If all theological science must be a posteriori and so this implies the preclusion of the essence/energies distinction, that doesn’t seem to be proof that the e/e distinction is to be rejected. It only picks out those notions of what theology is that are incompatible with it. One could go the other way and argue that this is why theology is not a science.

You mention the communicable attributes but given the doctrine of divine simplicity it seems difficult to pry one set of attributes from the others. If God is simple in the way that most western writers have thought, then it doesn’t seem possible to communicate the attributes per se without communicating all of them. And further, attributes can’t be communicated since attributions are the things that get said and aren’t properties.

You write that the communicable attributes are to be experienced by post-consummation believers without absorption into the divine essence but I am not seeing any mechanics here to specify how exactly you hold off the unwanted consequence.

Glossing the account of Palamas as particularly platonic doesn’t seem plausible or helpful for a few reasons. First, Palamas’ primary aim was to secure the inclusion of matter in salvation, which is a very unPlatonic thing to do. Second, Palamas’ account bears no significant marks of radical development of a break with earlier accounts in say Maximus, Cyril, the Cappadocians or Athanasius.

1) But first, a note on our English word: I’m not sure “deification” is the best, most unambiguous translation for “theosis”; partially since deification probably a) most often refers to the profess not of becoming a god oneself, but b) designating something or someone else, as our god.

2) In any case, “theosis” might indeed seem oriental and be offensive, if seen as so designating our selves, or other mere humans as god. (Though this process is not unknown among kings, “lord”s). There though, it would reflect a vanity in fact well known among oriental potentates (and some would say, Popes and Patriarches, Metropolitans).

3) Fortunately in any case, there is a gentler, less presumptuous formulation, that may be biblical: Jesus himself says that a) he is “one with” the Father; while b) we in turn are invited to become one with, or be “in,” Jesus. So that we might be unified, one with, “in”God, in this way. By way interestingly enough, of the trinity. But to become perhaps part of, the “One.”

4) Normally to be sure, to avoid presumptuousness, the sin of vanity, this is best thought of as an ideal and practically unattainable goal. Rather than as a common achievement.

5) And it is perhaps thought of rather as us attempting to become “part of” or “in” God; rather than being one and the same as, or as great as, him. In Venn Diagram terms; as aiming to be just a small circle, but one wholly within a much larger circle.

6) In some ways, it is no more or less mysterious than the way that a “mere” human being of “flesh,” Jesus, manages still somehow to be considered one with God. Jesus among other things, completely subsuming his personhood, within the larger sphere.

The Bible itself might therefore, allow ordinary people to attain some kind of “theosis”; even being “one with” or “in” God.

7) Elsewhere in fact, the Bible even seems to allow that “you are all gods,” or “sons of God.”

Is this of any help? Or all too well known to everyone here? Or in need of some modifications?

In terms of Edwards, I actually don’t think the Platonic characterization is fair. There are, certainly, broad neo-platonic textures to his theology, but I don’t think that drives his theology or provide the real content for it. Interestingly, in his letter in response to the Religious Affections, where he defends his use of “nature” is almost an exact quote of Basil.

Horton talks about the essence/energies distinction in Covenant and Salvation. I don’t have it with me right now, but it should be in the index. When I can I’ll see if I can get the page numbers.

Edwards on theosis – he is really interesting! I like Edwards for so many reasons. He is though, as is well known, a thorugh-going Platonist and so ghis doctrine (or is it merely a theme? Probably merely a theme) of theosis is Platonically shaped. Now he was no intellecutal slug (to understate the point) so he was able to incoporate his Platonism with Christian theology in a creative synthesis (but synthesis no less). So he speaks at times of theosis in the most ontological of ways. See pp 131ff of my Theosis book. As one reference to how strongly Edwards spoke of theosis note:

There is an interesting parallel in the doctrine of theōsis articulated by Jonathan Edwards in response to a clergyman’s objection that he taught that believers could participate in the divine essence, not simply in the divine nature: ‘A diamond or a crystal that is held forth in the sun’s beams may properly be said to have some of the sun’s brightness communicated to it; for though it hasn’t the same individual brightness with that which is inherent in the sun, and be immensely less in degree, yet it is something of the same nature,’ J. Edwards, Ethical Writings; The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 8, ed. P. Ramsey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 640 (see 636-640).

It would be nice to do an article on Edwards’s doctrine/theme of theosis soon.

Hey – the refernce to Horton liking theosis – could you provide that along with his liking of the essence-energies theology please? Seems odd to me that Horton would like this. I also note he is just finihsing off a major systematic theology.

Thanks.

I think someone more clear on Reformed and EO distinctives would have to give a more informed answer to you though….

What do you think? Am I right about that?