Who Said That?
Sunday, June 22, 2008 at 11:36PM 
"The Word of God Himself . . . assumed humanity that we might become God."
Please leave your guess in the comments section below. Please no google searches or cheating.
Kim Riddlebarger
This statement comes from Athanasius' On the Incarnation (Sec. 54). Athanasius' statement has given rise to the notion of theosis.
The problem with theosis is one of definition. As several of the respondents pointed out, the concept grows out of 2 Peter 1:4 and takes a number of diverse forms--some orthodox, some not so. There is the Orthodox trajectory (divinization), as well as a Catholic/Augustinian trajectory (the final purification of the soul). The Reformed understand this notion in terms of union with Christ and final glorification. There is also a Wesleyan notion (Christian perfection), as well as LDS (man is eventually deified), and Word-Faith versions (man is a "little" god).
Reader Comments (33)
We meet again!
Is there something in the translation to "we might become God" that was lost?
It seems to me that there is a difference between "participating in (or partaking of) the divine nature" and "becoming God". I want to give Athanasius the benefit of the doubt being that he's your homeboy.
This quote comes from On the Incarnation, book 8 (sorry I guess I am giving it away). He is refuting the common superstitions of the Greeks in this section. Here is a fuller portion of the text;
...let him recognize the fact and marvel that things divine have been revealed to us by such humble means, that through death deathlessness has been made known to us, and through the Incarnation of the Word the Mind whence all things proceed has been declared, and its Agent and Ordainer, the Word of God Himself. He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality. He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impassable and incorruptible; but by His own impassability He kept and healed the suffering men on whose account He thus endured.
I do think the concept of Theosis begins here, which does not seem to me to be the same as what Mormons or WoF people teach. For Athanasius, the important thing was that by sin and the fall, the image of God in man had been utterly corrupted beyond repair which required the Word, the agent of creation to take on humanity and "recreate" that image of God in Man (he speaks of it as a marred portrait so ruined that it must be repainted). In becoming flesh, dying and defeating death, Christ is the image repainted perfectly, which is then restored by him in those who believe. Notice he does not say we become gods (like mormons would), but we become God, partakers in the divine nature. We are united once again with the true God, and humanity is restored to proper fellowship with him in Christ.
I hope that helps.
Thanks. That helps a bit. Oddly enough, I was reading a book (I recently purchased) last night about The Orthodox Church and it included the quote "The Word of God Himself . . . assumed humanity that we might become God."
I still don't like the wording. If Theosis (as I understand it, which is barely) is what he has in mind, I agree with him but why couldn't he have worded in a way that suits me? I'm going to continue studying. If you have any reading recommendations I would be most appreciative.
I imagine he wrote it specifically the way that he did because it made a good inversion. I've read some paraphrase it into "he became one of us that we might become like him", but I don't think that really captures what he is saying, and I don't think it's much of a correction. We are "in" Christ after all, not simply followers who try to be "like" him.
I'd recommend On the Incarnation of course :) Perhaps one of the books discussing the development of doctrines in the early church would be helpful.
The concept of theosis, or deification of man, properly understood, is perfectly orthodox (not just Orthodox as in the Orthodox Church). There are numerous quotations from the apologists, fathers, and later theologians to that effect. Here's a small sample, beginning with a central scriptural reference on the topic:
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. (2 Peter 1:3-4)
The Word was made man in order that we might be made divine [also translated, that we might become God]. He displayed himself through a body, that we might receive knowledge of the invisible Father. He endured insult at the hands of men, that we might inherit immortality. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 54)
For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, he is said to receive what, as God, he always had, in order that this great gift might extend to us. For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to ‘receive’ God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, be bestowed his gift upon the race of men. (Athanasius, Contra Arianos, i. 24-25)
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, become what we are that he might make us what he himself is. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V.)
Since it was the will of God’s only-begotten Son that men should share in his divinity, he assumed our nature in order that by becoming man he might make men gods. Moreover, when he took our flesh he dedicated the whole of its substance to our salvation. He offered his body to God the Father on the altar of the cross as a sacrifice for our reconciliation. He shed his blood for our ransom and purification, so that we might be redeemed from our wretched state of bondage and cleansed from all sin. But to ensure that the memory of so great a gift would abide with us for ever, he left his body as food and his blood as drink for the faithful to consume in the form of bread and wine. (Thomas Aquinas, a sermon on The Feast of Corpus Christi [Opusculum 57].
It is evident then, that He hath called men gods, that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance . . . If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods: but this is the effect of Grace adopting, not of nature generating . . The rest that are made gods, are made by His own Grace, are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him, and be fellow-heirs with Christ. (Augustine, Commentary on the Psalms, 50,2).
This is the God of compassion, yearning to save man; and the Word himself at this point speaks to you plainly, putting unbelief to shame; the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you may learn from a man how it may be that man should become God (Clement of Alexandria, Protepticus [Exhortation to the Greeks] 8,4)
The Son in his kindness generously imparted deification to others … who are transformed through him into gods, as images of the prototype … the Word is the archetype of the many images. (Origen, Commentary on John, ii, 2)
From Jesus began a weaving together of the divine and human nature in order that human nature, through fellowship with what is more divine, might become divine, not only in Jesus but also in all those who, besides believing in Jesus, take up the life which he taught; the life which leads everyone who lives according to the precepts of Jesus to friendship with God and fellowship with him. (Origen, Contra Celsus, iii. 28)
When the church fathers spoke of man becoming God, what did they have in mind? How is "God" defined in such thinking?