Theosis or Deification The Christian Doctrine ofSalvation Wh at do es th e Eas te rn Ort hod ox Ch urc h mean wh en it sp ea ks of "deification" or "divinisation" (from the Greek for: ‘to make divine’)? A Protestant, explains: "In keeping with monotheism, the Eastern Orthodox do not teach that men literally become "gods" (which would be polytheism). Rather, as di d many of the churc h fathers, they teach that men are "deified " in the sense that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christian believers and transforms them into the image of God in Christ , event ually endowi ng them in the resurre ctio n with immortality and God’s perfect moral character" 1 Historically, the word was employed both in pre-Christian Greek antiquity, and al so in pa gan quart ers exis ti ng cont emp oraneously wi th the ea rly Christian Church. "The use was dari ng. Non-C hristi ans emplo yed it to spea k of pagan gods dei fyi ng cre atu res . The phi los oph ers Iamblichus and Proclus, the poe t Calli machu s and the dreaded Julian the Apostate had used it in that way. It was not first a Christian word nor always employed by only Christians afterthey made it central. From within his deep contemplative life and from previous Church Tertullian the Theologian picked it up, cleaned it up and filled it up with Christian sense. He and his fellow theologians took it captive and used it to speak about Christian realities." 2 1 Robert M. Bowman, Jr, "Ye Are Gods? Orthodox and Heretical Views on the Deification Of Man". Christian Research Journal, Winter/Spring 1987 (18). 2 Norris, F.W., "Deification: Consensual and Cogent". Scottish Journal of Theology, 49, No. 4, 1996.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
What does the Eastern Orthodox Church mean when it speaks of
"deification" or "divinisation" (from the Greek for: ‘to make divine’)?
A Protestant, explains:
"In keeping with monotheism, the Eastern Orthodox do not teach that men
literally become "gods" (which would be polytheism). Rather, as did many
of the church fathers, they teach that men are "deified" in the sense that the
Holy Spirit dwells within Christian believers and transforms them into the
image of God in Christ, eventually endowing them in the resurrection with
immortality and God’s perfect moral character"1
Historically, the word was employed both in pre-Christian Greek antiquity,
and also in pagan quarters existing contemporaneously with the earlyChristian Church.
"The use was daring. Non-Christians employed it to speak of pagan gods
deifying creatures. The philosophers Iamblichus and Proclus, the poet
Callimachus and the dreaded Julian the Apostate had used it in that way. It
was not first a Christian word nor always employed by only Christians after
they made it central. From within his deep contemplative life and from
previous Church Tertullian the Theologian picked it up, cleaned it up and
filled it up with Christian sense. He and his fellow theologians took itcaptive and used it to speak about Christian realities."2
1 Robert M. Bowman, Jr, "Ye Are Gods? Orthodox and Heretical Views on the Deification Of Man".
Christian Research Journal, Winter/Spring 1987 (18).2 Norris, F.W., "Deification: Consensual and Cogent". Scottish Journal of Theology, 49, No. 4, 1996.
Therefore, Church Fathers were observant to contrast their views with
pagans that used similar language. For example, Athanasius testifies to
theosis on innumerable occasions in his writings.
"We are as God by imitation, not by nature";3 and "Albeit we cannot become
like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God.”4
Jaroslav Pelikan, Church historian, Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at
Yale University and recent convert to Orthodoxy, explains:
"All of this Christian language about a humanity made divine was a part of a
total Cappadocian system in which the Classical religion of deified men and
women and of anthropomorphic gods and goddesses was described as ‘the
superstition of polytheism’ and as the error of those mere mortals who had
‘turned aside the honour of God to themselves.’ Therefore, theCappadocians insisted that it was as essential for theosis as it was for the
incarnation itself not to be viewed as analogous to Classical theories about
the promotion of human beings to divine rank, and in that sense not to be
defined by natural theology at all; on such errors they pronounced their
‘Anathema!’"5.
It must be remembered that it was in the Christian East where Synods
assembled (fifth through seventh centuries) to establish orthodox doctrine
about the full humanity of Christ; insisting on a true human nature, soul and
will. When one carefully sifts through the Eastern spiritual tradition, much
more balance than is often supposed between the Cross and the Resurrection
is found to exist. To be certain, Orthodoxy is absolutely clear that our
salvation is secured for us on Calvary, as Fr. Georges Florovsky, eminent
priest, theologian and scholar rightly notes:
"Salvation is completed on Golgotha, not on Tabor, and the Cross of Jesus
was foretold even on Tabor (Cf. Luke 9:31).” Indeed, "the Tabor light
which surrounds the risen Christ in His glorious victory over death, ie, in
His saving resurrection, is the light which enters the world by way of thecross, and no other way". 6
3 Athanasius, Orat 3.20.4 Athanasius, Ad Afros 75 Pelikan, Jaroslav, Christianity and Classical Culture. Yale University Press, 1993, p. 318.6 Allen, Joseph J. (ed.), Orthodox Synthesis: The Unity of Theological Thought. St. Vladimir’s Seminary
The liturgical books used in Orthodox worship are replete with references to
the redemptive work of Christ on Calvary. Most Western Christians are
accustomed to catechisms, and while they do not play as great a role in
Orthodoxy, they nonetheless exist, and easily provide corroboration of this.
For example, in A New Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for
Adults, after quoting 1 John 2:2— ‘He is the expiation of our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world’ —it states:
"The Sacrifice of Christ is offered because of His love for mankind. Hereplaced the penalties of man, and by His Sacrifice reconciled man with
God. Man’s finite mind cannot comprehend the ‘economy’ of this God-
saving deed, which remains a mystery of the ages in that the highest penaltywas imposed on the Innocent One instead of the guilty." 7
Orthodoxy, in discussions of redemption, employs many other salvificmetaphors besides theosis, and in doing so follows an eclectic approach that
was operative in the early Church. Evangelical Professor and scholar Daniel
Clendenin offers some much needed corrective to the distorted picture given
by some Evangelical commentators:
"Theosis and other biblical metaphors for the work of Christ need not be
understood as contradicting one another. There is no reason that they cannot
be seen as complementary. The East emphasises the crucial idea of mystical
union and divine transformation, while the West tends to stress the
believer’s juridical standing before a holy God. Both conceptions, and
others beside, find biblical support and deserve full theological expression."8
Christian themes of theosis and justification not only are not mutually
exclusive, but in fact flow one from the other.
Historical Treatment?
Despite the fact that "Deification, as God’s greatest gift to man and the
ultimate goal of human existence, had always been a prime consideration inthe teachings of the Church Fathers on salvation,"9 one could read some
Evangelical theologians and commentators and remain unaware that the
7 Mastrantonis, George, A New-Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for Adults. The OLOGOS
Mission, 1969, p. 90.8 Clendenin, Daniel, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. Baker Books, 1994, p. 159.9 Mantzaridis, Georgios I., The Deification of Man. SVS Press, 1984, p. 12.
theme of theosis is interwoven throughout the Patristic writings. St.
Irenæus, who was the spiritual grandson of the Apostle John, explicitly
stated this as early as the second century. In his famous work Against Heresies, he writes in the preface of the fifth discourse that:
"If the Word is made man, it is that men might become gods.”10
It is not difficult to understand why Protestant statements relative to theosis
are not addressed in the context of the Church Fathers: this "long
development" includes Saints that many Evangelicals hold up as pillars of
the Faith. Many will, in fact, attempt to demonstrate that the Fathers were
doctrinally synonymous with their own teachings on any number of subjects,
and Anti-Mormon ministries are no exception, devoting sections (Patres and
Verbatim) that include selected quotes from the Fathers that relate to a
particular issue’s theme. But, it is woefully inadequate to merely cut and paste statements made by the Fathers, as if to suggest that these Fathers had
the same phronema, or mindset. As Georges Florovsky pointed out:
"The Church always stresses the identity of her faith throughout the ages.
This identity and permanence, from Apostolic times, is indeed the most conspicuous token and sign of right faith. In the famous phrase of Vincent
of Lérins, in ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est ud id
teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. However, ‘antiquity’ by itself is not yet an adequate proof of the true faith.
Archaic formulas can be utterly misleading. Vincent himself was aware of
that…The true tradition is only the tradition of truth, traditio veritatis. And this ‘true tradition,’ according to St. Irenaeus, is grounded in, and
guaranteed by, that charisma veritatis certum, which has been deposited
from the very beginning in the Church and preserved in the uninterrupted succession of Apostolic ministry: qui cum episcopatus successione charisma
veritatis certum acceperunt.11
Thus, ‘tradition’ in the Church is not merely the continuity of human
memory; the permanence of rites and habits. Ultimately, ‘tradition’ is thecontinuity of divine assistance, the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. The
Church is not bound by ‘the letter.’ She is constantly moved forth by ‘the
Spirit.’ The same Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which ‘spake through the
Prophets,’ which guided the Apostles, which illumined the Evangelists, is
10 Adv. Haer V (pref), in Clendenin, p. 12711 Adv. Haereses IV.40.2
still abiding in the Church, and guides her into the fuller understanding of
the divine truth, from glory to glory."12 Anti-Mormon’s use of the Fathers
amounts to little more than a "sola Patera" exercise, for when the Fathers are
stripped from their traditional, ecclesial context, they can, it is claimed, be
made to say anything.
Some Evangelicals bring heavy indictments against Eastern Orthodoxy for
its adoption of theosis, not realising that it is not an adopted doctrine, but the
continuation of the early Church’s central belief in the nature of salvation.
One who has read the Fathers in context wonders why they do not level the
same charges against the many Fathers that are quoted approvingly by
Evangelicals and Anti-Mormons.
For example, Athanasius could hardly escape blame, since theosis figured
prominently in his soteriology.13 In his masterpiece On the Incarnation of the Word of God (54:3), he wrote the classic statement for theosis:
"He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God."14
In fact, theosis was used by him in his defense of the full deity of Christ
against the Arians:
"The Word could never have divinized us if He were merely divine by participation and were not Himself the essential Godhead, the Father’s
veritable image." 15
He argues in like manner against the Tropici sect concerning the Holy
Spirit’s divinity, stating that
"If, by a partakability of the Spirit we shall become partakers of the divine
nature, it would be madness then afterwards to call the Spirit an originated entity, and not of God; for on account of this also those who are in him are
made divine. But then if he makes man divine, it is not dubious to say his
nature is of God." 16
12 Florovsky, Georges, "Following the Holy Fathers: Father Georges Florovsky and the Patristic Mindset".13 Athanasius, Ad Serap 1.24; De decret 14; Vita Ant 74; Orat 1.38-39; Orat 3.38-39.14 Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word of God (54:3).15 Athanasius, Contra Arianos 2.24-6; 2.29f, (in Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines (Rev. Ed.), Harper
& Row, 1978, p. 243).16 Athanasius, Ad Serap 1.24.
on medieval Christianity but on all Christians who ever since, consciously
or not, have been indebted to these thinkers." 22
And yet Anti-Mormon Devangelicals insist that any presence of Hellenic
concepts within Latter-day Saint theology renders the Godhead a "paganized
deity," evidently unaware that this accusation would impugn Augustine, who
used some of Plotinus’ ideas about three hypostases in his own trinitarian
theology, and others besides, as J.P. Farrell notes:
"As in Neoplatonism, where the being, will and activity of the One were
‘wholly indistinguishable,’ so it is in Saint Augustine when he considers
what the definition of simplicity implies for the attributes. The essence and attributes of God are identified: ‘The Godhead,’ he writes, ‘is absolutely
simple essence, and therefore to be is then the same as to be wise.’ But Saint
Augustine carries the logic beyond this to insist also on the identity of theattributes amongst themselves." 23
“Emil Brunner considers that the most perilous of all Greek concepts is that
of the absolute ‘simplicity’ of God, derived from Neo-Platonism by way of
Pseudo-Dionysius. Strictly speaking, this concept not only forbids all anthropomorphism in the idea of God (such as is common in the Old
Testament) but all distinguishable attributes whatsoever. It tends, we may
say, to replace the God Paul preached to the Athenians with the UnknownGod they had ‘ignorantly worshipped’ before hearing the Gospel at all." 24
It would seem that the hapless pursuit of a "pure" Christianity that only
acknowledges its Hebraic roots must be taken into consideration here. This,
of course, is historically untenable on a number of counts. First, it is clear
from the New Testament that Judaism also posed a threat to some of the
emerging church communities—just as St. Paul warned the nascent church
community at Collosae about the potential dangers of Greek philosophy
(Col. 2:8), so too did he warn the Galatians about slipping back into Judaic
practices (Gal. 3).
22 O’Meara, Dominic J. (ed.), Neoplatonism and Christian Thought. International Society for Neoplatonic
Studies; SUNY Press, Albany, 1982, intro-x.23 Farrell, Joseph P. (Tr.), Saint Photios: The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Cross Orthodox Press,
1987, p. 26-27.24 Horton, Walter M., Christian Theology: An Ecumenical Approach. New York, Harper, 1955, p. 94.
“To this danger, which goes from the Scholastics to the intellectuals of the
nineteenth century, corresponds in our age an inverse danger: that of a somewhat ‘structured’ biblicism which wishes to oppose the Hebrew
tradition to ‘Greek philosophy,’ and attempts to remake theory in purely
Semitic categories. But theology must be of universal expression. It is not byaccident that God has placed the Fathers of the Church in a Greek setting;
the demands for lucidity in philosophy and profundity in gnosis have forced
them to purify and to sanctify the language of the philosophers and of themystics, to give the Christian message, which includes but goes beyond
Israel, all its universal reach." 27
Theosis Used in the Western Church
Although theosis is often presented by Anti-Mormons as either a pagan or a
strictly Eastern Christian phenomenon, it must not be overlooked that the
doctrine is found in several Western Church Fathers, as well as in isolated
strands of Western Christian thought throughout the ages.28
Hilary of Poitiers, known as the "Athanasius of the West" and the most
respected Latin theologian of the mid-fourth century, writes in his work On
the Trinity that
"the assumption of our nature was no advancement for God, but His
willingness to lower Himself is our promotion, for He did not resign Hisdivinity but conferred divinity on man." He further writes that our Lord
came to earth for the purpose "that man might become God." 29[28].
Jerome testifies
"That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. ‘But to as many as
receive Him he gave power of becoming sons of God." 30
The second century Latin theologian Tertullian provides an interesting case,
for although arguing against any synthesis of Christianity and philosophy,
27 Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction. SVS Press, 1978, p. 30-3128 Clendenin, p. 12429 Rakestraw, Robert V., "Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis". Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, n11-12.30 Homilies of St. Jerome. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964, p. 106-107.
asking "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" nonetheless has no
problem with a concept of theosis!
"Truth, however maintains the unity of God in such a way as to insist that
whatever belongs to God Himself belongs to Him alone. For so will it
belong to Himself if it belong to Him alone; and therefore it will beimpossible that another god should be admitted, when it is permitted to no
other being to possess anything of God. Well, then, you say, we ourselves at
that rate possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do —only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we
shall be even gods, if we, shall deserve to be among those of whom He
declared, ‘I have said, Ye are gods,’ and ‘God standeth in the congregationof the gods.’ But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us,
because it is He alone who can make gods." 31
A significant Patristic witness the Anti-Mormon conception of theosis as an
exclusively Hellenized view of salvation is the fourth century "lyre of the Holy Spirit," Ephrem the Syrian. As Sebastian Brock points out:
"It has sometimes been said that the divinization, or theosis, of humanity is something that crept into Christianity, especially Eastern Christianity,
under Hellenic influence. It is clear, however, that St. Ephraim, whom
Theodoret described as ‘unacquainted with the language of the Greeks,’ and whose thought patterns are essentially semitic and biblical in character, is
nonetheless an important witness to this teaching. Moreover in this context
it should be recalled that, since the term ‘son of’ implies ‘belonging to thecategory of,’ the title ‘children of God’ to which Christians attain at baptism
would suggest to the Semitic mind that they had, potentially, the
characteristics of divine beings, in other words, immortality. Once again thetheological content of St. Ephraim’s poetry is remarkably similar to his
Greek contemporaries—only the mode of expression is different. Just as St. Athanasius expressed this mystery epigrammatically (‘God became man so
that man might become God’), so too, in his own way, does St. Ephraim:
‘He gave us Divinity, we gave Him humanity’" (Hymn on Faith V.17).Similarly, St. Ephrem writes in his Genesis commentary that, had Adam and
Eve not disobeyed God’s command, "they would have acquired divinity in
humanity." And from the hymn "On Virginity": "Divinity flew down and
is to say, and not by nature. It is, indeed, the consequence of human flesh
being assumed by the divinity in the Incarnation: that flesh has been taken
into heaven by the ascended Christ, and if men participate in Him throughmembership of the Church, the Body of Christ, they too may hope, after
death, to enjoy the divinisation effected by His flesh-taking. So Augustine
writes, in the last chapter of the last book of The City of God: ‘We ourselves shall become that seventh day [i.e. the eternal Sabbath], when we have been
replenished and restored by His blessing and sanctification. There we shall
have leisure to be still, and we shall see that He is God, whereas we wished to be that ourselves when we fell away from Him, after listening to the
seducer saying: You will be like gods. Then we abandoned the true God, by
whose creative help we should have become gods, but by participating in Him, not by deserting Him." 35
CS Lewis, the popular author of numerous apologetic, theological andfictional works, provides a good example of a contemporary Western writer
—much beloved of Evangelicals—who makes use of the idea of theosis. In
his Mere Christianity, basically he recites the famous Athanasian theosis
statement into more modern language:
"He came to this world and became a man in order to spread to other men
the kind of life He has – by what I call ‘good infection.’ Every Christian is to
become a little Christ. The whole purpose of becoming a Christian is simplynothing else" 36
He spells this out more succinctly a little later in the book:
"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 Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess,
dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy
and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainlessmirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller
scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will
35 Bonner, p. 291-292.36 Lewis, Clive Staples, Mere Christianity. Macmillan Publishing Co., 1952, p. 153.
be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing
less. He meant what He said.”37 [35].
Finally, Lewis talks about God
"turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new littleChrist, a being which, in its own way, has the same kind of life as God;
which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity" 38 .
With Evangelicals such as Daniel Clendenin and Robert Bowman, the
attitude taken by many scholars within this tradition to theosis is quite
different than that of Jones. Robert Rakestraw of Bethel Theological
Seminary testifies that:
"I am convinced that we may receive considerable benefit from a judiciousunderstanding and appropriation of the doctrine," and calls attention to the
eminently Scriptural witness to theosis: "The most significant benefit is that the concept as a whole, if not the specific terminology, is biblical. Pauline
teaching supports much that is emphasised by theosis theologians. In 2
Corinthians 3, Paul writes that Christians, ‘who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-
increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit’ (2 Cor. 3:17-
18). The Christian who experiences this transformation develops aremarkable God-given assurance that she is actually thinking the thoughts
of God, doing the works of God, and, at times, even speaking the words of
God. These energies and ministries of God in the Christian yielded to her Lord are the natural outcome of the life of God in the soul." Rakestraw goes
on to discuss theosis in several other Scriptural contexts as well (1 Cor.
So while theosis has historically been a much more prominent Eastern
Christian theme, is has been voiced by Western Christians since ancient
times. In addition to the individuals sampled above, theosis has been a partof Anabaptist spirituality;40 it formed a part of Wesley’s views on
37 ibid., p. 174-175.38 ibid., p. 164.39 Rakestraw, p. 1-3; 14-17.40 "Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy: Some Unexpected Similarities" in Journal of Ecumenical Studies
reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as
complimentary" 44.
And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy:
"While insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ’s saving economy, theOrthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of
atonement. The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich
variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These modelsare not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by
the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom,
victory and participation." 45
In fact, the entire cleavage of justification and sanctification into two
different themes—the former said to occur instantly, and the latter being alife-long process—is of relatively recent origin in the history of the Church.
It was only in the first era of the Reformation, as the eminent Protestant
scholar Allister McGrath points out, that
"A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between the concept of justification itself (understood as the extrinsic divine pronouncement of
man’s new status) and the concept of sanctification or regeneration
(understood as the intrinsic process by which God renews the justified sinner)."
He goes on to explain that:
"The significance of the Protestant distinction between iustificatio and
regeneratio is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into thewestern theological tradition where none had existed before…The
Reformation understanding of the nature of justification – as opposed to itsmode – must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.”46
Interestingly enough, this unjustifiable cleavage has never been a part of Orthodoxy. After discussing the subject of theosis, Bishop Kallistos (Ware)
explains:
44 Kelly, JND, p. 376.45 (Ware), Kallistos, How Are We Saved? The Understanding of Salvation in the Orthodox Tradition . Light
& Life Publishing, 1996, p. 48-49.46 McGrath, Alister E., Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification-Vol. 1. Cambridge
"By this time it will be abundantly clear that, when we Orthodox speak
about salvation, we do not have in view any sharp differentiation between justification and sanctification. Indeed, Orthodox usually have little to say
about justification as a distinct topic. I note, for example, that in my own
book The Orthodox Church, written thirty years ago, the word ‘justification’ does not appear in the index, although this was not a deliberate omission.
Orthodoxy links sanctification and justification together, just as St. Paul
does in 1 Cor. 6:11: ‘You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.’
The references to justification in the opening chapters of Romans (for
example 3:20, 24, 28), we understand in the light of Romans 6:4-10, whichdescribe our radical incorporation through baptism into Christ’s death,
burial and resurrection. We Orthodox, then, ‘see justification’ and
‘sanctification’ as one divine action…one continuous process,’ to use thewords of the Common Statement issued by the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue
in North America." 47
Even St. Augustine, despite the proto-Protestant conception of him held by
many within the Calvinist tradition, had this view.i
McGrath notes that it is
"the Augustinian understanding of justification as both event and process,
embracing the beginning, continuation, and perfection of the Christian life,
and thereby subsuming regeneration under justification/í 48
More specifically, St. Augustine integrated theosis within his concept of
justification, as Lampe explains:
"Augustine makes much use of the idea of deification which he equates with sonship towards God. Justification implies deification, because by justifying
men God makes them his sons; if we have been made sons of God (Jn. 1:12)
we have also been made gods, not through a natural begetting but throughthe grace of adoption."
In Augustine’s own words,
47 (Ware), …Saved?, p. 66-67.48 McGrath, Alister, Forerunners of the Reformation? Harvard Theological Review 75:2 (1982), p. 225.
"God wishes to make you a god, not by nature like him whom he begat, but
by his gift and adoption. For as he through humanity became partaker of
your mortality, so through exaltation he makes you partaker of hisimmortality" (serm. 166.4).49
And similarly:
"It is clear that He (i.e. God) calls men gods through their being deified by
His grace and not born of His substance. For He justifies, who is just of Himself and not of another; and He deifies, who is God of Himself and not
by participation in another. Now He who justifies, Himself deifies, because
by justifying He makes sons of God. For to them gave He power to becomethe sons of God. If we are made sons of God, we are also made gods; but
this is by grace of adoption, and not by generation (Ennar. In Ps. 49, 2).”50
Perhaps one might expect that Martin Luther—who led the "justification by
faith" battle cry in the sixteenth century—would have pointed out the
apostate nature of theosis in the Fathers and in what he called "the Greek
Church." His writings indicate a familiarity—albeit a superficial one—with
the Greek patristic tradition. Yet we find no such censures; in fact, theosis
imagery is testified to in his very writings! This has been known for some
time. As Marc Lienhard pointed out nearly twenty years ago:
"One is not able to exclude entirely the idea that the theme of divinization
was present to a certain extent in the mind of Luther. The contrary would
have been astonishing when one remembers how familiar he was with the patristic writings." 51
Indeed, "For Luther deification is the movement between the communicatioidiomatum and the beatum commercium. This leads straight into the heart of
the concept of justification by faith. This faith has to be understood as taking part in the life of Christ and through Christ in the life of God. Luther
designates this movement as deiformitas, in which the believer becomes
identical ‘in shape’ with God justifying her or him in Christ. Herewith isunderlined that deification and justification assume, amplify, and deepen
each other." 52
49 Cunliffe-Jones, p. 153-154.50 Bonner, p. 512.51 Bielfeldt, Dennis, Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium. Sixteenth Century Journal,
28/2, 1997, p. 405.52 Zwanepol, Klaas. "Luther and Theosis". Luther Digest, Vol. 5 (1997), p. 179.
deification has revealed that, while Lutherans speak of ‘faith’ and Orthodox
speak of theosis, both understand the Christian’s hope as ‘belonging to
God.’ The Lutheran concern to specify the means of salvation and the
Orthodox concern for its meaning are two insights into the one unspeakably
wonderful reality that God, by grace alone, for the sake of Christ alone, has
forgiven our sins and given us everlasting salvation" [53]. Echoing these
sentiments, Paul Hinlicky testifies that "As a Lutheran, I want to say that the
Orthodox doctrine of theosis is simply true, that justification by faith
theologically presupposes it in the same way that Paul the Apostle reasoned
by analogy from the resurrection of the dead to the justification of the
sinner." He further explains that "The Lutheran doctrine of justification
offers an Eastern answer to a Western question: Jesus Christ, in his person
the divine Son of God, is our righteousness. He is the one who in obedience
to his Father personally assumed the sin and death of humanity and
triumphed over these enemies on behalf of helpless sinners, bestowing onthen his own Spirit, so that, by the ecstasy of faith, they become liberated
children of God in a renewed creation" [54]. Dialogue between the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church
concluded that "the traditional Lutheran doctrine of justification contains the
idea of the deification of man. Justification and deification are based on the
real presence of Christ in the word of God, the sacraments and in worship"
[55]. "When justification and sanctification are properly modulated," Henry
Edwards explains, "neither excluding justification by faith alone nor the
fruits of that faith, a coherent message results which can be translated into
the Orthodox term theosis…The Lutheran catechisms, the Augsburg
Confession, its Apology, and the Formula of Concord all contain statements
compatible with theosis" [56].
Essentially, Orthodoxy’s understanding of salvation fails Jones’ criterion of
orthodoxy for the following reasons: (1) salvation is not exclusively
explained in the juridical/forensic language inherent to Calvinism; (2) it is
tacitly assumed that theosis can in no wise exist alongside such legal
categories, and (3) the misunderstanding that Orthodox only understand
salvation in terms of theosis. As for point (1), it is first worth pointing outthat "a case cannot be made for the patristic provenance of the Protestant
concepts of imputed righteousness or forensic justification" [57; see also
Note-I]. Nevertheless, juridical language—although not used nearly as much
as in Western traditions—can be found in Orthodox writers. Vladimir
Lossky, for example, states that "The very idea of redemption assumes a
plainly legal aspect: it is the atonement of the slave, the debt paid for those
who remained in prison because they could not discharge it. Legal also is the
theme of the mediator who reunited man to God through the cross" [58].
Conversely, participation imagery is not entirely foreign to Calvin, as
Clendenin explains: "the West has a well-developed concept of the Pauline
idea of union with Christ. In the opening pages of book 3 of his Institutes
Calvin, for example, before he raises the issue of justification by faith,
speaks of believers’ being engrafted into or bonded with Christ through the
‘secret energy of the Holy Spirit’" [59].
The work of scholars within Evangelicalism and other Protestant traditions
amply demonstrates the falsity of point (2). As Clark Pinnock correctly
notes, "The key thing is that salvation involves transformation. It is not
cheap grace, based on bare assent to propositions, or merely a change of
status. Romans 5 with its doctrine of justification is followed by Romans 6
with its promise of union. It is not just a matter of balancing two ideas; it is amatter of never conceiving of the former without its goal in the latter. For
the justified person is baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ. If there is no newness of life, if there is no union with Christ, if there
is no coming out from under the dominion of sin, there is no salvation" [60].
Concerning (3), we saw the reluctance in Orthodoxy to formally endorse any
one model or metaphor for our salvation – which of course would include
theosis. In fact, in a reversal of (3), Orthodox Karmiris "warns about
overemphasizing theosis," as does Stanilaoe [61]. According to Clendenin,
"We can say, then, that in addition to theosis Eastern theologians affirm any
number of biblical metaphors for salvation, including juridical ones. They
acknowledge that the work of Christ cannot be reduced to any single
metaphor. Thus, while legal metaphors are truly Pauline and should be
affirmed, they should not be allowed to dominate, but should be ‘relocated’
among the host of other biblical images" [62].
Thomas Torrance provides in conclusion an interesting Protestant
perspective on the fundamental unity of Christ’s saving work and the
appropriation of that work to us: "It becomes clear, therefore, that what we
require to recover is an understanding of justification which really lets Christoccupy the centre, so that everything is interpreted by reference to who He
was and is. After all, it was not the death of Jesus that constituted atonement,
but Jesus Christ the Son of God offering Himself in sacrifice for us.
Everything depends on who He was, for the significance of His acts in life
and death depends on the nature of His Person. It was He who died for us,
He who made atonement through His one self-offering in life and death.
Hence we must allow the Person of Christ to determine for us the nature of
His saving work, rather than the other way around. The detachment of
atonement from incarnation is undoubtedly revealed by history to be one of
the most harmful mistakes of Evangelical Churches. Nowhere is this better
seen, perhaps, than in a theologian as good and great as James Denney who,
in spite of the help offered by James Orr and H.R. Mackintosh, was unable
to see the essential interconnection between atonement and incarnation, and
so was, on his own frank admission, unable to make anything very much of
St. Paul’s doctrine of union with Christ. This has certainly been one of the
most persistent difficulties in Scottish theology. In Calvin’s Catechism we
read: ‘Since the whole affiance of our salvation rests in the obedience which
He has rendered to God, His Father, in order that it might be imputed to us
as if it were ours, we must possess Him: for His blessings are not ours,
unless He gives Himself to us first.’ It is only through union with Christ that
we partake of His benefits, justification, sanctification, etc. That is why inthe Institutes Calvin first offered an account of our regeneration in Christ
before speaking of justification, in order to show that renewal through union
with Christ belongs to the inner content of justification; justification is not
merely a judicial or forensic event but the impartation to us of Christ’s own
divine-human righteousness which we receive through union with Him.
Apart from Christ’s incarnational union with us and or union with Christ on
that ontological basis, justification degenerates into only an empty moral
relation. That was also the distinctive teaching of the Scots Confession. But
it was otherwise with the Westminster Confession, which reversed the order
of things: we are first justified through a judicial act, then through an
infusion of grace we live the sanctified life, and grow into union with Christ.
The effects of this have been extremely damaging in the history of thought.
Not only did it lead to the legalizing, or (as in James Denney’s case) a
moralizing of the Gospel, but gave rise to an ‘evangelical’ approach to the
saving work of Christ in which atonement was divorced from incarnation,
substitution from representation, and the sacraments were detached from
union with Christ; sooner or later within this approach where the ontological
ground for the benefits of Christ had disappeared, justification became
emptied of its objective content and began to be re-interpreted alongsubjective lines" [63].
Salvation Without the Cross?
Due to the acceptance of points (1-3) outlined above, in SBP it is put forth
that Orthodoxy’s emphasis on union with Christ via theosis, "omits or
minimizes a justifying Cross." In fact, Jones goes so far as to say that
"Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice, the hallmark of Christian faith, plays no
central role." Of course, we shall see in this section that the truth of the
matter is otherwise—that "the cross [has] the very deepest expiatory
significance [64]—that "man’s life in its totality, and indeed the life of the
entire world and the whole of creation, finds its source and fulfillment, its
content and purpose in the cross of Christ" [65]. Another reason that Jones is
led to these conclusions is because theosis is often discussed within the
context of the Incarnation. But this very same conception is found in the
Fathers of the Church, as Panagiotes Chrestou notes: "According to Patristic
thought, the Incarnation of the Divine Word granted theosis to mankind"
[66]. This idea is found even in St. Augustine, as Bonner explains:
"Augustine’s view of deification is conditioned by his understanding of what
the Incarnation has done. By the union of the two natures of God and man in
himself, Christ brought about an elevation of the humanity which he
assumed, and by being made members of Christ, who was a partaker of our human nature, men may be made partakers of the divine nature (ep. 140.4,
10)" [67].
While Jones will only consider the Cross as having salvific importance, this
is a marked departure from early Christian understanding. "The Fathers," as
Stanilaoe explains, "do not make the death of Christ into a saving event
independent of the resurrection and incarnation" [68]. St. Athanasius, for
example, notes that "The Savior granted both benefits by the Incarnation: on
the one hand, he abolished death from our midst and, on the other hand, he
renewed us" [69]. However, "Both Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa, while
viewing man’s restoration as essentially the effect of the incarnation, were
able to find a logical place for the Lord’s death conceived as a sacrifice"
[70]. In the minds of the Fathers, "the emphasis on the incarnation was not
intended to exclude the saving value of Christ’s death. The emphasis was
simply the offshoot of the special interest which the theologians concerned
had in the restoration in which, however conceived, the redemption
culminates" [71]. And commenting on the Orthodox, Rakestraw similarly
notes that "Orthodox churches also work more with the incarnation than
with the crucifixion of Christ as the basis of man’s divinization. This is notto say that Christ’s atonement is minimized in the work of redemption, but
that the intention of the Father in creating humanity in the first place, and of
joining humanity to divinity in the incarnation, is so that human beings
might assume Godlikeness, and be imagers of God in his divine life,
The soteriological dimension of the Incarnation, so far from confusing the
fruits of the Cross or fostering neglect of it, rather deepens and illuminates
its meaning, as Emilianos Timiadis explains: "Death would be impossible
without presupposing the reality of the incarnation. All of the events of
Christ’s earthly life are inseparable. The benefits of salvation are expounded
in the life of our Savior taken as a whole. All of our sufferings were laid on
him who could not suffer, and he destroyed them. ‘He destroyed death by
death and all human weakness by his human actions.’ This is the way to
understand the representative character of Christ’s death and sacrifice and
the possibility of man’s salvation in Christ. Christ was born for us, lived on
earth for us, died for us, and rose for us and for the confirmation of our
resurrection. Christ’s death was due not to his weakness but to the fact that
he died for man’s salvation. While Athanasius speaks of the incarnation and
insists that ‘God became man that we might become gods,’ he says at the
same time that ‘Christ offered the sacrifice on behalf of all, delivering hisown shrine to death in of all, that he might set all free from the liability of
the original transgression,’ and he speaks of Christ’s sacrifice offered for the
redemption of our sins and for men’s deliverance from corruption. For
Athanasius, Christ’s death retains a place of importance in the pan of
salvation. Immortality came to men through death. Christ paid our debt for
us. In Athanasius we meet with the synthesis of the two ideas of immortality
or reconstitution of our nature and the idea of expiation of our death" [73].
"Of course," notes Chrestou, "death is the summit of the work of economy
because it marks the extreme point of the Incarnation. In this course, the
death of the God-man (not an ordinary death, but a death on the cross which
is the most miserable death for man) is the lowest point of God’s kenosis
and is, consequently, the ultimate point of the Incarnation. It is precisely at
this point that ‘economy was fulfilled’ or, in other words, that the salvific
work done on man’s behalf was accomplished" [74]. In a similar vein, Fr.
Georges Florovsky notes that: "The Incarnation is the quickening of man, as
it were, the resurrection of human nature. But the climax of the Gospel is the
Cross, the death of the Incarnate. Life has been revealed in full through
death." Elaborating further, he explains that "the climax of this life was itsdeath. And the Lord plainly bore witness to the hour of death: ‘For this cause
came I unto this hour’ [John 12:27]. The redeeming death is the ultimate
purpose of the Incarnation" [75].
Orthodox soteriology, then, "with its characteristic breadth, includes the
whole work of economy" [76]. It is the understanding of Orthodoxy,
battle against the flesh" [95]. Theosis and justification working together can
help shed light on the subject of synergy: "Integrating these two
anthropologies [Lutheran doctrine of divine righteousness and Orthodox
theosis], we see that justifying faith wholly involves the human will and its
uncoerced participation, yet not in any Pelagian sense in which the will
retains its Adamic form of autonomy over against God. Justifying faith is the
concrete, nonmeritorious synergy of the new person in Christ with the Holy
Spirit, inasmuch as on this side of the reign of God’s coming in fullness, the
new person in Christ is nothing other than the sinner whom the Lord Jesus
mercifully and effectively claims by the Spirit. In this light, the apparent
dispute about the freedom of the will is shown largely to be the fruit of
conceptual confusion" [96].
Essentially, in Orthodoxy grace and free will are not separated or discussed
in isolation, thus preventing doctrinal imbalance, as occurred with Pelagius.Free will and our cooperation with God is always understood to be an act of
grace. Bishop Kallistos is again helpful here. His comments offer a response
to Jones’ question in SBP, in which he queries,—"how do the Eastern
Orthodox attempt to explain that salvation is ‘not of yourselves?’" His Grace
would reply: "When we speak of ‘cooperation,’ it is not to be imagined that
our initial impulse towards good precedes the gift of divine grace and comes
from ourselves alone. We must not think that God waits to see how we shall
use our free will, and then decides whether He will bestow or withhold His
grace. Still less would it be true to suggest that our initial act of free choice
somehow causes God’s grace. All such notions of temporal priority or of
cause and effect are inappropriate. On the contrary, any right exercise of our
free will presupposes from the start the presence of divine grace, and without
this ‘prevenient’ grace we could not begin to exercise our will aright. In
every good desire and action on our part, God’s grace is present from the
outset. Our cooperation with God is genuinely free, but there is nothing in
our good actions that is exclusively our own. At every point our human
cooperation is itself the work of the Holy Spirit" [97]. This is a far cry from
the assertion in SBP that in Orthodoxy "the beginning of salvation is purely
by grace but the completion of the process is by human effort."
And Clendenin notes that "Interestingly enough, we can say that for the
writers of the Philokalia, the gift of theosis comes by grace through faith,
and not by works (see also Note-L). Especially significant here is Mark the
Ascetic’s On Those Who Think That They Are Made Righteous by Works.
On the contrary, we are, insist Maximus and Peter of Damascus, ‘deified by
grace.’ We ‘become god through union with God by faith’" [98]. Orthodoxy
teaches, then, that the process of theosis, accompanied as it is by prayer,
fasting, almsgiving, the sacramental life, etc., is totally grace driven—it is
only made possible because of grace, as it is the life of God within us that
provides the strength to sustain these spiritual efforts. When St. Paul writes
that "if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live"
(Rom. 8:13), this obviously presupposes conscious effort on our part – but it
flows from the Spirit, as the epistle says. Similarly, he counsels the
Colossians to "Put to death therefore your members on earth; fornication,
uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness which is idolatry" (Col.
3:5).
Jones does not seem to allow for a concept of "will" and "working" that is
found in the thought of St. Paul—the kind that is predicated upon grace. He
also writes to the Corinthians: "I labored more abundantly than they all, yetnot I, but the grace of God which was with me" (1 Cor. 15:10). We can
follow St. Paul’s directive to the Philippian church to "work out your
salvation in fear and trembling" because it is now "God who works in you
both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Php. 2:12-13). His use of the
analogy of a runner competing in a race to the life-long process of salvation
is another prime example of how we co-operate with the grace of God (cf. 1
Cor. 9:24-27). These Scriptures, and others besides (cf. Eph. 2:8-10), form
the core understanding of "work" and "effort" in the Orthodox spiritual
tradition [99]. But again, even this conception is evidently anathema to
Jones, for he asserts that "climbing up the chain of being, even when aided
by grace, is Plotinus again, not New Covenant faith." This is simple
misrepresentation, and we can turn to Clendenin again for a more informed
explanation concerning the nature of the effort exerted within the life of the
Christian: "In Pauline language, we labor and strive, but only through the
empowering grace of God working in us (Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Cor. 15:10-11).
What direction, exactly, does the human effort take? At the risk of
oversimplification, we can summarize the Philokalia and the human means
of theosis in one Greek word, nepsis—that is, vigilance, watchfulness,
intensity, zeal, alertness, attentiveness, or spiritual wariness. The ‘neptic’mind-set recognizes the reality of our spiritual warfare, that our Christian
life is a strenuous battle, fierce drama, or ‘open contest’ (Theoretikon), and
responds accordingly" [100].
The Orthodox concept of synergism, far from being a departure from
Apostolic Faith, is attested to in Scripture and repeated throughout the
centuries. "It is for God to grant His grace," said St. Cyril of Jerusalem;
"your task is to accept that grace and to guard it" [101]. St. John Chrysostom
exclaims, "All depends indeed on God, but not so that our free-will is
hindered. [God] does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will be
outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance He brings to
us." St. Augustine himself witnesses to a synergism between God and Man,
as Thomas Oden explains: "Though not the first, Augustine was the most
brilliant exponent of how the action of grace can be both ‘from the will of
man and from the mercy of God.’ Thus we accept the dictum, ‘It is not a
matter of human willing or running but of God’s showing mercy,’ as if it
meant, ‘The will of man is not sufficient by itself unless there is also the
mercy of God.’ But by the same token the mercy of God is not sufficient by
itself unless there is also the will of man." Commenting on Romans 9:16, St.
Augustine states that "If any man is of the age to use his reason, he cannot
believe, hope, love, unless he will to do so, nor obtain the prize of the highcalling of God unless he voluntarily run for it." Finally, Oden notes "That
the synergy of grace and freedom became the consensual teaching of the
believing church is clear from the Third Ecumenical Council, held in
Ephesus in A.D. 431: ‘For He acts in us that we may both will and do what
He wishes, nor does He allow those gifts to be idle in us which He has given
to be used and not to be neglected, that we also may be cooperators with the
grace of God’" [102].
The Orthodox doctrine of synergy came to its fullest and most refined
articulation with the Sixth Œcumenical Synod (680-681). This Synod
declared that Christ has both a divine and a human will, and that these two
wills co-operated synergistically. This has tremendous ramifications for
Christian anthropology. Those who have been organically united to Christ in
Holy Baptism (Gal. 3:27) have the Spirit of God living in them; and this
Spirit quickens our soul and makes it alive unto God. Our own will then
freely co-operates with this newly given Divine Energy which is ever
renewed in us through ascetic struggle and participation in the Mystery of
His Body and Blood. Thus, the Œcumenical Synods that defined and refined
the doctrine of the Person of Christ set forth that, for us who are made in Hisimage, it is not only God’s will that is operative in us (this would be a
monoenergistic anthropology – one held by many Reformed Protestants),
nor is it our own will working apart from God (this would be Pelagianism),
but rather it is the two working together in harmony, neither overwhelming
O’Conell, R., Saint Augustine’s Platonism. Philadelphia: Villanova
University Press, 1984; ____. "Where the Difference Lies", Augustinian
Studies 21 (1990): 139-152; J. O’Meara, "Plotinus and Augustine: Exegesis
of Contra Academicos II. 5": Review of International Philosophy 24 (1970):
321-337; J. Sleeman and G. Pollet, Lexicon Plotinianum. Leiden: Brill,
1980; Teske, R., "The World Soul and Time in St. Augustine". Augustinian
Studies 14 (1983): 75-92. It has also been called to my attention that in a
relatively recent issue (undisclosed) of Augustinian Studies, M. Barnes has
an article on St. Augustine and the Trinity; see also B. Studer’s article in the
same review. I would like to thank Fr. Allan Fitzgerald of Villanova
University for providing the above sources.
G Beinfeldt concludes his critical look at the Finnish effort by stating that "I believe Peura correctly perceives that significant deification imagery does
occur within the Dictata. However, I am not as sanguine as he that
divinization plays such a central role in the document," and "I have
suggested that the deification imagery Luther employs in the Dictata is not
uncommon within the Augustinian tradition of the time. That the mature
Augustine operated within a theological framework not antithetical to
i D Jones’ understanding of justification is not nearly as synonymous with St. Augustine’s as his comments in
Credenda/Agenda suggest. According to McGrath, it is not Calvin, but "Martin Luther who is closest to Augustine in his
teaching on justification." Where they differed was that "the notion of the imputation of the iustitia Christi is simply not present in Augustine’s theory of justification in the sense that Luther required…In justification, man is made righteous. For
Luther, however, the righteousness of Christ is always external to man, and alien to him [109]. For St. Augustine, as
McGrath summarizes, "Justification is about ‘being made just’—and Augustine’s understanding of iustitia is so broad that
this could be defined as ‘being made to live as God intends man to live, in every aspect of his existence,’ including his
relationship with God, with his fellow men, and the relationship of his higher and lower self (on the neo-Platonic
anthropological model favored by Augustine). That iustitia possesses legal and moral overtones will thus be evident; butthis must not be permitted to obscure its fundamentally theological orientation. By justification, Augustine comes very close
to understanding the restoration of the entire universe to its original order, established at creation, an understanding not verydifferent from the Greek doctrine of cosmic redemption. The ultimate object of man’s justification is his ‘cleaving to God,’
a ‘cleaving’ which awaits its consummation and perfection in the new Jerusalem, which is even now being established"
[110]. And von Loewenich points out that "justification is not understood by Augustine in a highly forensic manner, but as a