Showing posts with label deification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deification. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

The Dominican Push

Monday, June 09, 2025

Economic Trinity With Respect to Deification

Saturday, July 02, 2022

Latin Take on Deification

Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Garrigou-Lagrange Account of Deification

Friday, August 13, 2021

Agree or Disagree?

Friday, July 23, 2021

Theosis

Monday, April 05, 2021

The Mission of the Church

Friday, March 26, 2021

Interview with Jared Ortiz



CWR

Saturday, January 16, 2021

Pre-Lenten Retreat with Fr. Khaled Anatolios

Monday, January 11, 2021

Franciscan Simplicity

Just the other day he posted this:




The "hidden life" or the daily life of Christ before His public ministry was nonetheless a manifestation of the glory of the Son of God. Daily life by itself is not "important to God"; what is important is that Christ redeemed it through His incarnation. It is not what we offer, but what God offers to us.

Sunday, November 22, 2020

Fr. Cyril Horovun on Theosis



Friday, October 16, 2020

I Love, Therefore I Am

Thursday, May 28, 2020

An Endorsement of Participation in God

Thursday, May 14, 2020

Participation in God by Andrew Davison

Cambridge University Press



A review by James Clark at FPR: Imagining Divine Participation

Related:
Church Times review by David Brown.

The CT review has this bit:

In a rare exception, Moltmann’s idea of God’s making space for the world is declared unchristian, whereas from that perspective it is surely Davison, not Moltmann, who radically diminishes the divine nature in not allowing that God could ever create anything radically different from his own nature. Equally, Moltmann would offer a quite different way of thinking about the inexplicable and evil.

What happened to God's being unable to create a square circle not contradicting his omnipotence?

Again, the doctrine of the Trinity is simply assumed throughout, and no attempt is made to engage with why Platonism might have thought its introduction unnecessarily complicating in the conception of everything as derived from one single source.

If course it is assumed, it's a book about Christian doctrine, and Davison would probably acknowledge that it is something that we cannot know or prove by reason alone but a truth that must be revealed to us by God Himself. One wonders about the author of the review...
Of course, Christianity had an answer in insisting on the introduction of the Trinity as revealed doctrine; but, again, except in his introductory section when discussing creation, Davison entirely fails to engage with the way in which our understanding of scripture has changed. St John’s Gospel is repeatedly quoted as though it gave us the historical mind of Jesus, but does it? And, if not, how easily can Aquinas’s account of the incarnate one survive? But what, even, of participation itself? It would seem odd to make the term foundational of all Christian thought if it is not found reflected somewhere in human experience. Yet Davison fails to discuss what might be meant by such experience.
The reviewer sounds like a liberal Protestant. What sort of Christian life is he living if he does not understand that Christians participate in the life of Christ?

Monday, April 13, 2020

Deification of Man in Christianity

Deification of Man in Christianity by Marcelle Bartolo-Abela (his website?)
Apostolate of the Divine Heart (12 Mar 2014)
ISBN: 978-0615809465



Review in Catholic Medical Quarterly.
Available from Amazon.

Monday, March 09, 2020

Eastern Christian Books: Deification Through the Cross

Eastern Christian Books: Deification Through the Cross

Eerdmans: Deification through the Cross: An Eastern Christian Theology of Salvation by Khaled Anatolios
Anatolios uses the phrase “doxological contrition” to suggest that the truth of salvation is found both in Jesus’s perfect glorification of God and in his representative repentance for humanity’s sinful rejection of its original calling to participate in the life of the Holy Trinity.

I personally don't see the need to combine Byzantine and Latin views of soteriology in this way but apparently Anatolios does.