I'm seeking to understand the theological distinctions between two significant concepts in Christianity: **Eastern Orthodox *theosis* (deification/divinization)** and **Protestant *sanctification***. While both terms describe a process of spiritual transformation and growth in the believer, my preliminary understanding suggests there are fundamental differences in their nature, scope, and the means by which they are understood to occur. Specifically, I'm interested in answers that address: 1. **Definitions:** A concise theological definition of both *theosis* and *sanctification* from within their respective traditions. 2. **Nature of the Process:** Is the transformation described by each tradition primarily ontological (a real change in being), forensic (a change in legal status before God), relational (a change in relationship with God), or some combination of these? 3. **Role of Grace and Human Effort:** How do grace and human effort (or synergy) factor into each process? 4. **Goal/Telos:** What is the ultimate aim or culmination of each process? What does a "theosified" or "sanctified" person look like from each perspective? 5. **Key Theological Differences:** What are the most crucial points of divergence between the two concepts? Are there areas of unexpected overlap? References to key theological sources or official teachings would be especially helpful.

The GotQuestions article, [What is Hesychasm?](https://www.gotquestions.org/Hesychasm.html) , offers one Protestant perspective on the Eastern Orthodox practice: >Hesychasm is a form of [Christian mysticism](https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-mysticism.html) found almost exclusively in [Eastern Orthodoxy](https://www.gotquestions.org/Eastern-Orthodox-church.html) , rising to popularity in Greece in the 1300s. Roman Catholicism and Protestant denominations have no meaningful equivalents to it. Hesychasm has many similarities to Buddhist concepts of meditation, but it maintains a Judeo-Christian framework, rather than a pantheistic one. The general idea in Hesychasm is to use contemplative prayer, particularly the repetition of “[the Jesus Prayer](https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Prayer.html),” as a means to **experience union with God**. This requires the Hesychast to block out all his senses and eliminate all his thoughts. > > Hesychasm is, supposedly, grounded in Jesus’ command in Matthew 6:6. There, Jesus refutes the ostentatious prayers of hypocrites who want to be seen praying in public. Instead, Jesus says, “Go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Hesychasts take Jesus’ reference to secret praying in an extreme and absolute sense. In particular, they believe that Jesus intended His followers to separate themselves from all sensory and intellectual inputs. In other words, “go into your room,” really means “go into yourself.” > > This withdrawal into oneself is accomplished by a form of repetitive [contemplative prayer](https://www.gotquestions.org/contemplative-prayer.html) . The Jesus Prayer is a short, liturgical chant very popular in Eastern Orthodoxy: Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν (“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”). Hesychasts will repeat this prayer over and over, seeking to invoke the power of the name of God. As they do so, practitioners gradually cut off their perception of external stimuli and eliminate all stray thoughts. **The ultimate goal of this process is [theosis](https://www.gotquestions.org/theosis.html) , a personal unity with God**. > > ... > > Mysticism is based on the quest to “experience” God through the use of rituals or other techniques. All forms of mysticism are rooted in an assumption that God can only truly be “known” in some subjective or personal way. **Contrary to mysticism in general, and Hesychasm in particular, the Bible commands us to pray with a purpose and intent, not with a goal of washing out our own thoughts** (Philippians 4:6; John 16:23–24). Scripture also indicates that God can be known objectively—or else it would not be possible to “examine” or “test” our own faith (1 John 4:1; 2 Corinthians 13:5). > > **Jesus’ comment in Matthew 6:6 was never meant to be taken as a command to go “within ourselves.” It was and is simply a refutation of hypocritical and showy religious antics. While Hesychasm is not quite the same as Eastern meditative practices, it is neither biblical nor beneficial**. Does GotQuestions reflect the mainstream Protestant view on Hesychasm and the pursuit of union with God (theosis)? Is the idea of "experiencing" union with God, as understood in Eastern Orthodoxy, generally rejected by most Protestants? Are there branches of Protestantism that are more open to similar concepts of theosis or experiential union with God? Do any Protestant traditions embrace spiritual disciplines aimed at deepening one's experiential relationship with God?

**Can a Buddhist monk or a yogi be a Holy Spirit?** As far as I understand, they're masters in doing deep breathing and meditation.  For me, there are only a few monks/nuns who have mastered the technique above. Unfortunately, I cannot find any Christians, pastors, or priests who know anything about it, but normally they will respond by citing [*Sola Fide*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide) (faith alone) or with the advice to just pray everyday so eventually the skill will be awakened by itself. Not even psychologists, psychiatrists, or regular medical doctors know about it, or they only have very basic knowledge. A few high level monks I *did* find meet all 11 personal characteristics of the Holy Spirit listed in [this article](https://get.tithe.ly/blog/characteristics-of-the-holy-spirit) , placing a nice bow on this topic: 1. He’s referred to as a Person (John 6:63; 14:26; Rom. 8:11, 16, 26; 1 John 5:6). 1. He speaks (2 Sam. 23:2; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 21:11; 28:25–26; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7–8; Rev. 2:7; 14:13; 22:17). 1. He witnesses (John 15:26). 1. He searches (1 Cor. 2:11). 1. He can be grieved (Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30). 1. He loves (Rom. 15:30). 1. He has a mind (Rom. 8:27). 1. He has intelligence (1 Cor. 2:10–11). 1. He can be tested (Acts 5:9). 1. He can be resisted (Acts 7:5). 1. He has a will (1 Cor. 2:11; 12:7–11). **Can I get their advice and learn their technique of deep breathing and meditation, providing I do them under the conditions below?** 1. The technique is not related to religion but rather to science or logic. 2. I am not required to worship any form of Idol or Gods (only the Mahayana version of Buddhism may have a theology of worship, but the original Shakyamuni, the founder of Buddhism, didn't mention anything about worshiping). 3. I am not being invited or forced into Buddhism.  **They also don't try to convert me, but instead**: 1. They praise and respect Christianity. 2. They wish me well in Christianity and allow me to share the Gospel in the Monastery. 3. They offer help whenever there is a need, such as co-operating in doing charity work. 4. Buddhism members are willing to join my cell group to learn about or even to one day (soon?) join Christianity. 5. Buddhism members are willing to cooperate in a mission filled with Sharing the Gospel activities when my church needs additional man-power.

If an individual earnestly hungers for deep spirituality, including a desire for attaining a profound degree of sanctification and consecration, but also for a profound, mystical, supernatural relationship with God, which denominations would find this attitude commendable? My educated guess is that at least Eastern Orthodoxy would. I say this having in mind saints such as [Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrios_of_Kafsokalyvia) , of whom books have been written, including [*Elder Porphyrios Testimonies and Experiences*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/9606890236) : > *"Elder, where can we find the solution to our problems?"* > > *"Only holiness will solve your problems."* > > The realm of the sacred and the transcendent, as expressed by that > child of God and true man, Elder Porphyrios, belongs to the category > of the unbelievable. It can however become believable because, «sin > does not prevail where grace abounds”. Elder Porphyrios was a person > filled with grace, a bearer of the power of the Holy Spirit, a child > of the Kingdom, a genuine and true tree of paradise. > > Whoever wishes to speak about the inner spiritual life of a saint, > must be a saint himself. We, the writers of this book, are not saints. > We are confined to what we saw and what we heard. We are amongst those > many others, who, as St. Luke the Evangelist says, have “taken in hand > to set in order a narrative.” We are not trying, with our poor and > futile speech, to describe the life of a contemporary saint, but > rather we are falteringly trying to express our joy in having met a > saint; our joy that Christ lives yesterday, today and forever; our joy > that holiness is not a thing of the past, that grace can be felt next > to us, that our hands touched a “little father” who really lived the > expression “I no longer live, for Christ lives in me.” > > Until the Lord reveals the servant who was Elder Porphyrios’ > eye-witness, who observed him throughout his life and in all his works > and will write about his life accurately and fully, we are forgiven. > For we have only seen “in part.” We describe, write about and speak of > the miraculous things that God did for us through His servant, > Porphyrios. Is my educated guess correct? Which other denominations share the same sentiment? --- For a discussion of the meaning of *Christian mysticism* and its biblical basis, see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98050/61679 . A closely related concept is *Theosis*: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98106/61679 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98092/61679

Are the notions of [theosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)) and [spiritual gifts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_gift) privileges that only saintly monks immersed in ascetic lifestyles can attain? Is there hope for the ordinary person, amidst the distractions and pressures of modern life, to attain them as well? I ask this question impressed by the examples of saints such as [Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrios_of_Kafsokalyvia) , of whom books have been written, including e.g. [*Elder Porphyrios Testimonies and Experiences*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/9606890236) : > *"Elder, where can we find the solution to our problems?"* > > *"Only holiness will solve your problems."* > > The realm of the sacred and the transcendent, as expressed by that > child of God and true man, Elder Porphyrios, belongs to the category > of the unbelievable. It can however become believable because, «sin > does not prevail where grace abounds”. Elder Porphyrios was a person > filled with grace, a bearer of the power of the Holy Spirit, a child > of the Kingdom, a genuine and true tree of paradise. > > Whoever wishes to speak about the inner spiritual life of a saint, > must be a saint himself. We, the writers of this book, are not saints. > We are confined to what we saw and what we heard. We are amongst those > many others, who, as St. Luke the Evangelist says, have “taken in hand > to set in order a narrative.” We are not trying, with our poor and > futile speech, to describe the life of a contemporary saint, but > rather we are falteringly trying to express our joy in having met a > saint; our joy that Christ lives yesterday, today and forever; our joy > that holiness is not a thing of the past, that grace can be felt next > to us, that our hands touched a “little father” who really lived the > expression “I no longer live, for Christ lives in me.” > > Until the Lord reveals the servant who was Elder Porphyrios’ > eye-witness, who observed him throughout his life and in all his works > and will write about his life accurately and fully, we are forgiven. > For we have only seen “in part.” We describe, write about and speak of > the miraculous things that God did for us through His servant, > Porphyrios. One of the reviewers of the book said: > His life was a Jesus Christ's life. He was living the Theosis, loving without limits and expectation above all Jesus Christ and all humans. He was there 24/7 for all those who everyday were waiting to receive his blessings his advice and his healing power through the Holy Spirit. He used to tell me, I love all people and they love me, after that I gently bring them to Jesus Christ. A Wonderful book with a lot of little stories from people who met him and learned or were helped by him. Another example is [Saint Paisios of Mount Athos](https://www.amazon.com/dp/9608976456) : > Saint Paisios of Mount Athos (1994) is perhaps the greatest and most revered Elder of the Orthodox Church of our time. Even though he lived the monastic life in obscurity on the Holy Mountain of Athos in northern Greece, he became a shining light for thousands of faithful who flocked to see him. His life, miracles, and teachings continue to touch the hearts of people throughout the world to this day. Unquestionably, this present biography (written by his spiritual disciple Elder Isaac), which is the most authoritative account of his life, will inspire readers forevermore. Given the challenges of a modern lifestyle, is there any hope for the average busy or distracted individual, who lacks access to full-time dedication to a monastic life, to even dream of reaching this level of holiness and spirituality? **Note**: All denominations that believe in theosis and spiritual gifts are in scope.

> ***Theosis*** ([Ancient Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_language "Ancient Greek language"): θέωσις), or **deification** (deification may also refer to *[apotheosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis "Apotheosis")*, lit. "making divine"), is a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with [God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God "God"), as taught by the [Eastern Catholic Churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches "Eastern Catholic Churches") and the [Eastern Orthodox Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church "Eastern Orthodox Church"); the same concept is also found in the [Latin Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Church "Latin Church") of the [Catholic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church "Catholic Church"), where it is termed "[divinization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian) "Divinization (Christian)")". As a process of transformation, *theosis* is brought about by the effects of *[catharsis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis "Catharsis")* (purification of mind and body) and *[theoria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoria#Eastern_Orthodox_Catholic_and_Byzantine_Catholic_Churches "Theoria")* ('illumination' with the 'vision' of God). According to [Eastern Christian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Christianity "Eastern Christianity") teachings, *theosis* is very much the purpose of human life. It is considered achievable only through synergy (or cooperation) of human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations).[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBartos1999253Kapsanis2006-1) According to Metropolitan [Hierotheos (Vlachos)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierotheos_(Vlachos) "Hierotheos (Vlachos)"), the primacy of *theosis* in [Eastern Orthodox Christian theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology "Eastern Orthodox Christian theology") is directly related to the fact that Byzantine theology (as historically conceived by its principal exponents) is based to a greater extent than [Latin Catholic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Church "Latin Church") [theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_theology "Catholic theology") on the direct spiritual insights of the saints or [mystics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism "Mysticism") of the church rather than the often seen more as [rational thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_thought "Rational thought") tradition of the West.[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlachos1994-2) Byzantine Christians consider that "no one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian"[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)#cite_note-FOOTNOTELossky200239-3) in the proper sense. Thus theology in Byzantine Christianity is not treated primarily as an academic pursuit. Instead it is based on applied revelation (see [gnosiology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosiology "Gnosiology")), and the primary validation of a theologian is understood to be a holy and ascetical life rather than intellectual training or academic credentials (see [scholasticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism "Scholasticism")).[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVlachos1994-2) > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology) What is the biblical basis for *Theosis*?

What does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lack in Christ oriented teachings or doctrine to be considered a Christian church for those who claim otherwise? Maybe it's not what they lack in teaching but what they teach that changes the definition of Christ. What would those be? My thoughts on the biggest issue I could find of making God to be more humanlike: This church teaches Christ to be the Savior of the world, the God of Salvation, the Author of faith, the Creator, etc. They teach Christ as a mediator between us and God the Father as Christ taught. They have separated God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate persons with separate bodies. They have also declared that getting a body is a step of glorification and making one holy. Another way of saying making us more like God. All of these are scripturally founded in the bible. To DEHUMANIZE some one is permission to treat them less than yourself. An evil to Christian ideals and an evil that God does not practice. Christ taught contrary to dehumanizing ideals and lifted all people to an equal ground of worth and relationship to Himself. If making God more like us or God's desire to make us more like Him is the issue, why does this ideal not conflict with Christ's teachings or the bible? We were created in their image, the prophets reference God as having a head, hands, arms, a heart, tears, eyes, ears, etc. all over the bible. From what I can tell, the prophets in the bible spent a lot of time emphasizing the likeness of God and ourselves being married to him and he being jealous of our thoughts and desires. Not to some vague unidentified creature we call God but to a defined creature that resembles us so we can relate to and enjoin with God. God has spent a lot of effort to humanize us into beings he loves and wants to be one with us as Christ and God the Father are one. This has settled this issue for me in that there is no conflict of Christ's teachings and believing we can become like Him thereby making this concept Christian at heart. Christ was killed for teaching this. Any dogma to preach otherwise is to demean God's creation, destroy the relationship God is creating, and dehumanizes mankind to a state less than their potential / purpose which seems the intent of a Satanic work, not a Christian ideal.

Many church fathers, from Justin Martyr to Tertullian, preached Theosis. For an example, take St. Clement of Alexandria, who says: > "Yea, I say, the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God." (Clement of Alexandria. "Exhortation to the Heathen 1." Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Alexander Roberts. Vol. 2. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 174. Print.) How does this view of Theosis compare with the LDS view of man becoming a God?

Latter Day Saints will, on the one hand, assent to a multiplicity of Gods with humans being capable of being exalted to the same level of God as God the Father in the Bible. God the Father may have once been a mortal being such as we are. On the other hand Latter Day Saint theology would not necessarily label itself as polytheistic or henotheistic . Instead their stance is that, regardless of the existence of other (equal) Gods, there is only one God whom we can and should worship now and only one God who responds and interacts with us. Are these multiple Gods all part of our universe and, if so, do they have an agreement amongst themselves to stay out of each other's "plans of salvation" or is LDS postulating more of a multi-verse scenario where all of the various Gods are actually isolated from each other and cannot interfere?

Early Christians used the term **[theosis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Orthodox_theology))** , which puts forth a "exaltation", "divinization" deification concept which the Eastern orthodox church still holds today. > [T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. > > For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God > > [H]is is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, “Men are gods, and gods are men.” For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God. > — Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) A lot of Christians see salvation as entrance into the kingdom in a general sense instead of as a process of becoming more and more god-like through eternity. My impression is that the church in the west doesn't even think in terms of the ideal theosis any more. Is the doctrine of theosis actually contrary to Evangelical Protestants today? Is it actually a different soteriology or has the emphasis just shifted for other reasons

The Orthodox YouTuber Jay Dyer has peaked my interest by asserting that the Catholic view of God's essence as absolutely simple is heretical. And that the Catholic view of God's essence in relation to his energies negates theosis in the here and now and reserves it for Heaven. Funny enough, another YouTuber called VaticanCatholic , who is mostly Catholic in his theology except that he's a sedevacantist schismatic, affirmed that the Orthodox view of God leads to polytheism because of the Orthodox distinction between God's essence and energies being too minor. **My Question** is really how the Catholic and Orthodox view of God, **both in his transcendance and in his interactions with what is external to him,** are different from one another; and potentially what kind of consequences those differences may have provoked in each respective church tradition, that is, practices and doctrines. **And lastly,** I would like to know whether Mainline Protestants, those of the Reformation like Calvinists and Lutherans, would agree more with the Catholic view of God or the Orthodox view of God; ontologically speaking of course. **Keeping in mind that both Catholics and Orthodox, and even many Protestants hold to the peculiar doctrine of theosis :** > “He came to this world and became a man in order to spread to other > men the kind of life He has – by what I call ‘good infection.’ Every > Christian is to become a little Christ. The whole purpose of becoming > a Christian is simply nothing else” > > [...] > > “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command > to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can > obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He > is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent > Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into > a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all > through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now > imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God > perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless > power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts > very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant > what He said.” > > [...] > > “turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new > little Christ, a being which, in its own way, has the same kind of > life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity” > > **☩ CS Lewis, Mere Christianity** > **[PROTESTANT, ANGLICAN]**​ > > Commentary on Ephesians (3:20) The human mind and will could never > imagine, understand or ask that God become man, and that man become > God and a sharer in the divine nature. But he has done this in us by > his power, and it was accomplished in the Incarnation of his Son. > > Commentary on John (15:9) The Son did not love the disciples in either > of these ways. For he did not love them to the point of their being > gods by nature, nor to the point that they would be united to God so > as to form one person with him. But he did love them up to a similar > point: he loved them to the extent that they would be gods by their > participation in grace--"I say, 'You are gods'" (Ps 82:6). > > > Summa Theologiae (I-II, q. 112, a. 1) Nothing can act beyond its > species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. > Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, > since it is nothing short of a partaking of the divine nature, which > exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any > creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone > should deify, bestowing a partaking of the divine nature by a > participated likeness as it is impossible that anything save fire > should enkindle. > > **☩ St. Thomas Aquinas the Angelic Doctor, Summa and diverse commentaries** > **[CATHOLIC]** > > “When God revealed himself, he united himself with our mortal nature > in order to deify humanity through this close relation with deity. > Since this is so, through his flesh, constituted by bread and wine, he > implants himself in all believers.” > > **☩ St. Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration** > **[ORTHODOX/CATHOLIC]**

I'm mainly interested in an Orthodox or Catholic response. Although any protestant denomination which has a high Mariology is welcome to answer (eg Anglocatholics, high church Lutherans). If your denomination teaches that Mary "was just an ordinary women" then this question isn't for you: please don't bother answering. Mary is seen as the supreme and perfect example of theosis (to use an Orthodox term). She is said to have maximum justification, maximum sanctification, maximum glorification. She experiences the beatific vision to the maximal extent possible for a created human being. She is as full of God's grace as it is possible to be. Fr Sergius Bulgakov once said that to look at Mary is to look at the Holy Spirit, for she is the most perfect and direct manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit, almost like a second incarnation (but don't worry, he didn't actually go that far and call her a second incarnation). It is common Catholic teaching that Mary is "Mediatrix of all graces", which means that all the gifts of God to us also pass through her. My understanding of this doctrine is that Mary is up in heaven constantly praying for us, and that her will is so perfectly aligned with the will of Christ that she only prays for things which God desires, and therefore every one of her prayers is directly answered. Therefore, every single grace that God sends to us is also associated with a prayer from Mary, as she is always praying for God's will to be done exactly as it actually gets done. Part of theosis is that you become God by participation in the divine nature, while remaining human in essence. Presumably by becoming God by participation you also adopt some of the divine attributes. It seems to me that Mary would share in God's omniscience because she is perfectly divinized and able to pray continuously for exactly those things and everything which God himself desires ("all Graces"). But to do this it would seem that she needs to know everything that God knows, so that she can pray accordingly (otherwise it would be possible for her to pray in a way which is not in accord with God's will due to her ignorance and therefore she would be imperfect and not the mediatrix of all graces) **Does all this mean that Mary participates in God's omniscience?**

This question regards Matthew 5:20: > "For I say to you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." and the orthodox interpretation of it. I found this site that basically says that the fasting on Monday is done by monks, but also observed by pious orthodox believer that ye may exceed the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees. Is that why orthodox fast on Monday? I don't mean to be rude, but I find much of orthodox theology concerning Theosis to be pelagian, as trying to earn heaven by merit, and while I know that the Orthodox Church does not teach that one can enter heaven by it's own power. It still feels like some strive from the bottom of their being to be more pious and righteousness that others, as it were a race, where Christ stands passive and the end of the ladder, while sinners try desperately to climb the ladder, always climbing never reaching the end. Always admiring the saints, never daring to feel worthy. And even know never daring to feel worthy, still, always fearing and questing, am I good enough, will I be received. Being told that the saints themselves where not sure if they are saved, then, much more shall the laity fear their fate.

In the Eastern Orthodox church, there is this doctrine and practice of one's divination , of "becoming more and more like God". This practice/doctrine seem to come from the so called 'desert fathers' and/or 'cappadocian fathers'. How is such doctrine viewed in Lutheranism? Or did Luther ever wrote anything in regards to this?

I noticed that the *Word of Faith * movement is under a lot of fire for the "little g" god doctrine, but it appears to me that it is almost, if not exactly, the same as the deification/divinization doctrine taught by the early church fathers and still maintained as Eastern Orthodox doctrine today. **What is the difference between the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification/divinization and the "little g" god doctrine of the Word of Faith movement?**

"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." -http://biblehub.com/2_peter/1-4.htm My understanding is when the person of Christ became human, he assumed a human nature. Now we have this person of Christ with a human and divine nature. I think of it kind or like having a linux OS(Divine Nature) running a windows virtual OS (human nature). Now I think this elevates our human nature to a nature that God has. But does this also mean that humans will get a divine nature at some point. Perhaps baptism, or death, or final judgment? I am interested particularly in Catholic theological theories/teachings/camps. So back to the computer analogy if we are all running windows, is there a chance we get to install linux at some point? PS - can someone please tag this with **divine-nature** **human-nature** and **beatific-vision**... I do not have enough points.