The Premise
St. Athanasius wrote that “God became man so that man might become God”; this is the doctrine of divinization, or theosis. In other articles, I speak of prayer, operative grace, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit – but what of divinization itself? What does it mean to “become God,” and how does it happen? Generally, disagreements about this fall along the East-West fault line. The most influential teachers are, respectively, Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas. I will discuss their differences not for the sake of apologetics (especially since I think these views are reconcilable), but for the sake of deepening how we understand the truth by contrasting the two theories, and offering some insights on both.
Deifying Grace
The Essence-Energy Distinction and Uncreated Grace
First, the Eastern doctrine of “uncreated grace.” A 13th century Orthodox monk, Barlaam of Seminara, in criticizing the Latin Church’s position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, claimed that statements about God’s nature should be entirely abandoned, since His nature is not in any way demonstrable. Barlaam suggested that participation in God can only be through the mediation of created things – particularly study, which he argued was necessary for Christian perfection. He argued that the theophanies (the burning bush, the light of the transfiguration) were mere creaturely effects, not actually God. Gregory Palamas, a monk with a greater focus on inner stillness than learning, argued that Barlaam’s theory made the power of the Holy Spirit, “which transformed fishermen into Apostles,” into nothing. An Eastern synod agreed with Palamas that Barlaam was effectively elevating philosophy over the Holy Spirit and condemned his writings.
To explore Palamas’ argument against Barlaam, we must first understand his distinction between essence and energy. Essence is the “what-ness” of a thing, whereas the energies are the expression of that essence. So, for example: you cannot interact directly with fire’s essence, but you can interact with fire’s energies by standing near fire and enjoying the heat. Palamas argues that God is the same way – we can interact with His energies (grace), but not His essence. However, this does not turn God into a composite being; the same way heat is not “numerically separate” from fire’s essence, but connatural to it, really imparting the effect of fire’s distinct essence, so God’s energies (wisdom, justice, truth) emanate from Him and really are Him, not a composition or a medium. This real distinction protects God’s absolute transcendence while still allowing us to really participate in Him.
The Palamites reject the idea that we can interact with God’s essence in any way. From their perspective, that would require consubstantiality. Palamas refuses to even make apophatic claims about God’s essence – for example, he would not say something like “God’s essence is good.” Rather, he would say “God’s essence is beyond good and evil.” Palamas responded to the accusation that his teaching contradicted divine simplicity by saying – quite beautifully – that, “God is indivisibly divided and united divisibly, and experiences neither multiplicity nor composition.” This inaccessible transcendence means we cannot participate in God’s essence in Heaven, but rather participate in His uncreated energies more intimately.
Created Grace
Next, the Western doctrine of “created grace.” This was most comprehensively set forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. It is also the foundation of most Protestant theology surrounding sanctification. This doctrine holds to absolute divine simplicity, as opposed to Palamite simplicity with real distinction. Under the Thomistic system, one might view God as the “soul,” or animating principle, of reality. As the soul permeates every cell of the body without being contained by them, so God’s essence (which is existence) permeates all things, but as containing them, not as contained by them (Summa Q8, A3). The process of divinization cannot involve God drawing closer to us, since omnipresence already entails perfect closeness. Rather, divinization is a process whereby we draw closer to Him by some effect within us. Since we are creatures, all effects within us must also be creatures, and thus we have the term “created grace.”
St. Thomas teaches that sanctifying grace is an entitative habit within the soul which makes one pleasing to God. An entitative habit is an accident (not an essence) which changes one’s disposition. For example, gender is an entitative habit. Although manhood is merely accidental, the entitative habit of manhood modifies every operative expression of the human essence. It gives one the interior desire, capacity, and ability to know and achieve that which pertains to manhood. Sanctifying grace orders the soul to God as manhood orders the body to fatherhood, protecting the tribe, and so forth. And what does the habitual inclination towards God look like? Knowing and loving Him, as He eternally knows and loves Himself. Sanctifying grace is, therefore: God’s own self-knowledge and self-love infused in us so that we may know and love Him.
But surely God’s own self-knowledge and self-love are uncreated? Indeed they are. Why, then, do we call sanctifying grace “created grace?” The reason we call sanctifying grace “created” is because our participation in it is created (Summa Q110, A2 R2). The entitative habit of manhood would exist even if this or that particular man didn’t exist; yet, the particular created expression of manhood in that man would not exist without him. Likewise, God’s own self-knowledge and self-love would exist even if this or that saint didn’t exist; yet, grace’s particular expression of God’s self-knowledge and self-love in that saint would not exist without him. Even the indwelling of the (obviously) uncreated Holy Spirit – which greatly strengthens the effects of sanctifying grace – is a created participation in the uncreated Spirit. As whiteness (essence) makes an object white (accident), sanctifying grace makes the soul Godly (Summa Q110, A2 R1).
Beatific Vision
The hottest debate with the East is on the subject of Heaven. St. Thomas suggests that Heaven is God replacing our discursive concept of Him with His actual essence. That is, instead of knowing a model, we know Him by direct intellection through a special grace (Summa Q12). It’s analogous to the difference between the way you know a frog and the way you know cause-and-effect. You know a frog by holding its species in the mind and considering frogness; you know cause-and-effect by direct, fundamental, intuitive vision. In this latter way we see God “face to face,” “as He is,” and “know [Him] fully, even as [we] are fully known [by Him]” (1 Cor 13:12, 1 John 3:2). This is unthinkable for many Palamites. Only through the distinction between grace and created participation can Latins suggest that seeing God’s essence does not entail consubstantiality.
Although all the blessed in Heaven see God face-to-face, they remain distinct in three ways. First, the degree of charity. The more love one has, the more intellectual light they will receive, and the more clearly they will see God (Summa Q12, A6). Since God’s mind is infinite, He can see Himself with perfect clarity. The blessed are all finite, so despite the direct vision, they can never fully comprehend God (Summa Q92, A1-R2). Thus, they are distinct from God in their finitude, and distinct from each other in their understanding. Second, nature. Angels are distinct from each other in their unique angelic natures, and obviously distinct from humans. Third, accidents. We know, for example, that we will be men and women in Heaven, for the resurrected Christ was yet a man. Further, He had other unique accidents, such as the wounds of His hands, feet, and side.
The Errors of Strict Palamism
Now, I am of the persuasion that these views are actually completely reconcilable. I think that in many cases, Palamites and Thomists are saying the exact same thing using different systems. The main principles in both are clear: we experience God directly without mediation, yet without becoming consubstantial and without grasping His essence. We could, for example, posit that the beatific vision is an uncreated energy the blessed receive. However, I wish to advance the Thomistic concept for two reasons. The first is that the Palamite position can and (in modernity) often is formulated in a heretical fashion, explicitly denying the Beatific Vision. The second is that I find the Thomistic teaching more precise and helpful, even if both are substantially true. With that – the issues with the “strict” form of Palamism:
First, it unnecessarily puts God at a distance by making creation a patient upon which His energies act. It almost treats omnipresence as a footnote to a discussion about “really” experiencing God, and this is misleading. Creation is not a patient; creation exists ex nihilo. Everything is a “partaker in the divine nature,” which is existence (2 Peter). Divinization cannot involve God becoming more present to us, because God is already omnipresent; “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Rather, it must refer to us becoming more present to Him. The sun shines over the whole earth; he who sees is he who opens his eyes. The best way to describe this reality is a created (that is, accidental) participation.
Second, it provides no explanation for the theophanies that the Thomist cannot provide, and actually raises more questions. For example, the Palamite would say God was really present in the burning bush by His uncreated energies. Sure; but how? If He was present in the physical sense, then we must posit “uncreated photons” which Moses would nevertheless only receive through the medium of his eyes. If God was present in the mystical sense, then He was presenting His light directly to Moses’ intellect – exactly the sort of thing the Thomist would suggest. And either way, would this experience of God’s energies not be a finite, created participation on Moses’ side?
Third, it contradicts the plain words of scripture by putting us at a distance from God’s essence in Heaven. “We see now through a glass in a dark manner, but then face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). “We shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2). “Show Thy face and we shall be saved” (Psalm 79:20). “Lord, show us the Father and we shall be satisfied” (John 14:8). “[The saints] will see His face” (Rev 22:4). “I shall behold your face in righteousness” (Psalm 17:15). “Come,’ my heart says, ‘seek his face!’ Your face, Lord, do I seek” (Psalm 27:8). Further, rejecting the Beatific Vision (direct vision) was condemned by Florence, Benedictus Deus, Mysitici Corporis, and Allatae Sunt.
Fourth, Palamism emphasizes experience of God over desire for God. The Eastern system views interaction with the “uncreated light” as the pinnacle of theosis in this life. In the West, the emphasis is entirely on the growth of charity – that is, desire for God – not experience per se. The overarching thesis of St. John of the Cross’ works is, for example, that faith is complete darkness. This paradigm also emphasizes the true category difference between earth and heaven. On earth, we know God by the intuitive vision of faith, seeing Him only “darkly, as through glass.” In Heaven, faith is replaced by the Lumen Gloriae, the intuitive vision by which we see Him “as He is.” This attitude seems more conducive to ascetically carrying out one’s duties.
Conclusion
I do not suspect that all I said above has left you feeling like you’ve grasped divinization. This is one mystery the sublimity of which reminds me of the words of St. Augustine: “If you understand God, what you understand isn’t God.” Although we cannot fully grasp divinization, the teachings of these massively influential theologians should help us to understand the critical idea that divinization is an intensely intimate, direct, unmediated participation in God. Truly, supernatural grace in the soul makes us into “little gods,” His own children.