Christian Mysticism and personal thoughts (see my brain go a-ha!)

[SageTree]

"Christian Mysticism:"

From these articles:
Christian mysticism
Wesleyan Arminianism

Found this reading about Christian meditation and saw that a certain type, not the whole thing, was considered heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. So of course prohibition makes one curious and I looked to read about 'Quietism'

This along with Christian Perfection and Christian-Mysticism-(African) has begun to paint a very interesting portrait of myself and my beliefs. This is the Christian thought/philosophy that I truly feel that I was cultivating in my early years raised as a Christian...(no wonder I practically canned myself asking questions about this sort of thing.) Since much of it was considered heresy well before the Reformation, in which the Protestant sect I was raised in was yet to come even later than this.

What I see here is an amazing blending of the Hindu yogas, specifically, Bhakti Yoga or devotional union with Brahman, via seeing the True Nature of Self(Atman), and the Buddhist definition of Atman, which is to say,(Anatman) Non/Not-Self, yet seem to get the same ends of True Nature (This is mentioned on the Meister Eckhart link as to how his ideas are 'stampable' as Buddhist-like). As well touching my fascination and connection with the Sufi's metaphysics/meditation(murakaba). All of which speak loudly to me about dissolving barriers between I, me, mine and the World/Spirit of Life.

Quietism is a Christian philosophy that swept through France, Italy and Spain during the 17th century, but it had much earlier origins. The mystics known as Quietists insist, with more or less emphasis, on intellectual stillness and interior passivity as essential conditions of perfection. All have been officially proscribed as heresy in very explicit terms by the Roman Catholic Church.

Origins of Quietism

The state of imperturbable serenity or ataraxia (lucid state) was seen as a desirable state of mind by Epicurus, Pyrrhonian and the Stoic philosophers alike, and by their Roman followers, such as the emperor Marcus Aurelius.
Quietism has been compared to the Buddhist doctrine of Nirvana.
The possibility of achieving a sinless state and union with the Christian Godhead are denied by the Roman Catholic Church.

Among the ideas seen as errors and condemned by the Council of Vienne (1311-12) are the propositions that humankind in the present life can attain such a degree of perfection as to become utterly sinless; that the "perfect" have no need to fast or pray, but may freely grant the body whatsoever it craves (a tacit reference to the Cathars or Albigenses of southern France and Catalonia), and that they are not subject to any human authority or bound by the precepts of the Church. Similar assertions of individual autonomy on the part of the Fraticelli led to their condemnation by John XXII in 1317. The same pope in 1329 proscribed among the errors of Meister Eckhart the assertions that we are totally transformed into God just as in the sacrament the bread is changed into the body of Christ and the value of internal actions, which are wrought by the Godhead abiding within us.

Quietism may have had some indirect effect on the mysticism of the great 16th century Spaniards, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, but there were clearly other influences. It should be made clear that both Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross were very active reformers and that both cautioned against a simple-minded "don't think anything" (no pensar nada) approach to meditation and contemplation; further, both remained firmly committed to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Quietism's primary defender was Miguel de Molinos, referred to by the Catholic Encyclopedia as the "founder" of Quietism. The apostle of the Quietist movement in 17th-century France was Molinos' correspondent, the prolific writer Mme Guyon, who won an influential convert at the court of Louis XIV in Madame de Maintenon and an ally within the Catholic hierarchy in Archbishop Fénelon.

Molinos and the doctrines of Quietism were finally condemned by Pope Innocent XI in the Bull Coelestis Pastor of 1687. A commission in France found most of Madame Guyon’s works intolerable and the government confined her, first in a convent, then in the Bastille. In 1699, after Fénelon’s spirited defense in a press war with Bossuet, Pope Innocent XII prohibited the circulation of Fénelon’s Maxims of the Saints, to which Fénelon submitted at once. The inquisition's proceedings against remaining Quietists in Italy lasted until the eighteenth century.

Theology

Quietism states that man's highest perfection consists of a self-annihilation, and subsequent absorption, of the soul into the Divine, even during the present life. In this way, the mind is withdrawn from worldly interests to passively and constantly contemplate God. Quietists would say that the Bible describes the man of God as a man of the tent and the altar only, having no part or interest in the multitudinous affairs, pursuits, and pleasures of the world system.
Quietists were so called from a kind of absolute rest and inaction, which they supposed the soul to be in when arrived at that state of perfection which they called the unitive life; in which state, they imagined the soul wholly employed in contemplating its God, to whose influence it was entirely submissive, so that he could turn and drive it where and how he would. In this state, the soul no longer needs prayers, hymns, &c. being laid, as it were, in the bosom, and between the arms of God, in whom it is in a manner swallowed up.

*As a side: Explanation of Self in Buddhism and/vs Hinduism - *
Please bear with the wiki-links...I use them only when they agree with my prior understandings and outside finding.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[SageTree]

Personal Thoughts and Feelings

Recently I have been looking into the roots and history of the particular sect of Christianity I was raised in, which is the United Methodist, which is itself a type of Methodism. So I started reading about John Wesley. He was Arminian, however took liberties to define it himself as he was inspired. His quote in on Christian perfection.

However I thought it fit well beside the article on mysticism in relation to a very eastern sounding approach to Christianity, which I really jive with.

The idea of a mystic isn't so new to me, but this is a set of words that i thought would be interesting to share, and a side of Christianity I wasn't familiar with beyond Quakers, but has nothing specifically to do with Methodism. Although nothing seem to doctrinally oppose Methodist practice, if one was inclined that way.

But of 'heresy' I'm not certain if it would be a good topic to discuss openly in a Methodist meeting as touching God ourselves might sound like it pushes out Jesus from the equation, which I don't find that it does, rather embraces his tie to God, imo.

Trinitarian or Unitarian, Jesus as a guru of consciousness, part and parcel of God, or both; This practice and connection is as valid as the actions of goodness we put into motion because of it.

From Wiki~"Christian mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of the Christian God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Christian mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness, such as deep prayer (ie. meditation, contemplation) involving the person of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. This approach and lifestyle is distinguished from other forms of Christian practice by its aim of achieving unity with the divine. In the words of Oswald Chambers, "We receive His blessings and know His Word, but do we know Him?"

Whereas Christian doctrine generally maintains that God dwells in all Christians and that they can experience God directly through belief in Jesus, Christian mysticism aspires to apprehend spiritual truths inaccessible through intellectual means, typically by learning how to think like Christ. William Inge divides this scala perfectionis into three stages: the "purgative" or ascetic stage, the "illuminative" or contemplative stage, and the "unitive" stage, in which God may be beheld "face to face.........."


".......For Christians the major emphasis of mysticism concerns a spiritual transformation of the egoic self, the following of a path designed to produce more fully realized human persons, "created in the Image and Likeness of God" and as such, living in harmonious communion with God, the Church, the rest of humanity, and all creation, including oneself. For Christians, this human potential is realized most perfectly in Jesus, precisely because he is both God and human, and is manifested in others through their association with him, whether conscious, as in the case of Christian mystics, or unconscious, with regard to spiritual persons who follow other traditions, such as Gandhi. The Eastern Christian tradition speaks of this transformation in terms of theosis or divinization, perhaps best summed up by an ancient aphorism usually attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria: "God became human so that man might become God."

This is one interesting concept I never was taught in church. Yet I feel this IS how I sought to be the best Christian I could and that mysticism was how I experienced God. And Wesley further expounds on an idea that falls into my realm and an understanding of what enlightened states look like.

From John Wesley~" Christian perfection – According to Wesley's teaching, Christians could attain a state of practical perfection, meaning a lack of all voluntary sin by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, in this life. Christian perfection (or entire sanctification), according to Wesley, is "purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God" and "the mind which was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked." It is "loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves". It is 'a restoration not only to the favour, but likewise to the image of God," our "being filled with the fullness of God". Wesley was clear that Christian perfection did not imply perfection of bodily health or an infallibility of judgment. It also does not mean we no longer violate the will of God, for involuntary transgressions remain. Perfected Christians remain subject to temptation, and have continued need to pray for forgiveness and holiness. It is not an absolute perfection but a perfection in love. Furthermore, Wesley did not teach a salvation by perfection, but rather says that, "Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ."

Now back in the day I may not have object to the last line, yet I always was asking 'why' about other religions, in regard to them 'not being valid'.

Buddhism was the first path I turned to when I accidentally found myself meditating one night after smoking a joint while reading the Bible. Buddha intrigued me so because the path to follow was really clear to me, and felt like the code I had already lived in a life emulating JC. But the best was there was no resurrection to get around in reason. Which I came to understand personally through a Hindu explanation of bodily death and Christ consciousness. That was last Oct some time.

I have been amazed by and humbled by many spiritual explanations. As well as inspired when I've incorporated concepts and principles to expand my thinking. Questioning what I know and pondering what knowing means, and also if I don't already know and I'm just thinking about it too much

But it's been fun finding ways to explain what I feel and love it when I find a group of words to catch it for a second. This is as much a hobby as a practice.

But for years I've been trying to learn to incorporate the metaphors and words from the book with which I was raised and know well.

Several years ago I read 'The Last Temptation of Christ', which was 'historically' accurate enough and 'fictional' enough to get my metaphor muscles pumped. And I began reading the Bible in regular rotation with other texts.

So recently like I said I've been exploring my birth socialization to God and examining it to find my beliefs in it words. The Gospel of course being my main concern, but also within and through out.

Rather than in Biblical form, today I read these refreshing thoughts and are a starting point, for me, to examine deeply with my own reason and belief. These sound a lot like Christian Hinduism to me in a way since Union and Enlightened states are presented. Why then shouldn't they be paired?

It's neat to read about, what seems, to be a less talked about side of the faith, yet one that seems confounding to consider that not all people who I went to church with were buzzing about, as it seems part in parcel of connection.

I have sat in meditation circles contemplating Buddha's and I have sat in silent worship with Friends, or Quakers and have felt the same moving energy. A long time ago I heard a monk talk about a man that was directed back to Christianity to be understood first, before he found Buddhism suitable for him to teach to this man. I don't know if that guy ever made it back, but it sent me on a search. And each day lately I have found a teaching from a Reverend or Bishop or read a theology that jives. People who have insisted from with in large bodies like the Catholics, or from those like Wesley who stayed and Anglican, yet formed the Methodist Church, that they Love God and are committed to live a Christ like life, as other Christians and their path is equally relevant.

Interesting note John Wesley started Methodism in Lincolnshire, which is next to Leicestershire, which has a civil parish by my families name. And in the church I grew up in there were great, great x2, great x3 and great x4 grandparents of mine. Kind of whack historical notes about coming really far from 'home' and having all the comforts of the mother land!

Please enjoy this offering as an insight into mapping my Self, where it's come from, how it relates to others and where it's going.

Namaste,
SageTree

 

[A-ManESL]

I think these ideas can form a real, theological link between all religions, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam etc.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think these ideas can form a real, theological link between all religions, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam etc.

Me too.

 

[SageTree]

I think these ideas can form a real, theological link between all religions, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam etc.

Me too.

Wow Friends, I didn't expect such a prolific statement! Thanks.

 

[SageTree]

Of interest, recently, for about the last 2 months I've been attending an Anglican Church, which has a meditation after the Gospel reading.

Which is cool for me as a Buddhist as well...

This funny for me for me 1. Because I'm an American Methodist, who moved to Canada and went to Anglican mass, funny if you know the history. Methodism is essentially a revival movement that wasn't intended to split when conceived. 2. The Buddhist Path is "The Middle Way". Anglican theology is "Via Medium" ..... "Middle Way"!!!!

Too funny to see the constant overlap and connection.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Justin Thyme]

SageTree, have you looked at John Wesley's take on inclusivism?

 

[SageTree]

SageTree, have you looked at John Wesley's take on inclusivism?

I am familiar with the term, but not so much specifically Wesley's discourse. Links please

:namaste
SageTree

 

[SageTree]

From what I read just briefly, I can see how/why you brought this up. Why didnt they teach me all this cool stuff JW was into?!


This is quickly what I found:

Inclusivism: Christianity

• Jesus said, [Paraphrase]"He who is not against me is for me." [Original]"for whoever is not against us is for us." (NIV) Gospel of Mark 9:40.
• Jesus said, "Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." Luke 12:10.
• The Apostle Peter wrote of God: "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 (NIV)
• "That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world." John 1:9 Similarly Titus 2:11 says, "The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
• God loved the entire world and Jesus came to save it, not condemn it (John 3:16, 17.)
• An aphorism common in some Christian circles: "All Truth is God's Truth."
• Some Evangelical scholars believe that God judges all people based on their response to the Holy Spirit, and that just as Romans 2:14-15 shows that God is righteous by condemning people who violate natural law as they understand it, it also shows His mercy in forgiving those who have lived up to all the light they have had. Thus, it is possible for people to be saved through hearing the Gospel message of forgiveness of sins by Christ, even if they have not been instructed by Christian missionaries.
• Psalm 19 presents general revelation, as exemplified by the sky and sun, in parallel with conversion. Verses 1-6 show the transcending of the barriers of language and geography. Verses 7-8 declare that the internalizing of the perfect law of the LORD can be efficacious in "converting the soul…making wise the simple…rejoicing the heart…enlightening the eyes."
• Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18) and the Wise Men (Matthew 2:1-13) are examples of people who believed in God even though they were not part of the covenant people.
• Cornelius already believed in God before Peter came and preached to him (Acts 10:1-48.) "Then Peter opened his mouth and said: 'In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality, But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." Acts 10:34-35
• The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:3Italic text1-46) portrays the judgment of the nations as being based on each individual's compassion on others, not on their religious background. The blessings pronounced upon the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers, those hungering for righteousness, etc. (Matthew 5:3-10) can also be understood as applying without reference to religion. Similarly, James 1:27 says, "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."
• Paul said that the Greeks had been worshiping God without knowing it. He said that in their semi-enlightened condition, they might grope for God and find Him, since He was not far from each one of us. Their own poets had declared that they were God's offspring. This shows that He was somewhat known to them. Acts 17:23-28
• Even though Jesus told the Samaritan woman that “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), when an expositor of the Jewish laws asked Him, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?,” Jesus told the story of the “good Samaritan” and said, “Go and do likewise.” Luke 10:25-37
• And he said, "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life." Romans 5:18

• Supporters of inclusivism include C. S. Lewis,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusivism#cite_note-0 John Wesley,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusivism#cite_note-1 Clark Pinnock,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusivism#cite_note-2 Karl Rahner, John E. Sanders, Terrance L. Tiessen (Reformed) and Robert Brush (contributor to the Arminian Magazine). While Billy Graham faithfully preached "salvation by faith in Christ alone" throughout his 60 year ministry as an evangelist, he has recently made controversial comments that border on inclusivism (but he does not like to refer to it by the term, because he is concerned that many people mean universalism when they refer to inclusivism). Graham has said, “I used to play God but I can’t do that any more. I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost and were going to hell—if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that,” he said carefully. “I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God—through nature, for instance—and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying ’yes’ to God.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusivism#cite_note-3
• This doctrine is held by Roman Catholics and Seventh-day Adventists.

 

[Justin Thyme]

From what I read just briefly, I can see how/why you brought this up. Why didnt they teach me all this cool stuff JW was into?!

I don't know. I've facilitated a couple of small groups looking at comparative religious topics that delved into the idea of inclusivism but the topic isn't one that's generally explored. I think a lot of Christians are uncomfortable taking up controversial theological topics in Church so the education committees steer away from these topics. I've been lucky to be involved in a UMC congregation that encourages studies on more controversial issues.

 

[SageTree]

I don't know. I've facilitated a couple of small groups looking at comparative religious topics that delved into the idea of inclusivism but the topic isn't one that's generally explored. I think a lot of Christians are uncomfortable taking up controversial theological topics in Church so the education committees steer away from these topics. I've been lucky to be involved in a UMC congregation that encourages studies on more controversial issues.

Well congratulations and thank you.

Over the years I still recognize more than ever my mind and how it's language of processing has best been facilitated by Buddhism, of which I am committed and have practiced for many years. I'm constantly open to exploring other languages of expression for my thoughts in words or words for contemplation but I know through it all how to listen to what I already am.

 

[Justin Thyme]

Well congratulations and thank you.

Over the years I still recognize more than ever my mind and how it's language of processing has best been facilitated by Buddhism, of which I am committed and have practiced for many years. I'm constantly open to exploring other languages of expression for my thoughts in words or words for contemplation but I know through it all how to listen to what I already am.

I've looked at Buddhism over the years and remarked at how similar much of it is to Christianity, or at least Christianity as I understand it. A few years back I began to see that my comparison was due to the way my brained worked and how I relate to God. It isn't the religion so much as it is one's relationship to the Divine and how one can put that relationship into words. I grew up with the Christian paradigm and that either set in my brain or that was the way my brain was wired to work from birth. Who knows.

Now, regardless of the religion, I can see relationships between those religions and Christianity. The ideas all seem common but each person's way of expressing those ideas differ. The important thing is to maintain a relationship with your God(s). Inclusivism just means that I accept that you've "found Jesus" in your own words.

 

[SageTree]

Inclusivism just means that I accept that you've "found Jesus" in your own words.

Thanks my Friend for sharing your story. Your last line touched me and I would like to borrow it's wording from time to time, if that is ok That really captured how I feel. It's not that I don't have any relationship certainly, He is just speaking to me in Sanskrit

 

[Justin Thyme]

Thanks my Friend for sharing your story. Your last line touched me and I would like to borrow it's wording from time to time, if that is ok That really captured how I feel. It's not that I don't have any relationship certainly, He is just speaking to me in Sanskrit

Feel free to share anything I may offer of value. I doubt I've ever come up with anything both original and profound so I'm just passing along stuff any way. It is how I feel, though.

 

[A-ManESL]

Now, regardless of the religion, I can see relationships between those religions and Christianity. The ideas all seem common but each person's way of expressing those ideas differ. The important thing is to maintain a relationship with your God(s). Inclusivism just means that I accept that you've "found Jesus" in your own words.

It is the level of religiousness of a person that matters and not his religion. I tend to think of God (or metaphysical Reality, or the Absolute) sitting on top of a hill and all of the religious traditions as paths whose origins are various points circumscribing the base of the hill. From each of them start paths towards God. What matters is that we attempt to reach the top, instead of sitting and bickering over which path is best. Even a single step on any chosen path by a person is better then a person who makes no step and only indulges in discussions over which path is suitable.

Regards

 

[SageTree]

Feel free to share anything I may offer of value. I doubt I've ever come up with anything both original and profound so I'm just passing along stuff any way. It is how I feel, though.

That is an interesting offering, but I get the drift. thanks my Friend.

It is the level of religiousness of a person that matters and not his religion. I tend to think of God (or metaphysical Reality, or the Absolute) sitting on top of a hill and all of the religious traditions as paths whose origins are various points circumscribing the base of the hill. From each of them start paths towards God. What matters is that we attempt to reach the top, instead of sitting and bickering over which path is best. Even a single step on any chosen path by a person is better then a person who makes no step and only indulges in discussions over which path is suitable.

Regards

Ameen and Amen!!!

 

[soma]

[FONT=&quot] I feel the perceptions about Christians being exclusive are right on. We Christians need Ecumenical-ism, which is the promotion of unity and cooperation between distinct religious groups and denominations in Christianity and in the larger sense the unity among all religions worldwide. I feel Jesus modeled this by associating with all people and castes. He shows us unity by showing us the silent witness inside that sees the Divine and Beloved in everyone's eyes. I don't think he was interested in converting people to his way of thinking or selling real estate in heaven, but to guide people who were ready to go deeper into themselves and the spiritual experience of unity. The spiritual experience can't be taught, but Jesus offered a way to the experience, where God's pure consciousness could be felt. Buddhism, Taoism ect can help us become better Christians if we are open to the experience, but the institution frowns on such practices. I feel this attitude is holding sincere Christians back and promotes fear and separation. I feel our hope is found in Christian Mysticism, Buddhism and Taois which unites all in love.
[/FONT]

 

[SageTree]

[FONT=&quot] I feel the perceptions about Christians being exclusive are right on. We Christians need Ecumenical-ism, which is the promotion of unity and cooperation between distinct religious groups and denominations in Christianity and in the larger sense the unity among all religions worldwide. I feel Jesus modeled this by associating with all people and castes. He shows us unity by showing us the silent witness inside that sees the Divine and Beloved in everyone's eyes. I don't think he was interested in converting people to his way of thinking or selling real estate in heaven, but to guide people who were ready to go deeper into themselves and the spiritual experience of unity. The spiritual experience can't be taught, but Jesus offered a way to the experience, where God's pure consciousness could be felt. Buddhism, Taoism ect can help us become better Christians if we are open to the experience, but the institution frowns on such practices. I feel this attitude is holding sincere Christians back and promotes fear and separation. I feel our hope is found in Christian Mysticism, Buddhism and Taois which unites all in love.
[/FONT]

My Friend, this topic probably looks very familiar to you, but I appreciate the warm and thoughtful response. I would rubber stamp that part and parcel as my feeling on the matter. It's amazing to see people's eyes light up, at the spiritual counseling/drop in centre where I volunteer, when we are at Bible study and the language isn't quite sinking in for people, then a thoughtful word from a sutra or teaching of the Buddha, albeit, unknown when counseling, has seemed to be the things that shift people's perspective and help them keep on going and develop understanding. I humbly accept the pat on the back 'you're a good Christian' and am joyful that what I have to share and contemplate with them comes out in a way that brings them closer to what they are searching for.

Off the record, with other volunteers I've often said Buddha saved Jesus in my life. Once I wanted to meditate after a Bible reading at my home and that sent me into a plethora of hits on google about Buddhism. I saw my Christianity in it's doctrine and has grown my understanding and closeness to the religion of my birth. Although I consider myself a Buddhist for many reasons, I can hardly remove the label of Christianity as well as experiences I've had and shared in other Faith perspectives.

To me saying I'm All or None, is really saying the same thing in my opinion.

Gandhi was asked one day whether he was a Hinda, and his answer was uniquely significant
he said : ”Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew”

[youtube]IZqAnIp5dMQ[/youtube]
Only Breath



Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu

Buddhist, sufi, or zen. Not any religion



or cultural system. I am not from the East

or the West, not out of the ocean or up



from the ground, not natural or ethereal, not

composed of elements at all. I do not exist,



am not an entity in this world or in the next,

did not descend from Adam and Eve or any



origin story. My place is placeless, a trace

of the traceless. Neither body or soul.



I belong to the beloved, have seen the two

worlds as one and that one call to and know,



first, last, outer, inner, only that
​

breath breathing human being.

It's good seeing you soma and I wish to get talk about this around here, and also find what already exists. So if you could point me to topics here great. And of course, I am familiar with your signature link.

Thanks.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[SageTree]

1/2

:namaste Friends

So another overlap and deeper insights into my roots.

Theosis is a Greek word that means divinization, deification, or making divine. This transformation of a believer who is putting into practice (called praxis) the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ and his gospel is a feature of Christian theology, particularly in the Greek Orthodox and the Catholic theology.

This approach of emulation is something I've always felt in my heart and believed that this was the best way to honour the real or allegorical birth,life,teaching,death and resurrection of Jesus. From the time I was little and looking back I can see the realness of the event isn't what effected my belief as much as seeing and feeling how the teachings actually came to life and happened.

So as I am reading around, looking for things on Rev. John Shelby Spong from another thread I started I came across this word Theosis.

Greek Orthodox Theosis
St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, "God became man so that man might become god" . His statement is an apt description of the doctrine.

And the Apophatic theology—also known as Negative theology or Via Negativa—is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God. It stands in contrast with Cataphatic theology.

This is the ambiguous definition of the theology as it can apply to any faith, that is here is the apophatic description of God.

In negative theology, it is accepted that the Divine is ineffable, an abstract experience that can only be recognized or remembered—that is, human beings cannot describe in words the essence of the perfect good that is unique to the individual, nor can they define the Divine, in its immense complexity, related to the entire field of reality, and therefore all descriptions if attempted will be ultimately false and conceptualization should be avoided; in effect, it eludes definition by definition:

* Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
* God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
* God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
* Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
* God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
* God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
* God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.

That is a pretty interesting read about how it ties in with, is present in other religions and of note, Buddhism itself is mentioned there even though it's not specifically a theist or atheist Path.


Now this all ties in with what I posted waaay up at the top about John Wesley and 'Christian Perfection'. And this all makes a little more sense based on what I've read.

Now Wesley was an Anglican all his life, even though he was responsible for the start of the Methodist Church which was more of a revival movement or reform in it's concept. It was to be supplemental as displayed by some called the Methodist Calvinists.

Anglican views

Out of the English Reformation, an understanding of salvation in terms closely comparable to the Orthodox doctrine of theosis was recognized in the Anglican tradition, for example in the writings of Lancelot Andrewes, who described salvation in terms vividly reminiscent of the early fathers:

Whereby, as before He of ours, so now we of His are made partakers. He clothed with our flesh, and we invested with His Spirit. The great promise of the Old Testament accomplished, that He should partake our human nature; and the great and precious promise of the New, that we should be “consortes divinae naturae”, “partake his divine nature,” both are this day accomplished.

Protestant views

Protestants are generally less aware of the doctrinal line of thought of theosis, except for Methodists and Wesleyans, whose religious tradition has always placed strong emphasis on sanctification. Generally speaking, the Methodist/Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification is roughly equivalent to the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis. Early during the Reformation, thought was given to the doctrine of union with Christ (unio cum Christo) as the precursor to the entire process of salvation and sanctification. This was especially so in the thought of John Calvin.

Henry Scougal's work The Life of God in the Soul of Man is sometimes cited as important in keeping alive among Protestants the ideas central to the doctrine. In the introductory passages of his book, Scougal describes "religion" in terms that evoke the doctrine of theosis:

"... a resemblance of the divine perfections, the image of the Almighty shining in the soul of man: ... a real participation of his nature, it is a beam of the eternal light, a drop of that infinite ocean of goodness; and they who are endued with it, may be said to have 'God dwelling in their souls', and 'Christ formed within them'."

Theosis as a doctrine developed in a distinctive direction among Methodists,[ and elsewhere in the pietist movement which reawakened Protestant interest in the asceticism of the early Catholic Church, and some of the mystical traditions of the West. Distinctively, in Wesleyan Protestantism theosis sometimes implies the doctrine of entire sanctification which teaches, in summary, that it is the Christian's goal, in principle possible to achieve, to live without any (voluntary) sin (Christian perfection). In 1311 the Roman Catholic Council of Vienne declared this notion, "that man in this present life can acquire so great and such a degree of perfection that he will be rendered inwardly sinless, and that he will not be able to advance farther in grace" (Denziger §471), to be a heresy.

Thus this particular Protestant (primarily Methodist) understanding of theosis is substantially different from that of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican Churches. This doctrine of Christian perfection was sharply criticized by many in the Church of England during the ministry of John Wesley and continues to be controversial among Protestants and Anglicans to this day. Most Protestants do not believe in Christian perfection as Wesley described it and most Protestants also do not use the term theosis at all, though they refer to a similar doctrine by such terms as sanctification, "adoption as sons", "union with Christ", and "filled with the Spirit". Dietrich Bonhoeffer echoed the convictions of Athanasius when he wrote "He has become like a man, so that men should be like him." (The Cost of Discipleship, 301)

Nevertheless, similarities of doctrine notwithstanding, within the whole of the conception of the Christian life which the idea of "theosis" is intended to comprehend, differences of doctrine are disclosed especially in differences of practice, between the East and West, and between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

So that helps explain where the Christian Perfection idea comes from. It's funny that is is disputed because Theosis seems to essentially be the same thing.

This is of course more to read into and distill.

.....

 

[SageTree]

.....2/2


In the realm of Theois/Mysticism there are two approaches which are:

Cataphatic theology is the expressing of God or the divine/ Ultimate Reality by what is or expressing God/ Ultimate Reality through positive terminology. This is in contrast to defining God or the divine/ Ultimate Reality in what God/ Ultimate Reality is not, which is referred to as negative or apophatic theology.


Terminology

To speak of God or the divine kataphatically is by its nature a form of limiting to God or divine. This was one of the core tenets of the works of St Dionysus the Aeropagite. By defining what God or the divine is we limit the unlimited as Saint Dionysus outlined in his works. A kataphatic way to express God would be that God is love. The apophatic way would be to express that God is not hate. Or to say that God is not love, as he transcends even our notion of love. Ultimately, one would come to remove even the notion of the Trinity, or of saying that God is one, because The Divine is above numberhood. That God is beyond all duality because God contains within Godself all things and that God is beyond all things. The apophatic way as taught by Saint Dionysus was to remove any conceptual understanding of God that became all encompassing since in its limitedness it began to force the fallen understanding of mankind onto the absolute and divine.

And

The description of this above ambiguous. specifically in Christianity:

Specifically in Christianity:
In contrast, Apophatic theology making positive statements about the nature of God, which occurs in most Western forms of Christian theology, is sometimes called cataphatic theology. Eastern Christianity makes use of both apophatic and cataphatic theology. Adherents of the apophatic tradition in Christianity hold that, outside of directly-revealed knowledge through Scripture and Sacred Tradition (such as the Trinitarian nature of God), God in His essence is beyond the limits of what human beings (or even angels) can understand; He is transcendent in essence (ousia). Further knowledge must be sought in a direct experience of God or His indestructible energies through theoria (vision of God). In Eastern Christianity, God is immanent in his hypostasis or existences.

Negative theology played an important role early in the history of Christianity, for example, in the works of Clement of Alexandria. Three more theologians who emphasized the importance of negative theology to an orthodox understanding of God were Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great. John of Damascus employed it when he wrote that positive statements about God reveal "not the nature, but the things around the nature." It continues to be prominent in Eastern Christianity (see Gregory Palamas). Apophatic statements are crucial to much modern theologians in Orthodox Christianity (see Vladimir Lossky, John Meyendorff, John S. Romanides and Georges Florovsky).

In Orthodox theology, apophatic theology is taught as superior to cataphatic theology. While Aquinas felt positive and negative theology should be seen as dialetical correctives to each other, like thesis and antithesis producing a synthesis, Lossky argues, based on his reading of Dionysius and Maximus Confessor, that positive theology is always inferior to negative theology, a step along the way to the superior knowledge attained by negation. This is expressed in the idea that mysticism is the expression of dogmatic theology par excellence.

Negative theology has a place in the Western Christian tradition as well, although it is definitely much more of a counter-current to the prevailing positive or cataphatic traditions central to Western Christianity. For example, theologians like Meister Eckhart and St. John of the Cross (San Juan de la Cruz), mentioned above, exemplify some aspects of or tendencies towards the apophatic tradition in the West. The medieval work, The Cloud of Unknowing and St John's Dark Night of the Soul are particularly well-known in the West.

So that is all a lot of stuff for me to look into and read more about. Much of it I have encountered but theosis, for some reason avoided me till this point and really tied together a lot of ideas, thoughts and experiences I have had regarding the topic.

Much as the passage "The Kingdom of God is within" I don't find it irony then that all these 'new' ideas and theologies I am finding myself in, have been there, in the Christian theologiy as expounded and expressed from what is the Word.

Funny how life works in circles like that.

It's my intention to log and journal this information for my own records and processes. And I certainly do and still welcome discussion or thoughts shared on the matters at hand.

Thanks for reading and allowing me to share with you.

It's great if you too find any merit in the words. It's not my intention to lecture, but as I said is more for the process of seeing my thoughts come together, as they have, which is so cool and neat too see how things are revealed me in time.

Namaste
SageTree