From Fetus to Life: Theosis in Cabasilas & the Inklings

by David Fagerberg

Feast of St. Macrina, Sister of St. Basil the Great
Anno Domini 2016, July 19


ST NICHOLAS Cabasilas, the medieval Byzantine theologian and master of the Mysteries (sacraments), offers a very interesting way of thinking about theosis. He writes, “As nature prepares the fetus, while it is in its dark and fluid life, for that life which is in the light, and shapes it, as though according to a model, for the life which it is about to receive, so likewise it happens to the saints” ( The Life in Christ 1.2).

We can imagine the fetus thinking, Why do these bones in my legs continue to grow when they only cramp up the limited space I have? What are they for? They’re of no use to me here, in this place. Why this nose when there is nothing to smell, these eyes when it is totally dark, these lungs that are ill-suited to this liquid environment? It is a waste to be developing these faculties because they are of no use to me in my present life, in my present condition.

But having made the comparison between the baby and the saint, Cabasilas points out an important way in which they are different.

While the unborn have no perception whatever of this life, the blessed ones have many hints in this present life of things to come. . . . The unborn do not yet possess this life, but it is wholly in the future. In that condition there is no ray of light nor anything else which sustains this life. In our case this is not so, but that future light is, as it were, infused into this present life and mingled with it. . . . In this present world, therefore, it is possible for the saints not only to be disposed and prepared for that life, but also even now to live and act in accordance with it ( The Life in Christ 1.2).

Some faculties that have been forming in us since baptism, our other dark and fluid home, may also seem like they are growing inside to no purpose; we have not used them as we should; we are clumsy and incomplete in how we wield the theological virtues we have been given; we have gifts prematurely, it seems.

Yet, Cabasilas is saying, we fetal saints do have some perception, even now in this life, of what is yet to come because the ending of the plot (our life) has been shown in Revelation. It is the purpose of Revelation to give a glimpse of the upcoming theosis , both in the formative Torah and the divining prophets, and the revelation in the flesh outside Bethlehem. Only after we have seen the flower can we understand the seed; until we see the tulip, the bulb looks like a gnarled knob; until we run, we do not know what legs are for; the Omega is required to understand the Alpha; the son of God made flesh is required to understand the predestination of men and women.

I think each of the Inklings was on to this. Their stories and writings taught us to be disposed and prepared for that life, and to live and act even now in accordance with it. The clues are strewn throughout their writings.

Tolkien calls us “sub-creators” because, like the God in whose image we are made, we can create little cosmoses: that’s what fairy tales are. He does not define fairy stories as childish stories, or even stories for children; he defines them as stories about Faerie. It is a particular mood in which we find all things to be enchanted—tree and bird, water and stone, wine and bread, and we ourselves, mortal men and women. Each fairy story has its own mode of reflecting truth, he adds, and one of the truest and most moving sensations in a fairy story is the sudden happy turn “which pierces you with a joy that brings tears (which I argued it is the highest function of fairy-stories to produce).” To name this experience he coined the word eucatastrophe , from eu- (good) and cata-strophe (unraveling a drama’s plot). “And I concluded by saying that the Resurrection was the greatest eucatastrophe possible in the greatest Fairy Story” ( The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien , 100). Think of the saints that have lived a joy such as is capable of bringing tears.

Owen Barfield speaks of “poetic diction,” which means selecting and arranging words in such a way that their meaning arouses aesthetic imagination. And when he tries to describe in more detail what that means, he finds himself “obliged to define it as a ‘felt change of consciousness’” ( Poetic Diction , 48). Deification would change our consciousness of everything. However, capacitation for such a consciousness requires that the world be perceived by the whole person. “I do not perceive any thing with my sense-organs alone, but with a great part of my whole human being. . . . When I ‘hear a thrush singing,’ I am hearing, not with my ears alone, but with all sorts of other things like mental habits, memory, imagination, feeling, and will” ( Saving the Appearances , 20). Like the fetus in the womb, we are still waiting for our most startling contact with reality, when we will have the resurrected body, but unlike the fetus we can already detect it because we perceive the world not with sense organs alone, but with divinely graced memories, imaginations, feelings, and wills.

What quotes shall I take from Lewis to bring him into the discussion? All the characters in Narnia long to go further up and further in, as much as the fetus longs to get further out. They want to go into Aslan's country, where the inside is bigger than the outside, where all that mattered of the old Narnia has been drawn through the door into the real Narnia . . .

Want to read the rest? Become an Eighth Day Member to receive a copy of the issue of Synaxis in which the full article appears.

And join us for the 10th annual Eighth Day Symposium where Dr. Fagerberg will be presenting a plenary lecture and a breakout session on holiness. Learn more and register here.

Share this Post on Your Preferred Platform

By Mark C. Watney August 25, 2026
Inside the head of my three-month-old granddaughter, Lucy, said G.K. Chesterton is, "a new universe, as new as it was on the seventh day of creation...a new system of stars, new grass, new cities...and new seas." And this is because, he adds: The gravity of astonishment at the universe...dwells in the eyes of a baby three-months-old [and] the universe is put upon its trial and forces us actually to remodel our conduct...we seem to be dealing with a new race, only to be seen through a microscope...[with] delightful bulbous heads, three times too big for the body. But Chesterton's central thesis in this essay is not that babies are so marvelous, but that our treatment of each other as adults, in contrast, is so broken. "It is our attitude towards grown-up people that is wrong," he writes, because we no longer see each other with astonishment and wonder (unless, that is, we are falling in love). But babies remind us that humans really are astonishing, and this "revolutionary theory of the marvelousness of all things" should force us to "remodel our conduct" toward everyone we meet. A baby seems to be a necessary icon for us, correcting our eyesight which grows old and struggles to see "the weight of glory" in each other as teenagers, adults, and perhaps especially, as old people. Even though he did not reference icons in his essay, we seem to drift very easily into what could be called a type of iconoclasm, an inability to see each other as image bearers of God Himself. William Wordsworth describes us as "trailing clouds of glory" when we first arrive here "from God, who is our home." But soon, he says, "shades of the prison-house" begin to smother us, and we forget. "We bow to grown people," says Chesterton in this same essay, "take off our hats to them, refrain from contradicting them flatly, but we do not appreciate them properly." God speaks to us, like we are working through in St. John of Damascus , through the "cataphatic or apophatic spectrum of theology," or literally from the spoken word (cataphatic) or unspeakable word (apophatic). Apophatic I noticed has the same root in Greek as Infant does in Latin. Both mean "unspoken." God has given us both bibles and babies, speechless wonders through which He means to unglaze our eyes and fill us with astonishment. MARK C. WATNEY is professor emeritus at Sterling College, assisting in its newly established C. S. Lewis Center. He has given papers at Harvard's Center for Hellenic Studies and Dordt College
By Michael Simmon August 25, 2026
"God became man, so that man might become God." St. Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation (54:3)  These words from St. Athanasius may sound, at first blush, provocative. However, St. Athanasius is restating, perhaps more simply, what St. Peter says in his second epistle: the promise of being united to Christ is that men and women made in His image will partake in His divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Paul Kingsnorth's latest book, Against the Machine, inverts this idea and opens our eyes to the world emerging at a rapid rate, the world dominated by what he calls The Machine. The new mantra of The Machine age is, instead, this: Man will become God by Man's own self-creation. Reading Kingsnorth is not for the faint of heart. It's easy to be overcome by despair. The goal of the Machine age is "transhumanism", to be liberated from the constraints of the body. For the transhumanist (self-described), the future is disembodied. The future is limitless. But this is not liberation. Because the Machine is not limited to the physical world, it follows naturally there is a spiritual nature to this lifestyle, what he ultimately identifies as a manisfestation and/or manipulation of the demonic. Whether or not you agree with his ultimate conclusion, we can see its effects. An entire generation, and many across generations, addicted to screens. Disintegration of communal life, most disastrously in the breakdown of the family. Increasing rates of loneliness, depression, and suicide, especially among children. It's clear we need a Savior, and the Machine isn't it. Instead, Kingsnorth encourages us toward a revival of community, men, women, and children living embodied lives in the same space and time: working together, eating together, worshipping together, loving each other, carrying each other's burdens. If this sounds like Eighth Day Institute...if this sounds like what the Church is meant to be, it is because this is exactly what the Church is. We are saved together in Christ. MICHAEL SIMMON currently serves as the Secretary of Eighth Day Institute Board of Directors and Coordinator for Hall of Men. He resides in Wichita, Kansas with his wife and four children.
By Luke Taylor Gilstrap July 31, 2026
"What is it that has ordered the things of heaven and those of earth, the things which move through the air and those which move in the water; nay, rather the things which proceeded them: heaven and earth and the natures of fire and water? What is it that combined and arranged them...set them into motion and put them on their unceasing and unhindered course?..But who is the architect of these things? Or did not he who made them also bring them into being? We shall certainly not attribute such power to spontaneity." On the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 3 This comes after St. John of Damascus sets out to delineate between the created and the uncreated, a fact which, while at the core of existence, seems for him to be, for this very reason, the simplest to believe. Everything but God is created and, thus, susceptible to change. This means people, but this also means demons, angels, the rest of the created order across the entire cosmos. Everything is vulnerable to unrest. Except for God. If you have ever tried to explain the Holy Trinity to a child for the first time, maybe you have felt as I have the weightier, inexpressible side of God's unchangeability: how do I possibly communicate this essential fact to the person in front of me? (This is usually when my faint stutter starts to pop up again.) I like that here, like St. Patrick reaching for a three-leaf clover, St. John brings us back to earth to better understand the cosmos. Fire and water are no less mysteries than heaven and earth. And yet here we are, cooking and washing, eating and drinking, filled and sustained on what we can neither fully explain nor claim to have created. Only God is unchanging. Vice versa, God is the only constant we need. Maybe the rest is better left unsaid. LUKE TAYLOR GILSTRAP is Vice President of the Board of Directors for Eighth Day Institute. His poems have appeared in Spiritus, Ekstasis (Christianity Today), and Relief Journal, among others. He lives happily in Wichita, Kansas with his wife and three sons.
By Luke Taylor Gilstrap July 24, 2026
"Now, one who would speak or hear about God should know beyond any doubt that in what concerns theology and the Incarnation not all things are inexpressible and not all are capable of expression, and neither are all things unknowable nor are they all knowable. That which can be known is one thing, whereas that which can be said is another, just as it is one thing to speak and another to know. Furthermore, many of those things about God which are not clearly perceived cannot be fittingly described, so that we are obliged to express in human terms things which transcend the human order. Thus, for example, in speaking about God we attribute to Him sleep, anger, indifference, hands and feet, and the like." On the Orthodox Faith, Chapter 2 When I was studying Fiction in graduate school, one of the first methods I learned to really situate the reader in the story you were about to tell them was disorientation; if you wanted to ground them in one story, first you had pull the rug out from under their feet. So it's fitting that in the beginning of St. John Damascene's On the Orthodox Faith, before rebuilding our foundation, he first puts us squarely in limbo, seesawing back and forth between certainty and uncertainty. To paraphrase, there is no doubt (certainty) that about God some things can be expressed...but not all things (uncertainty). Some things about God are truly knowable (certainty), but some are unknowable (uncertainty). Oh, and while we're speaking about God (certainty), let's admit there's a gap, too, between what we say and what we know (uncertainty). My favorite line in this spiraling excerpt, "...it is one thing to speak, and another to know," takes me back to the final lines in Wendell Berry's poem, "How to Be a Poet," which he wrote primarily as a reminder to himself: Accept what comes from silence. Make the best you can of it. Of the little words that come out of the silence, like prayers prayed back to the one who prays, make a poem that does not disturb the silence from which it came. Wherever your preferences fall on the cataphatic or apophatic spectrum of theology (whether you lean more toward what we can say about God or what we cannot), Berry's poem, I think, would nod along with St. John: before we say too much, let our words be preserved by the silence from which they came. I'm thinking of the silence, that filling, restorative quiet I feel when I step into a cathedral or in some of my favorite moments with my kids in the early hours. Even before praying, can we hear the One already praying in us? ​​​​​​​Let's start there. LUKE TAYLOR GILSTRAP is Vice President of the Board of Directors for Eighth Day Institute. His poems have appeared in Spiritus, Ekstasis (Christianity Today), and Relief Journal, among others. He lives happily in Wichita, Kansas with his wife and three sons.
By Mark C. Watney July 20, 2026
Late-Night Bookstores and Spiritual Reading
By Sarah Orner July 20, 2026
On St. Benedict and the Making of Vows
By Luke Taylor Gilstrap July 20, 2026
The Pursuit of Truth in the Age of AI
By Michael Simmon July 20, 2026
On the Theology of Raising Chickens
By Luke Taylor Gilstrap July 20, 2026
G.K. Chesterton and Raising Small Children
By Fr. Mark Lovett June 9, 2026
"Seal of the Fathers"
More Posts