00 theosis and the doctrine of salvation
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
1/49
Theosis or
Deification
The Christian
Doctrineof SalvationSCHOLARLY CONSIDERATIONS
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
2/49
Theosis or DeificationThe Christian Doctrine of
Salvation
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 Gods perfect moral character"1
Historically, the word was employed both in pre-Christian Greek antiquity,
and also in pagan quarters existing contemporaneously with the early
Christian 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 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.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
3/49
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 hadturned aside the honour of God to themselves. Therefore, the
Cappadocians 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, inHis saving resurrection, is the light which enters the world by way of the
cross, 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. Vladimirs Seminary
Press, 1981, p. 162.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
4/49
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, inA New Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith forAdults, after quoting 1 John 2:2He is the expiation of our sins, and not
for ours only but for the sins of the whole worldit states:
"The Sacrifice of Christ is offered because of His love for mankind. He
replaced the penalties of man, and by His Sacrifice reconciled man with
God. Mans finite mind cannot comprehend the economy of this God-saving deed, which remains a mystery of the ages in that the highest penalty
was imposed on the Innocent One instead of the guilty."7
Orthodoxy, in discussions of redemption, employs many other salvific
metaphors 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
believers 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 Gods greatest gift to man and theultimate goal of human existence, had always been a prime consideration in
the teachings of the Church Fathers on salvation,"9 one could read some
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.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
5/49
Evangelical theologians and commentators and remain unaware that the
theme of theosis is interwoven throughout the Patristic writings. St.
Irenus, who was the spiritual grandson of the Apostle John, explicitly
stated this as early as the second century. In his famous workAgainst
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 aparticular issues 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 Lrins, in ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est ud idteneamus 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 ofthatThe 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 depositedfrom the very beginning in the Church and preserved in the uninterrupted
succession of Apostolic ministry: qui cum episcopatus successione charismaveritatis certum acceperunt.11
Thus, tradition in the Church is not merely the continuity of humanmemory; the permanence of rites and habits. Ultimately, tradition is the
continuity 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
10 Adv. Haer V (pref), in Clendenin, p. 12711Adv. Haereses IV.40.2
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
6/49
Prophets, which guided the Apostles, which illumined the Evangelists, is
still abiding in the Church, and guides her into the fuller understanding of
the divine truth, from glory to glory."12 Anti-Mormons 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 Churchs 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 figuredprominently 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 Fathers
veritable image."15
He argues in like manner against the Tropici sect concerning the Holy
Spirits divinity, stating that
"If, by a partakability of the Spirit we shall become partakers of the divinenature, 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 hisnature 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.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
7/49
Others have realised the profound implications of all of this:
"It should not be argued that anyone who speaks of deification necessarily
holds to a heretical view of man. Such a sweeping judgement would
condemn many of the early churchs greatest theologians (e.g. Athanasius,Augustine), as well as one of the three main branches of historic orthodox
Christianity in existence today."17.
Bowmans statement truly cuts to the heart of the matter. There is no logical
reason why charges of pagan perversion should be levelled against
Christians that hold tenaciously to the Christian doctrine of theosis or
divinisation as the correct term for salvation, for it is the unadulterated the
teaching of the the New Testament and the Holy Fathers. It is a glaring
inconsistency to label theosis as apostate yet ignore the history of thetheological formulation of the very doctrines one is attacking. From a
scholarly perspective, it is baffling how Christianity could be doctrinally
studied outside of Patristic context.
Moreover, it is this essential unity with the earliest Christian doctrines that
provides the basis for understanding how proper salvic doctrine flows from a
right understanding of who Christ is as God and Man. Pelikan, commenting
on the importance of Ephesus and Chalcedon, observes:
"A false understanding of the relation between the divine and human in
Christ deprived human nature of the hope of salvation, for salvation could
have come only through a distinct human hypostasis."18
It is no accident that theosis was discussed by the Fathers within the context
of the early christological and pneumatological heresies that culminated in
the cumenical Synods that convened to address them. Theosis formed an
essential part of Nicene theology; St. Gregory of Nyssa likewise did with
regard to later christological issues:
17 Bowman, Ye Are Gods?18 Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), University of Chicago Press, 1974, p.
46.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
8/49
"The God who was manifested mingled himself with the nature that was
doomed to death, in order that by communion with the divinity human
nature may be deified together with him."19
Vladimir Lossky, one of the premier Orthodox theologians of the twentieth
century, sums up this all-important point:
"The Fathers of the Christological centuries, though they formulated a
dogma of Christ the God-Man, never lost sight of the question concerningour union with God. The usual arguments they bring up against unorthodox
doctrines refer particularly to the fullness of our union, our deification,
which becomes impossible if one separates the two natures of Christ, asNestorius did, or if one only ascribes to Him one divine nature, like the
Monophysites, or if one curtails one part of human nature, like
Appolinarius, or if one sees in Him a single divine will and operation, likethe Monothelites. What is not assumed, cannot be deified this is the
argument to which the Fathers continually return."20
Many Evangelicals accept the dogmatic definitions of these cumenical
Synods that set forth orthodox doctrine on the Person of Christ definitions
which Harnack and others have denounced as eclipsing the "Biblical" Christ.
As Pelikan notes,
"There are many writers, and not only sceptical writers, but Christian
theologiansincluding, indeed, the most important school of German
theology in recent timeswho hold that the great controversies of the earlyChurch about the Trinity and the Incarnation wereabout subtleties
introduced by Greek philosophy into the Christian religion."21
The burden of proof is upon Anti-Mormons to demonstrate how oft-cited
Fathers like Athanasius, Basil the Great, and Augustineall of whom
accepted theosis and utilised Greek philosophical elements in their theology
can evade his own thesis that these elements "come into direct conflict
with apostolic warnings against mixing pagan and Christian thought (Col.2:8)."
19 Coniaris, Anthony, These Are the Sacraments. Light & Life Publishing, 1981, p. 126.20 Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. SVS Press, 1976, p. 154-155.21 Pelikan, Christianity, p. 21.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
9/49
Actually, Evangelical Calvinist tradition is not entirely immune from this
charge, for,
"Indirectly, through the works of Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine,
Pseudo-Dionysius and others Neoplatonism exerted great influence not only
on medieval Christianity but on all Christians who ever since, consciouslyor 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 werewholly indistinguishable, so it is in Saint Augustine when he considers
what the definition of simplicity implies for the attributes. The essence andattributes 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 thatof 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 OldTestament) but all distinguishable attributes whatsoever. It tends, we may
say, to replace the God Paul preached to the Athenians with the Unknown
God 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 theemerging church communitiesjust as St. Paul warned the nascent church
community at Collosae about the potential dangers of Greek philosophy
22 OMeara, 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.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
10/49
(Col. 2:8), so too did he warn the Galatians about slipping back into Judaic
practices (Gal. 3).
The very core dogmas of Christianity concerning the nature of God were
formulated amidst a Hellenic culture in light of previous monotheistic
beliefs inherited from Judaism, as Pelikan explains:
"The congruence of Cappadocian trinitarianism, this chief dogma, with
Cappadocian apologetics, was summarized in their repeated claim that theorthodox doctrine of the Trinity was located between the two conceptions
of Hellenism and Judaism, by invalidating both ways of thinking, while
accepting useful components of each. Gregory of Nyssa put this claimboldly: The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Logos and
by belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is
made to vanish by the unity of the [divine] nature abrogating thisimagination of plurality. In sum, therefore, Of the Jewish conception, let
the unity of the nature stand; and of the Hellenic, only the distinction as tothe hypostases, the remedy against a profane view being thus applied, as
required, on either side."25
Lossky also notes that
"It required the superhuman efforts of an Athanasius of Alexandria, of aBasil, of a Gregory of Nazianzen and of many others, to purify the concepts
of Hellenistic thought, to break down the watertight bulkheads by the
introduction of a Christian apophaticism which transformed rationalspeculation into a contemplation of the mystery of the Trinity."26
The twin experiences of Judaism and Hellenism in the history of Orthodoxy
are masterfully counterbalanced by Lossky:
"Christianity at once fulfils and scandalises. But whatever may be the
attitude of the Greeks and the Jews who deny Christ, in the Churchthat
is to say in the body of this Word which reclaims all things, makes anew, purifies and puts every truth in its proper placethere should be no
difference between Greek and Jew. Two dangers appear here: the first is
that the theologian may be a Greek in the Church, that he may allowhimself to be dominated by his forms of expression to the point of
25 Lossky, Mystical, p. 50.26 Pelikan, Christianity, p. 244-245.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
11/49
intellectualising revelation, and to lose at once the biblical sense of the
concrete and this existential character of the encounter with God which is
concealed in the apparent anthropomorphism of Israel.
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
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.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
12/49
The second century Latin theologian Tertullian provides an interesting case,
for although arguing against any synthesis of Christianity and philosophy,
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 doonly 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 theHoly 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, andwhose 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, thecharacteristics of divine beings, in other words, immortality. Once again the
theological content of St. Ephraims poetry is remarkably similar to his
Greek contemporariesonly 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 Gods command, "they would have acquired divinity in
31 Tetullian, Against Hermogenes, cap. v.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
13/49
humanity." And from the hymn "On Virginity": "Divinity flew down and
descended to raise and draw up humanity. The Son has made beautiful the
servants deformity, and he has become a god, just as he desired."32
Augustine has historically enjoyed broad respect within Protestantism. And,
while his views of grace and predestination are most familiar to Protestants,
he is nonetheless an important witness to theosis (see Note-E), as Gerald
Bonner explains:
"There is, however, in Augustines spirituality another element, perceived as
a consequence of Christs taking human nature upon himself; for it is in
Christ and through Christ, and only in and through Christ, that manbecomes a partaker of Gods nature: He who was God was made man to
make gods those who were men(Augustine, serm. 192.1, 1). These words,
which parallel the more-often-quoted words of St Athanasius in his DeIncarnatione, show that Augustine did not shrink from using the language of
deification, often said to be peculiar to the Greek Fathers."33
In fact, as GWH Lampe points out,
"Augustine repeats more often, perhaps, than any of the Greek theologians,
the theme of the interchange of places. The Word, he says, became what
we are that we might attain what we are not. For we are not God; but wecan see God with the mind and interior eye of the heart God hates you
as you are, in order to make you what you are not yet. You will be what he
is; but Augustine hastens to add that this means that we shall be Godsimage in the sense in which a mans reflection in a mirror is his image
inasmuch as it is like him, not in the sense in which a mans son is his image
inasmuch as he is actually what his father is according to substance."34
[32].
Bonner stresses that
"[T]he notion of deification is to be found in Augustine, not as somethingadded to his system as an afterthought, but as an integral whole. In itself,
the notion of deification is no more than what is implied by the New
32 Brock, Sebastian (Tr.), Saint Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise. St. Vladimirs Seminary Press,
1990, p. 73-74.33 Bonner, Gerald, Gods Decree & Mans Destiny: Studies in the Thought of Augustine of Hippo.
Variorum Reprints, London, 1987, p. 157.34 Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert (ed.), A History of Christian Doctrine. Fortress Press, 1978, p. 153-154.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
14/49
Testament term sonship by adoption by grace, that
is to say, and not by nature. It is, indeed, the consequence of human fleshbeing assumed by the divinity in the Incarnation: that flesh has been taken
into heaven by the ascended Christ, and if men participate in Him through
membership of the Church, the Body of Christ, they too may hope, afterdeath, 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 beenreplenished 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 theseducer saying: You will be like gods. Then we abandoned the true God, by
whose creative help we should have become gods, but by participating inHim, not by deserting Him."35
CS Lewis, the popular author of numerous apologetic, theological and
fictional works, provides a good example of a contemporary Western writer
much beloved of Evangelicalswho 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 menthe 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 thatcommand. 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 energyand joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless
mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smallerscale) 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.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
15/49
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 thatthe 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 allreflect the Lords 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 herLord 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.
2:13, 16; 1 Thes. 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:11; Col. 1:15, 28, 2:9-10, 3:3-4; Gal. 2:20,
4:19, 1 John 4:16, etc.).39 .
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 Wesleys 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
31 (1994) p. 67-91.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
16/49
sanctification;41 and it has also been found to exist in Martin Luthers
writings.
Theosis has recently been experiencing a rediscovery of sorts by many
within the Protestant tradition, who find it to be a neglected yet significant
means of understanding the salvation we have in Christ. Norris correctly
notes that
"Because significant Western theologians confess this deep sense of sharingin the divine nature and others like John Calvin and Bernard of Clairvaux
speak of the beautific vision and mystical union with God, deification should
be viewed by Protestants not as an oddity of Orthodox theology but as anecumenical consensus, a catholic teaching of the Church, best preserved
and developed by the Orthodox."42
Justification vs. Theosis?
Some Anti-Mormon Evangelicals make attempts to contrast theosis with
themes of justification by faith, atonement, etc., insisting that they are
mutually incompatible. The first point that could be made is that nowhere in
early Christian history (East or West) do we find anyone arguing against the
teaching of theosis. Secondly, the notion that redemption should be rigidly
interpreted in one particular way is itself foreign to early Christian thought:
"The seven ecumenical councils avoided defining salvation through any[one model] alone. No universal Christian consensus demands that one view
of salvation includes or excludes all others."43
JND Kelly further explains:
"Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying thought in
the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories,
however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutuallyincompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great
truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to the
different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no logical
41 McCormick, K. Steve, "Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: An Eastern Paradigm on Faith and Love"42 Norris, FW, p. 422.43 ibid., p. 412.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
17/49
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 Christs 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 themesthe former said to occur instantly, and the latter being alife-long processis 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
mans new status) and the concept of sanctification or regeneration
(understood as the intrinsic process by which God renews the justifiedsinner)."
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 beforeThe
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 ofOrthodoxy. 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
University Press, 1986, p. 182, 184, 186-187.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
18/49
"By this time it will be abundantly clear that, when we Orthodox speak
about salvation, we do not have in view any sharp differentiation betweenjustification 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 justificationdoes 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 werejustified 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 Christs death,
burial and resurrection. We Orthodox, then, see justification and
sanctification as one divine actionone 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/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 withsonship 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 Augustines own words,
47 (Ware), Saved?, p. 66-67.48 McGrath, Alister, Forerunners of the Reformation? Harvard Theological Review 75:2 (1982), p. 225.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
19/49
"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 ofHimself 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 Lutherwho led the "justification by
faith" battle cry in the sixteenth centurywould have pointed out the
apostate nature of theosis in the Fathers and in what he called "the Greek
Church." His writings indicate a familiarityalbeit a superficial onewith
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 thepatristic 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 takingpart 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 LuthersDictata super psalterium. Sixteenth Century Journal,
28/2, 1997, p. 405.52 Zwanepol, Klaas. "Luther and Theosis". Luther Digest, Vol. 5 (1997), p. 179.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
20/49
In his commentary on Galatians 3:9, Luther unequivocally states that "The
one who has faith is a completely divine man, a son of God, the inheritor of
the universe. He is the victor over the world, sin, death, and the devil" [51].
It is in Luthers Dictata super Psalterium that a group of Finnish scholars
have focused much attention recently, finding within it strong deification
imagery. Spearheading this new scholarship is Simo Peuras groundbreaking
Mehr als ein Mensch?, which traces the theme of deification in Luther
between the time period 1513 1519. Taking a critical look at this effort,
Beilfeldt [see Note-G] summarizes some of the findings in the Dictata. In the
scholion on Psalm 117 (118):12, Luther writes concerning the Christian:
"On account of faith in Christ who dwells in him, he is God, the son of God
and infinite (est deus, dei filius et infinitus), for God already is in him." And
"In the commentary on Psalm 84 (85) Luther speaks of a mystical
incarnation of Christ in the new people of faith" and that "he uses animage strongly associated with deification. The righteousness of Christ
looking down from heaven actually elevates believers by making them
heavenly (coelestus): Therefore Christ came to the earth so that we might
be elevated to heaven." In a final sample, Beinfeldt explains that "If Luther
were interested in deification at all, it can hardly be imagined that he would
miss the opportunity provided by verse 6 of Psalm 81 (82) (Dii estis, et filii
Excelsi omnes). In the interlinear gloss he distinguishes between being
gods and being sons of God: I say to you who are good: You are gods
because you are born of God from the Holy Spirit, not through nature: and
you are all sons through the adoption of the most high God the Father. To
be a god is thus to be born from the Holy Spirit, the spirit which makes one
just before God. Luther adds in the marginal gloss that here the speaker
passes from the deceitful body to the true one; he moves from his own
goodness to that of Gods. The imagery of the scholion is even stronger:
you are of God and are not mengods and sons of the most high are
recalled by him to his own condition (statum). To be deified is to be called
back from human sinfulness to Gods own state. Through the birth of the
Holy Spirit in the believer, God adopts the person, and brings them up to his
own state" [52].
Indeed, there have been recent fruitful discussions between Lutheran and
Orthodox scholars on the subject of salvation (see Note-H) that reach the
exact opposite of Jones conclusion in SBP that theosis is incompatible with
justification. The Rt. Rev. Michael C.D. McDaniel testifies that "the
Lutheran emphasis on justification in light of the Orthodox emphasis on
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
21/49
deification has revealed that, while Lutherans speak of faith and Orthodox
speak of theosis, both understand the Christians 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 theosisThe Lutheran catechisms, the Augsburg
Confession, its Apology, and the Formula of Concord all contain statements
compatible with theosis" [56].
Essentially, Orthodoxys 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 languagealthough not used nearly as much
as in Western traditionscan 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
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
22/49
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 Christs 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.
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
23/49
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. Pauls doctrine of union with Christ. This has certainly been one of the
most persistent difficulties in Scottish theology. In Calvins 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 Christs own
divine-human righteousness which we receive through union with Him.
Apart from Christs 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 Denneys 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 Orthodoxys emphasis on union with Christ via theosis, "omits or
minimizes a justifying Cross." In fact, Jones goes so far as to say that
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
24/49
"Christs 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 otherwisethat "the cross [has] the very deepest expiatory
significance [64]that "mans 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:
"Augustines 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 ourhuman 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 mans restoration as essentially the effect of the incarnation, were
able to find a logical place for the Lords 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 Christs 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 mans divinization. This is notto say that Christs 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,
character and actions" [72].
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
25/49
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
Christs 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 Christs death and sacrifice and
the possibility of mans 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. Christs death was due not to his weakness but to the fact that
he died for mans 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 Christs sacrifice offered for the
redemption of our sins and for mens deliverance from corruption. For
Athanasius, Christs 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 Gods 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 mans 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,
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
26/49
according to Bishop Kallistos, that "we are saved through the total work of
Christ, not just by one particular event in his life. The cross is central, but it
can only be understood in the light of what goes before of Christs taking
up into himself of our entire human nature at his birth and likewise in the
light of what comes afterwards, the resurrection, ascension and second
coming. Any theology of salvation that concentrates narrowly on the cross,
at the expense of the resurrection, is bound to seem unbalanced to
Orthodoxy" [77]. It should be noted that some Evangelicals have a better
sense of this unity [78]. So despite St. Pauls determination "not to know
anythingexcept Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2), he also
stated emphatically that "if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are
still in your sins!" (1 Cor. 15:17).
In EH Jones writes that in Orthodoxy "discussions of substitutionary
atonement and propitiation are virtually absent from their publishedexplanations of salvation." Of course, the reader is meant to interpret this
statement as a virtual denial of these themes, but a more informed
understanding would instead reveal that Orthodoxy possesses a much
broader conception of salvation than that found in traditional Western
Christian thought. Moreover, there is an imminently Biblical reason for this
"virtual absence" (see Note-M). Jones should also consider that ransom
language is used throughout the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church. If,
on the other hand, it is a catechism that he has in mind, Metropolitan Philaret
of Moscows has this to say about the term propitiation: "An expression
which is close in meaning to the present term [satisfaction], but which is
more complete and is authentically Biblical, and gives a basis for the
Orthodox understanding of the work of Redemption, is the word
propitiation (tr. from the Greek ilasmos-), which we read about in the
First Epistle of John: Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that He
loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10).
In fact, references to justification, atonement and propitiation in
contemporary Orthodox writings are far more numerous than Jones
apparently realizes. Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Isaiah statesunequivocally that "Christ remitted our sins. He paid for them, in other
words, when He died on the Cross. Christ our lord redeemed us by paying
for our sins with His blood and His death on the Cross. It was this act which
abrogated the old covenant and put into effect the New Covenant (Hebrews
9:16-18). Christ our God made reparation for our sins by giving His very
life" [79]. According to Anthony Coniaris, "Man will never know who he is
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
27/49
until he meets Jesus at the Cross. It is here that man comes to realize his true
identity: that he is loved by God, that he belongs to God, that he is worth to
God as much as the blood of His only Son" [80]. Timiadis exclaims that "the
fact of the redemption, that Christ gave his life as ransom for many (Matt.
20:28), is at the center of the churchs faith" [81]. Fr. Georges Florovsky
writes that "In the blood of Jesus is revealed the new and living way, the
way into that eternal Sabbath, when God rests from His mighty deeds" [82].
And Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dean of St. Vladimirs Orthodox Theological
Seminary, states that: "For being God, he became man, and being man, he
became a slave; and being a slave, he became dead and not only dead, but
dead on a cross. From this deepest degradation of God flows the eternal
exaltation of man. According to the scriptures, mans sins and the sins of the
whole world are forgiven and pardoned by the sacrifice of Christ, by the
offering of His life-His body and His blood, which is the blood of God
(Acts 20:28)upon the cross. This is the redemption, the ransom, theexpiation, the propitiation spoken about in the scriptures which had to be
made so that man could be at one with God. Christ paid the price which
was necessary to be paid for the world to be pardoned and cleansed of all
iniquities and sins (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23)" [83]. These are, of course, just
a few samples; but they amply demonstrate the utter falsity of the claim that
Orthodoxy "cannot permit New Covenant justification" (see Note-J). Nor are
these examples of "lip service" as Jones charges, for these very ideas
constitute the center of corporate worship in the life of the Orthodox Church,
as we shall soon see.
Jones then connects his ideas to the participation of the faithful in the
sacramental life of the Church, and makes the erroneous statement in SBP
that "In Plotinuss system, one can be redeemed/deified without any need of
sacrificial atonement. Similarly, in the Eastern synthesis, the incarnation and
sacraments could do the trick alone." Of course, it is all too easy to
demonstrate the falsity of this charge (see Note-K). "Without the cross of
Christ," as Stanilaoe explains, "salvation would never have been achieved"
[84]. Fr. Thomas Hopko completely contradicts Jones claim when he says
that: "Orthodox spiritual and sacramental life is a life not only under thecross, but within the cross. The supreme expression of Gods mercy and
kindness and love for man is that He enables His people to share in the
sufferings of Christ and to be co-crucified with Him for the life of the world"
[85]. Moreover, participation in the sacraments avails us nothing except
judgment and condemnation if we have not first embraced the Cross and
take up our own, as Fr. Thomas stresses: "We invoke the Holy Spirit to
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
28/49
come upon us and our gifts of bread and wine, and say this is the body
broken, and the blood shed. But if we are not loving with the love that God
has loved us, and our bodies are not broken and our blood is not spilled, we
are not saved, nor will we be saved" [86]. No Orthodox Christian who
knows his or her faith could ever assent to the efficacy of mere mechanical,
ritualistic participation in Church life, without inner conversion.
One of the fundamental problems with Jones critique is that he expects
Orthodoxy to practice and to expound Christianity using the same
methodology and terminology of Protestantism. However, it must be
understood that unlike the Western confessions whether Roman Catholic
or Protestant one will not discover the essence of Orthodoxy in dogmatic
works or systematic treatises, as Clendenin explains: "Except for the
monumentally important work Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (De fide
orthodoxa) by John of Damascus (675-754), almost no Eastern theologianshave written what we in the West have come to know as systematic
theologies. In Eastern theology we find nothing at all that would compare
with Aquinass Summa theologica, Calvins Institutes of the Christian
Religion, or Karl Barths Church Dogmatics" [87].
There may be some truth to Jones statement in SBP that "one searches in
vain for serious Eastern explanations of justification, atonement,
propitiation, etc;" however, this lies not in some supposed neglect of these
themes, but for the very legitimate reasons given above. Simply put, Jones
has not grasped the Patristic dictum "the rule of prayer and worship is the
rule of faith and doctrine." This has always been the Orthodox approach to
the Faith, and this statement of St. Prosper of Aquitaine shows forth the
falsity of Jones charge (SBP) that in Orthodoxy, "Christs substitutionary
sacrifice, the hallmark of Christian faith, plays no central role." Were he to
examine the service books used by the Orthodox Church in celebrating its
liturgical services throughout the year, Jones would find innumerable
references to the saving Cross of Christ, and the benefits from it exalted and
praised. He would also discover that references to the Cross are much more
frequent than to theosis. Additionally, the two themes are sometimesconnected, as in the Great Vespers hymn of the Feast of the Universal
Exaltation of the Precious and Livegiving Cross, which states that it is the
Cross "by which we earthborn creatures are deified" [88]. This is a good
example of how the Liturgy demonstrates Jones misrepresentation on this
point; specifically the statement in EH that "deification is grounded in the
Incarnation rather than the atonement." Aside from the service books,
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
29/49
Orthodox prayer books are also replete with references to the saving power
of the Cross.
The redeeming death of the Savior is at the very heart of Orthodox worship.
"Being baptized and sealed," Fr. Thomas Hopko explains, "we eat and drink
the Lords broken body and shed blood at the table in His Kingdom during
the Divine Liturgy in order to bear His passion and suffering in our lives, so
that dying with Him we can live with Him, and enduring with Him we can
reign with Him in the Kingdom which has no end. Communing with the
crucified, victorious Lord, we are anointed with the grace of His Spirit so
that our sufferings in the flesh can avail to the salvation of our lives, and so
that our very death can be, with that of Christ crucified, unto the forgiveness
of our sins, the healing of our souls and bodies, and life everlasting" [89].
Indeed, we witness in the eucharistic celebration the intimate relationship between the Cross and theosis. Christians since the earliest times have
understood theosis in the context of the participation in, and our subsequent
uniting with, the broken Body and spilled Blood of Jesus. Kelly explains that
"the eucharist for the Fathers was the chief instrument of the Christians
divinization; through it Christs mystical body was built up and sustained
Hilary, for example, argues that, since he receives Christs veritable flesh,
the Saviour must be reckonded to abide in him; hence he becomes one with
Christ, and through Him with the Father. He is thus enabled to live here
below the divine life which Christ came fro heaven to give to men. Ambrose
writes similarly, Forasmuch as one and the same Lord Jesus Christ
possesses Godhead and a human body, you who receive His flesh are made
to participate through that nourishment in His divine substanceAccording
to Cyril of Jerusalem, We become Christ-bearers, since His body and blood
are distributed throughout our limbs. So, as blessed Peter expressed it, we
made partakers of the divine nature. The essence of communion, states John
Chrysostom, is the uniting of the communicants with Christ, and so with one
another: the union is complete, and eliminates all separation. Thus we
feed on Him at Whom angels gaze with tremblingWe are mingled with
Him, and become one body and one flesh with Christ" [90].
Of course, this relationship between the Cross and theosis has also been
pointed out in the broader context of the Christian life (see Note-K), as Fr.
Thomas explains: "If we are really called to be divine, then we are called to
be crucified, because if God ultimately reveals Himself on the Cross, then
that is where we have to reveal ourself too. If God fulfills Himself on the
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
30/49
Cross, then that is where we fulfill ourself too. If He reveals His Godness in
a broken Body and shed Blood, then these things have to take place in our
life too" [91]. In his article The Tree of the Cross, Fr. Thomas again links the
Cross and theosis: "The cross gathers in itself the entire mystery of
salvation, and as such, embraces the entire mystery of the spiritual life. To
take up the cross and to live within its power is salvation. It is the Kingdom
of God, defined by the Apostle as the peace and the joy and the
righteousness in the Holy Spirit. It is theosis, deification, the becoming God
by grace that is the center and goal of human being and life" [92]. No less
than St. Athanasius himself attested to the unity of the Cross and theosis:
"The Word became flesh in order both to offer this sacrifice and that we,
participating in His Spirit, might be deified" [93].
Salvation by Grace or Works?
"Christian life," says Fr. Thomas Hopko in his lecture The Church &Liturgy, "is a miracle of grace." The Orthodox Church definitively teaches
and believes that a person is saved entirely by the grace of God. But at the
same time, this movement of God towards us does not overwhelm or abolish
the human will, as Bishop Kallistos (Ware) notes: "We should consider that
the work of our salvation is totally and entirely an act of divine grace, and
yet in that act of divine grace we humans remain totally and entirely free."
Or, as the second century Epistle to Diognetes puts it: "God sent his Son to
save us to persuade us but not to compel: for force is alien to God." While
Calvin said that the capacity of humans to choose good was destroyed after
the Fall, Orthodoxy would say that the will has become distorted and sickly,
but not altogether dead. On the Orthodox understanding of the fall and its
consequence, humans retaining as they do the divine image retain also
the freedom to choose between right and wrong" [94].
Historically there has been much suspicion among Protestants as to the role
of human will in our salvationi.e., synergy, or cooperation with Gods
grace (see Note-T). The understanding of the Orthodox position is further
complicated because the Pelagian controversy (see Note-P) was a Western
phenomenon, and this in turn makes it all too easy to transfer Westernpresuppositions onto Orthodoxy. As Hinlicky explains: "In the Western
context, Lutherans were allergic to the term synergy because of the
Pelagian connotation it had for them, suggesting a self-initiated movement
to God that, as such, could merit the grace of justification. This allergic
reaction rendered them incapable of grasping or utilizing it in its Eastern
sense to describe the new person of faith, who works with the Spirit in the
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
31/49
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 Gods 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 Gods 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, Gods 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
Ascetics On Those Who Think That They Are Made Righteous by Works.
On the contrary, we are, insist Maximus and Peter of Damascus, deified by
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
32/49
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 drivenit 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. Paulthe 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. Pauls 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, nepsisthat is, vigilance, watchfulness,
intensity, zeal, alertness, attentiveness, or spiritual wariness. The nepticmind-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
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
33/49
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 Gods 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 cumenical 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 cumenical 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 Gods 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
the other (cf. Phil. 2:13-14)."
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
34/49
The Orthodox Church unquestionably and definitively affirms that we are
saved by grace through faith. It would be expedient to close this section with
an excerpt from an essay on the subject of grace authored by Fr. Thomas
Hopko, for in it he concisely summarizes the themes discussed in this
section: "We would say that Gods speaking and acting in our world, and
Gods entrance into our creaturely being and life is a free gift of Gods
mercy and love for us, that there is nothing that we can do to earn or deserve
it, and nothing that we can do to stop or prevent it. We would say that there
is no human life without participation in Gods self-manifesting activity, and
that we human beings are who and what we are because we are made in the
image and likeness of God, male and female, for unending divine life. We
would say that it is not a matter of God choosing us without or against our
will, nor of our choosing or rejecting God. The mystery of God-with-me and
I-with-God depends wholly on God to the extent that there is no I without
God. When I am with God, then I am who and what I am. When I amagainst God, I am struggling to destroy who and what God creates and saves
me to be. This struggle is futile; I cannot rid myself of Gods presence in my
being and life. To persist in it is madness and hell. It must be clearly
affirmed, nevertheless, that I am not God and God is not me. Without God, I
am nothing and can do nothing. With God, I am who I am and can do all
things through God who vivifies, illumines and strengthens me. Through
Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Church, through the preaching of the
Word and the celebration of the sacraments, the presence and power of God
is given as a gift: pressed down, running over, lavished upon us. All is given
by God whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not. When we like it
and want it, it is paradise. When we resist it, it is the hell whose very pain is
the presence and power of God who is love and truth, peace and joy, beauty
and bliss. God is with us. This, simply put, is the meaning of grace. Gods
gift of divinity to human persons is undeserved and unmerited,
unconditional and unstoppable. It cannot be resisted, yet it may be madly
unsuccessfully resisted from our side forever" [103].
Concluding Remarks
In his zeal to paint Orthodoxy as a pagan perversion of the Christian faith,Jones omits several key elements. He disregards the consensual teaching of
the Fathers and unwittingly ends up impugning them in his very conclusions,
for the Holy Fathers testify in their writings to the very things that Jones
condemns in his articlesnamely theosis! Their utilization of Greek
philosophy to clarify and explain dogmas of the Christian faith is another
truth utterly absent from SBP. Perhaps the greatest irony in Jones criticism
-
8/3/2019 00 Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
35/49
of Neoplatonism is that one of its ch