and life of God! The supposed experience of God through created grace puts our trust in a creation. In such a case, the gap between a supposed created grace and the Essence of God is infinite. This leads to abstention from any real experience of God.

I think all Protestants (except the secularists and liberals) are thought the same, without using the name "theosis". Yes, even John Calvins's idea about sanctification is just like theosis, in this sense. So I absolutely have no idea what that Calvinist minister was talking about.

Theosis is only possible with the essence/energies distinction that is unique to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The most important part is the part that Jonathan says here only once - that we are invited to BECOME God. I guarantee you a Protestant never said those words out loud.

@@xuniepyro7399 calvinist here. i still don't really see any distinction between theosis and salvation steps of sanctification and glorification. if you know a difference would love to be enlightened.

Yeah, it's that old, "I am saved, am being saved, will be saved" or our word usage, "I am justified/made righteous, am being sanctified/made holy, and will be glorified".

Surely the West has either neglected or rejected, or does not understand the meaning of theosis. But that does not mean that the idea of an arbitrary God is not Orthodox. It is Orthodox, wherefore the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement in its legal sense has never been rejected or condemned from an Orthodox side. If it was a Western deviation, it would have been condemned by the Orthodox exactly in the polemics through the centuries after 1054, with either the Roman Catholics or Protestants because it was in those occasions when the false teachings of the West were described in detail by the Orthodox and condemned. But if we look at the polemics between the Orthodox and the Western Christians, we will see no where a condemnation of the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement. It was started being rejected in the 20th century by the Orthodox modernistic theologians and since then began becoming unfortunately widespread. The legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement was not condemned by St.Photius in 867 his encyclic when he condemned the fallacies of Rome (which had not yet fallen from the Church but the deviations that were a reason for its fall were already embraced by Rome) - the celibacy of the priesthood, the rejection of the validity of the chrismation made by priests, the fasting on Saturdays, the heretical Filioque addition in the Creed. He does not mention the legal penal subsitutionary atonement in its legal understanding. In his 1444 Encyclical letter St.Mark of Ephesus who opposed the establishing of the union, mentions among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the Filoque, the addition to the Creed, the claim for the supremacy of the pope, the celebrating of the Eucharist with an unleavened bread, the purgatory, the moment of the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament. But he does not mention among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church the penal substitutionary atonement. In his 1570s' letters to the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople (1572-1595) does not mention, especially in his commentaries on the Augsburg confession of faith, the legal aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement as a false teaching of the Lutherans. The Constantinopolitan Council of 1583 condemned the innovations of Rome but dis not mention among them the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement. The Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople of 1672 which condemned Calvinism and the total depravity of the unregenerate man, and affirmed the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, also does not mention as a heresy of Western Christianity the legal understanding of the penal subsitutionary atonement. The Council of Constantinople of 1838 also condemned the innovation of Tome and again did not mention the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement. The Patriarchal encyclical from 1895 by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anthimus VII (1895-1896) from 1895 which is a reply to the Papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1853-1903) Praeclara Gratulationis publicae (On the Reunion of Christendom) summarizes the heretical deviations of the Papacy but does not mention the legal understanding of the penal subsitutionary atonement. It is evident that the legal understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement and so the arbitrary justice of God, were never rejected until the 20th century which shows that is is originally an Orthodox teaching. it started being rejected by Orthodox modernism yet in the first half of the 20the century and unfortunately later became widespread.

Thoughtful words. Thank you. I think pride lurks in both ends. The moral elitism is the obvious pitfall, as you mentioned. But there is a more subtle one hiding behind the denial of self side of the street. One could be 'better' at being nothing, or being a sinner, or being unworthy...etc. Personally I think there is no way around - if one is to full be taken by Christ's grace - to do proper 'shadow work'. Else we might just hang out in those parts of us that has been redeemed by the holy, not even being aware of having parts still steeped in sin pushed down in the unconcious. Sainthood is a very very rare thing and one should ponder why, given so many humans in history who has given everything, sold everything, to live for Christ. Mystical experiences and born again experiences doesn´t say much, if anything. But lasting deep inner peace and understanding and as a consequence of that - indirectly - a behavior rooted in unconditional love is the real deal. The undertaking of this preparation for the Lord is such a vast, lifelong, pursuit, that it has in-built a potent antidote to pride. At least in the long run. To lose oneself in sin might very well be what motivates us to honestly ask the Holy Spirit to show us a true way out of it, not as moral virtue but as a gift to God. Take care.

@@M-i-k-a-e-l , so beautifully and understandably said. I have never really pondered our walk with Christ that way before. This has blessed me and given me much to consider. Would you have any recommended reading in regard to this matter? Thank you for taking the time to comment.

@@rebeccadampier1993 Rebecca, I am happy you felt inspired. I felt the same reading your words. I must add that I am only an inquisitive, simple human with nothing much to back up what I am saying. I am often considered a heretic or of wrong faith. My comment to you was an amalgam of ideas with roots in everything from the better parts of gnostic ideas, depth psychology, esoteric christianity (not the occult) and non denominational spirituality. Although I consider myself a christian very much, I love Christ and deeply accept him as personal saviour and way - yet I seldom feels drawn to any religious group. Greetings from Sweden 🇸🇪🕊

@@M-i-k-a-e-l , Well, I'm blessed because you have given me a new perspective to chew upon. I don't really fit in any where either! I just want to walk with God and go deeper and deeper--as much as He'll allow! I feel much truth lies in Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant theology and I read a lot all over the map. I'm just not as dogmatic on doctrines as many in organized religion feel they need to be. And it makes me sad that at times they fight against each other, especially since I sense they are perfectly acceptable in God's eyes. Although my beliefs may fall a bit more orthodox than yours, I have no problem believing that God would reach out and touch others through other religions and forms of spirituality. I don't believe we enter into eternity with Christ by holding the right doctrines. I sense it's much more of a matter of one's heart condition, which in itself is a deep mystery that I dare not unpack! I just leave that at God's feet! It does get lonely at times when you just don't fit in anywhere. It's a blessing to cross paths with another kindred traveler on this faith journey. God bless you my friend!

@@rebeccadampier1993 Dear Rebecca. I will write you later this evening.

It is not really different. Theosis was a process borrowed 100 per cent from Plato in Thaeteus 176b . Plato taught assimilation to the divine was the telos or purpose of life. He got that from the Egyptian mystery initiation he had and the Egyptians in turn derived from the gymnosophists of India. No one will discuss this. The church absorbed the teaching only after the Alexandrian philosophy was absorbed. That is if you look in the thesaurae Graecia it is later.

@@FrMoody wow that’s amazing. I always felt as if eastern Christianity and Hinduism had some deep connection. Now I have a question about reincarnation. Apparently the ancient Jews believed in it and there are a few shadows of it in the New Testament. When Christ says “who do you say I am” and they reply with different prophets who died long ago. And when the disciples ask Christ about the blind man “did he sin before he was born?” Are these references to transmigration and even Karma with sin before birth? Thank you Father!

@@DFMoray so my opinion is controversial and not settled. I have had deep dialogs with hindus and sufis. Many theologians would vehemently disagree but it is hard to not look historically at the development of the doctrine . Just talk to a dharmi and ask them what they experience when they meditate. Pin them down and love your neighbor in dialog and discern this. Then talk to a spiritual father and make sense of it. These are difficult questions that challenge us. One obvious proof we absorbed it is a protestant exegete using Sola scriptura would reject this teaching. James White for instance. Many protestants have the teaching now but that is because most non denominationalists have no historical theoligy and recognize a forensic atonement is empty. The heart of the issue is union with God. Reincarnation was condemned in 553 at the 5th council. One must study the history of Alexandirian Christianity and philosophy combined with Philo judaeus. Then study Origen's catechetical school and Clement of Alexandria's stromata.

Norman Russel has a good book and he is orthodox which describes this. So it is not just me. Deification in Greek Father's. He does not address eastern mysticism but western.

@@DFMoray there is no such quote from bible. You are thinking of John 9 - I'll paste it here for you to read: John 9 1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4 As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." 6 Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. 7 "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing. 8 His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, "Isn't this the same man who used to sit and beg?" 9 Some claimed that he was. Others said, "No, he only looks like him." But he himself insisted, "I am the man." 10 "How then were your eyes opened?" they demanded. 11 He replied, "The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see." 12 "Where is this man?" they asked him. "I don't know," he said. 13 They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. 14 Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man's eyes was a Sabbath. 15 Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. "He put mud on my eyes," the man replied, "and I washed, and now I see." 16 Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided. 17 Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened." The man replied, "He is a prophet." 18 The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man's parents. 19 "Is this your son?" they asked. "Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?" 20 "We know he is our son," the parents answered, "and we know he was born blind. 21 But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don't know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself." 22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue. 23 That was why his parents said, "He is of age; ask him." 24 A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God, " they said. "We know this man is a sinner." 25 He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!" 26 Then they asked him, "What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?" 27 He answered, "I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?" 28 Then they hurled insults at him and said, "You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from." 30 The man answered, "Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. 32 Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing." 34 To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out. 35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" 36 "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." 37 Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him. 39 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." 40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" 41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. There you go. If this does not help you discern "reincarnation" here's a passage that clearly talks about how many lives you have: For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with hands - the representation of the true sanctuary - but into heaven itself, and he appears now in God’s presence for us. And he did not enter to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the sanctuary year after year with blood that is not his own, for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by his sacrifice. And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment, so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, to those who eagerly await him he will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to bring salvation. Hebrews 9:24‭-‬28 NET

Are you still orthodox?

Most Methodist today are nothing like the Methodist of John Wesley's day in teaching or experience. There is no reason to be agnostic. God can be known through the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition. It's in every denomination including Roman Catholics and even the Eastern Orthodox Church. Experiencing God through the spiritual gifts has always been around in the church. They have waned and waxed since the 300s in Church history. Many in Augustine's day experienced them. The Moravians and John Wesley himself experienced a lot of it too. From Methodism came the Holiness Movement (revival of Methodist Holiness teachings away from slavery, racism and other compromises) and out of them came Pentecostalism with Charismaticism following. What Pentecostalism/Charismaticism movements did was institutionalize the expectation of experiencing God supernaturally within these movements and the church. Before then many just assumed the gifts were gone for some reason or another not fervently seeking the spiritual gifts. Revival and holiness were the prerequisites in all these moves of God. It's the Church's backsliding that causes the gifts and supernatural experiences to draw back.

Yes, one life to achieve it. As for those who didn't have the knowledge, what I heard from an Orthodox priest is that people are judged based on what they do with the information they have. That's why becoming Orthodox is not only a privelege, but also a huge responsibility.

I'm not the best person to compare different cosmologies, but as far as I see it, theosis and "being enlightened" (or nirvana) are not the same, no matter how similar they might sound on surface (and these parallels can be used as a bridge, if properly understood). And yes, we have only one life, because person's existence has a start but no ending - death violates against this since it separates soil from the body, but everyone will be physically resurrected in their own glorified bodies. And what one sows she also harvests. But do not think one could achieve theosis during this lifetime or even in the life to come. Theosis is neverending progress or journey, for God who is in Heaven is infinite. Theosis could be seen as a cosmic dance towards singularity, and theosis could be seen as ever-deepening unity between husband (God) and wife (the Church/a person). And because of that, theosis remains as "unfinished" till eternity. When it comes to people who have never heard (or will never hear) about Christ and theosis, it's not our business to say what God has prepared to them, but we know God is both Just and Merciful. This might be only my opinion, but I guess those people wouldn't be condemned simply because they never had a chance to hear the Gospel - rather, they will be judged based on what has been already revealed to them and how eagerly they have strived, within these limits, to abide in Christ who is the Truth and the Way and the Life. God's glory is revealed to the whole world in creation, and God has always prepared way to us to enter His kingdom: in the wilderness those are just trails, but if someone starts her journey those trails will unite with bigger paths and finally roads until she arrives to the highway to Heaven... And no, this IS NOT same with Pluralism.

I’ve heard it defined, ‘to become gods by grace’

@@Th3eKidd thanks for that.

I’ve heard it as becoming through Grace what God is by nature.

Theosis has nothing to do with Neoplatonism education yourself correct.

Homecoming

All Adam had to do was follow God and only God

Adam wanted to become like God, without God.

All these different theologies, many of which posit that their way is the only way to enter heaven rather than hell. As someone who used to be atheist and got disillusioned I’ve been trying to figure this out every day, all I want is to be with God forever. But what if I pick the wrong one? What the heck? The thing that keeps coming to mind is that the message is for the common man, not just for wise scholars with many resources and the perfect doctrine and understanding. The Five Solas, Theosis, they do not seem so different to me. They certainly are when you get down to the details, but really it just seems to me that we all accept Jesus died, was buried, rose on the third day, according to the scriptures, we all know Christ’s blood cleanses our sin, and when this strikes our heart we set on the path towards God, the ladder we see in depictions of theosis. But once again, theosis is not something of ourselves, it only occurs through the work of The Holy Spirit. So again, to put it simply, faith alone in Christ’s work for us, if genuine, sets us on the path which God guides us through so that we may reach Him. We can do nothing to save ourselves, only cooperate, we all put our faith in God and allow Him to guide us into His presence. That seems to be what nearly all Christians have in common, and what nearly all denominations have in common. I simply cannot fathom why the ‘formula’ would be any more complex than that considering the message of salvation is something even the unwise, unintelligent, weak and/or poor are meant to grasp more easily than wise men and scholars.

​@@D1sc0rd-I think you have properly encapsulated it. Thank you for saying this.

@@suppression2142 Haha thanks. It’s cool to see what I wrote almost a year ago. I made protestantism’s concept of salvation (whether it’s believe and be saved or believe and repent and be saved) and theosis sound very conducive, they are not so far off in a layman kinda way, but there’s obviously great doctrinal divide, for example “total depravity”, “nothing of myself” and “by faith alone” imply salvation is something that has already or will come to pass for someone at a specific time VS it being more like theosis, a gradual process of the past present and future. There are sacraments to take part in but it’s not some kind of deal where you need to role play to get enough salvation points. I’d jump to correct a lot of what I said but I remember writing this not in the spirit of trying to say the two are compatible, just that a protestant persons idea of getting saved can very well become conducive with theosis

Same brother