Theosis has been taught everywhere, always, in Christendom. It is truly a catholic (universal) teaching.

To answer your question, Psalm 82 is directed to all mankind. We were created with a purpose, to become like Him. This is the entire purpose of the creation of mankind. The fact that in our fallen state we have become something we were not created to be is irrelevant.

In John 10, Christ is using Psalm 82:6 to rebuke the Jews. They objected to His deity; He responded by saying that the Psalm that "gods" refers "to whom the word of God came". Has the word of God come to you? Has it come to me? Has it come to the whole world, gentiles and Jews alike? Christ's teaching is clear - that psalm applied to all that the word of God had come to, and now it applies to all men. This is the good news!

We were created in His image and likeness.

You are not understanding theosis, you are taking it too literally. He is the Existing one, there is no other God, we do not become God. His Essence is always beyond us. But, we become like Him, as St Maximos says, we ascend to our prototype, and become conformed to Him like wax to a seal (cf Romans 12:2).

The ultimate salvation is to become gods by Grace what He is by Nature, as Romans 5:2 tells us "we exult in the hope of the glory of God". I quoted from 2 Peter, we partake of the divine nature - and so become commingled with the divine, and become like God. Not just Holy as an absence of evil, but Holy like He is Holy. Not just not-dead, but alive, because He is alive. We share in His divinity. Phil 1:6 says that ultimately the work of perfection will be completed, we will become perfect.

Quote:

---

You are not understanding theosis, you are taking it too literally. He is the Existing one, there is no other God, we do not become God....The ultimate salvation is to become gods by Grace what He is by Nature

---

Do you see how these statements could be confusing? I will grant you that believers share much with Christ in this life and in the next. However I would not describe the future glorification (salvation) of a believer as becoming 'gods.'

Psalm 82: Context
God takes His stand in His own congregation;
He judges in the midst of the rulers.
2 How long will you judge unjustly
And show partiality to the wicked?
...I said, "You are gods, [Who is the "You"]
And all of you are sons of the Most High.
7 "Nevertheless you will die like men
And fall like any one of the princes."

These corrupt rulers and judges were to rule and judge the nation according to the law; however they were corrupt: showing partiality, taking bribes, neglecting the poor and needy. They were to act on behalf of God but instead made themselves 'gods' in their own eyes and decided to rule and exercise authority according to their own desires...nevertheless they [corrupt rulers] will die like men.

DirtDiver said:

---

... as accepting Him is something very unique.

---

There is no such thing as "very unique."

By definition, unique is one of a kind.

It either is or it isn't unique.

It can be almost unique, but not very, a little, partially unique.

It is the quintessential uncomparable adjective.

No, I do not find these statements can be confusing, because they exist in a holistic way as part of the fabric of faith. Saying Jesus Christ is God is also not confusing, because it is part of the fabric of the faith. A person who does not understand that there is One God may think that the dpctrine of the Trinity is confusing.

There's a reason that I said we become gods by grace what God is by Nature. If He can mystically unite Himself to the form and essence of being a Man -- and we believe He was actually a man, who ate and drank and slept -- why do you presume He cannot unite our fallen Nature to Himself?

Remember that the prophecy in the OT is the Holy Spirit, and that the God of the OT is Christ, the pre-Incarnate Word. So the same Spirit speaking in Psalm 82 through Asaph is speaking in the Gospel of John.

He teaches that Psalm 82 refers to Himself as a Son of God (the Most High). Properly, the first Son, first fruits of the future of mankind (cf Colossians 1:18-19). He teaches the Jews that it isn't blasphemous for Him to say "I am the Son of God" because their own scriptures say that all who are sons (plural!) of the Most High are gods!

Your interpretation of Psalm 82 makes no sense in Christ's usage. How would referring to himself as a corrupt ruler and judge be a refutation of the charge of blasphemy?

Christ said "I and the Father are One". The Jews responded that this was blasphemy, because "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." He flatly says it's not blasphemous for Him to say "I am the Son of God" because Psalm 82 refers to sons of the Most High as gods. Jesus is truly God's Son, right? And He is God? So what validates His claim to deity? Oneness with the Father and Sonship.

Acts 17 St Paul says we are the offspring of God - sonship.

In Ephesians 1 he says that we are His sons, and that God's will is to gather all things together in Christ, and as members of the Church we are the body of Christ who "fills all in all". Oneness and sonship.

Romans 8:14 is explicit, "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." In 8:29 St Paul says we will be conformed to the image of His Son, "so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers."

In John 17 Christ pays for all believers, "that they may be one as we are one I in them and you in meso that they may be brought to complete unity." Oneness. Oneness with Him and the Father to the same degree that He was One with the Father - and, through that union with the divine, we would be in complete unity with each other.

Remember the original basis for the accusation of blasphemy? "I and the Father are One" and "I am the Son of God". We are to be one as Christ is One with the Father, and Sons by adoption as He is the Son. Don't be as confused as the Jews were.

///

Here are some promises for us in the context of salvation from the NT
- We will partake of the divine nature (1 Peter 2:4)
- We will have every spiritual blessing (Eph 1:3)
- We will be holy, without blame (Eph 1:4)
- Will be sons, children of God (Romans 8, Rev 21:7, etc etc among many)
- We will be glorified together with Christ (Romans 8:17)
- We will be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29)
- We will be one with the Father and Christ and each other (John 17)
- We will be filled all in all to the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:23)
- We will be filled up to all the fullness of God (Eph 3:19)
- We will grow to the full measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph 4:13,15)
- We will be joined to the Lord and will be one spirit with Him (1 Cor 3:17)
- Our lives will be hidden with Christ in God (Col 3:3)
- We will be sanctified completely (2 Thess 5:23)
- We were called to obtain the glory of Jesus Christ (2 Thess 2:14)
- We can be as He in now, while we are in this world (1 John 4:17)
- We will be like Christ (1 John 3:2)
- Our bodies will be transformed and conformed to His glorious body (Phil 3:21)

If you took a being that was all of those things, what would you call it? A being that is a son of God, holy and without blame, conformed to the image of God, one with God, filled to the fullness of God, the same measure and stature as Christ, immortal. That's not a mere man, not any more. That's a divine being.

CS Lewis wasn't Orthodox, but in Mere Christianity he said:

Quote:

---

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 Himfor we can prevent Him, if we chooseHe will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creatures, 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 Him 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.

---

St Maximos says we become "all that God is, except for an identity in being...when one is deified by grace."

Quote:

---

Your interpretation of Psalm 82 makes no sense in Christ's usage. How would referring to himself as a corrupt ruler and judge be a refutation of the charge of blasphemy?

---

In John, He's not referring to himself as a corrupt ruler. Remember, in John 10 he's speaking to the religious leaders/rulers of that day.
Jesus, "I'm the Son of God"
Rulers, "We are going to kill you for blasphemy because we know that means you are claiming to be God"
Jesus, "but your own scriptures call you guys - the rulers that I'm speaking to- 'gods'

I'm guessing that this was suppose to convict the Pharisees of their own sinfulness by identifying these corrupt Pharisees with the corrupt ones in Psalm 82. Jesus then points them to His good works which could also be contrasted with the corrupt works of the Pharisees.

I believe that we may be getting caught up in a semantical argument. If you agree that in our divine nature:
1. We will never be worthy of worship.
2. We will never be on equal footing with Jesus or God (always subject to Him)
Then we may be on the page but using different terms.

I'm not personally comfortable with that term. There is a group that uses this statement, "as man is, God once was, as God is man will become" I disagree with this whole heartedly.

Quote:

---

Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

---

This doesn't make any sense with what you're saying. Christ said "If he [Asaph] called them gods, how can you [Jews] say of Him [Jesus] you are blaspheming." There's nothing to indicate Christ was telling them they were the gods in question or in anyway.

Quote:

---

I believe that we may be getting caught up in a semantical argument. If you agree that in our divine nature:
1. We will never be worthy of worship.
2. We will never be on equal footing with Jesus or God (always subject to Him)
Then we may be on the page but using different terms.

---

We never have "our" divine nature. Our nature is not divine; His nature is divine. We become like Him by association with Him, to an extent that the end of one and beginning of another is impossible to find. Completely hidden in Christ is what St Paul says.

The language is provocative, and intentionally so. Just as Christ's language was provocative when He referred to Himself as the Son of God, and St Paul's language was provocative when he told the Greek philosophers that we were all children of God.

We are not God, we will never be God (in that He is uncreated and the Only Existing One, and the source and creator of All). Yet we will be God in that we will be completely and fully like Him.

No, we won't be worshiped, and no we won't be "equal" in that Christ is preexisting and we aren't. But we will be equal as sons, because He is adopting us into the same sonship as Christ. Christ was the first of many brothers.

Your discomfort with the term is the reason I press the point. Because of the modern ignorance to this teaching, people now believe they just "go to heaven" or "progress in good works and faith" blah blah. The reality is so much more.

Your heretical statement is not applicable to the doctrine of theosis, and whoever says blasphemous things should not be associated with this teaching.

Quote:

---

This doesn't make any sense with what you're saying. Christ said "If he [Asaph] called them gods, how can you [Jews] say of Him [Jesus] you are blaspheming." There's nothing to indicate Christ was telling them they were the gods in question or in anyway

---

It also doesn't follow that he would be teaching non-believing Pharisees about (theosis) - all believers being partakers of the divine nature- at this point, right?

Here's another interpretive option to chew on. Imagine the conversation of Jesus in John 10 going like this, with Jesus talking...
Jesus : Hey guys, put down your stones and think objectively. What do the scriptures say? If someone speaks for God or comes from God there is a sense in which they could be called 'gods' with a little 'g' because of their representation. If the scripture says this about corrupt men in Psalm 82, how much more should it be okay to call the perfect, sinless, incarnate God himself...God. This claim that I'm making can also be validated if you look at my works.

You are free to have the last word on this as I don't think there's much more I could offer. Good discussion.