How the Eastern Orthodox deny the Holy Trinity!
They have a different God.
During my time studying the differences between Eastern Orthodox church and other churches I have come to a very shocking conclusion.
I believe the Eastern Orthodox church worship another God than Evangelical Christians, Protestants, and even Roman Catholics. That is how bad their heresy is!
And the irony is, that the Orthodox criticize Protestant and Catholics alike for their use of systematic theology, instead of the Eastern Orthodox preference for discursive theology, yet on one subject only, God Himself, the Orthodox seek to spiritually pseudo-analyse God, in a manner other churches would see as impious encyclopaedic dissection, due to their vision of themselves as the only wise people on Planet Earth.
The Orthodox will argue until they are blue in the face they only believe in the Trinity, but they will also argue till they are blue in the face the believes "Jesus Saves" when they do not. They keep ignoring the consequences of their own theology. Those of us who seek the truth can see that they are blasphemously doctrinally altering who God is in eternity by heir vain belief in theosis.
They do not believe in the Holy Trinity.
The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of salvation not found in Catholicism (and certainly not in Evangelicalism) called Theosis. Being deified is actually part of their so called "process of salvation".
No start date.
So far as I understand there is no "start date" to the process of theosis in Orthodoxy. This is very theologically significant, as Catholics and Protestants both say people in the Mosaic covenant (like Moses, David and Solomon) all had "a nature that tends toward doing evil" (but do not agree on Adams guilt being inherited), and also Noah (under the Noahic Covenant) Abraham (under the Abrahamic covenant) etc. Being born again is one of the "new and better promises" only of the new covenant (though again Protestants and Catholics disagree on what born again is, Protestants say it is to be spiritually reborn to receive "a new nature tending toward good" the Catholics link it to infant sprinkling).
Thus we have a theological contradiction in Orthodoxy, How can a person who has "a nature tending toward evil" ever be involved in a process to unite with God? They might say this means their theology must be therefore Pelagian, but I believe it is clearly Semi-Pelagian, and it is just a theological gaff or blunder on their part. It is such a contradiction you will see them twisting, turning, and swapping about their definitions of Theosis.
What is the origin of their false idea of a God united with millions of deities?
It seems likely this idea of a triad God united with millions of smaller deities comes from the Hindu religion. Please note I am not trying to prove the Hindu God is the same as the Trinity. or is even a Trinity, but I am suggesting they borrowed the idea of uniting God with thousands of other beings, as if one God.
1) Brahma the creator,
2) Vishnu the preserver
3) Shiva the destroyer,
though individual Hindu denominations may vary from that particular line-up. When all three deities of the Trimurti incarnate into a single avatar, the avatar is known as Dattatreya.
These are then united with a whole pantheon of other minor gods (comparable to theosis) just as in Eastern Orthodoxy, except in Orthodoxy the beings were all humans before being united into God.
The comparison is of further concern as the Hindu Trinity has a female component, and by adding females to God the Orthodox do this too,
Hindu gurus even wear turbans, just as the bishops of Eastern Orthodox churches wear the turban mitre and have the same unkempt, long. mystic type beards Eastern gurus always have, and long hair too. They have also adopted the word "Eastern" directly into the name of their church.
The Hindus also have shrines of this pantheon of gods at home, and burn incense to them and light candles. The whole thing seems to fit together as a near perfect comparison of how the Orthodox church became corrupted by Eastern mystic religions. Praying to the false gods was replaced by praying to a pantheon of saints.
I am no expert on Hinduism, but the comparisons are worryingly close to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Homoousios, - an alternative way the Theosis heresy evolved.
Homoousios is the term that was invented to describe Jesus and the Father being "of the same substance" (without really defining substance) so as to show Jesus is co-equal to the Father, by avoiding the term "of a similar substance" which might be used to deny Christ's place in the co-equal Godhead. It seems likely the idea professed by Orthodoxy (as if they can dissect God's inner Being) of God being made up of "essence" and "energies" was a later arrogant additional analysis, and led to the doctrine of Theosis, that of becoming one with God in his energies not his essence. I am sure the historical evidence to prove that one way or another would be massive.
If it was proved however, that first came the doctrine of Homoousios , and this led to "ousia" the essence and energies of God, and thus heretically to Theosis, it would of course prove they had added a new concept of salvation hundreds of years after Jesus ascended into heaven, and would put to rest their idea they preach the identical same thing as the Apostles. The whole idea of ousia is distinct to Orthodoxy.
Ousia: Essence, substance. In the 4th century, there was a major dispute as to the essence of Jesus Christ. The orthodox believers, such as Athanasius, said that Jesus is homoousios, of the same essence as God the Father. Heretics such as the Arians said that Jesus is homoiousios, of a similar essence of the Father. Some said that He was homoios, or similar in outlook or morality rather than similar in essence. Still other heretics said that Jesus was heteroousios or anomoios, both meaning different in essence from the Father. The Council of Nicea (AD 325) rightly affirmed the full deity of Christ and stated in the Nicene Creed that Jesus Christ is “of one substance with the Father”.
The essence–energies distinction is an Eastern Orthodox theological concept which states that there is a distinction between the essence (ousia) and the energies (energeia) of God. It was formulated by Gregory Palamas of Thessaloniki(1296-1359), as part of his defense of the Athonite monastic practice of hesychasmos[note 1] against the charge of heresybrought by the humanist scholar and theologian Barlaam of Calabria.
A comparative example why.
There is an heresy, preached I think at one time by Benny Hinn (who later took it back because he was so pressurized into it) that, quote "the seven spirits of God" quoted 3 times in the Book of Revelation, or to Catholics in The Apocalypse, means God does no only have three distinct persons in the one true God, but that there are in fact 4 more, making seven. That would be utter and complete heresy. The true meaning in context is God is described as having:
1) Seven horns - all powerful, the Almighty God.
2) Seven eyes - all seeing, all knowing, the Omniscient God.
3) Seven spirits. - all spiritual, the Supreme Spiritual Being.
God ii the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To add to him or take away from him is heresy.
Thus it is plain - the idea (entirely a proud human idea) that God will become one God with millions of different other beings (that is us) is pure heresy, and an adding to the concept and eternal truth of the Holy Trinity.
Feminization of God.
What is more it feminizes God who is entirely masculine in Spirit (masculine not male) as females are "added to God".
When did theosis begin?
Will Adam? Noah? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? Moses? David? John the Baptist (died before the new covenant was sealed) and the thief on the cross (died before the new covenant was sealed) also all enter into the "One true God" Or just the Eastern Orthodox?
The question must be asked: has anyone who has "passed into eternity" right now, already achieved this "unity" with God? Or is this vision of a false God they have a future event?