The book I am currently working on is an evaluation of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis from a Lutheran perspective. I make the argument that Lutherans can and should adopt a teaching of theosis, as it is taught in the fathers, Luther's writings, and our Confessions. The language may make us, as Lutherans, somewhat uneasy, but whatever terminology is utilized, the concept is one that is Biblical and catholic.
Theosis is defined by Norman Russel as "our restoration as persons to integrity and wholeness by participation in Christ through the Holy Spirit, in a process which is initiated in this world through our life of ecclesial communion and moral striving and finds ultimate fulfillment in our union with the Father—all within the broad context of the divine economy." (Fellow Workers With God, 21)
For the Eastern Orthodox Church, salvation is primarily viewed as participationist, focusing on Christ in us, rather than Christ for us. The Lutheran tradition has tended to promote a soteriology that is predominantly forensic in light of the legal approach taken to the doctrine of justification and the priority of Christ for us. These two conceptions need not be pitted against one another, as if soteriology needs to be either juridical or participationist. Both motifs are present in the writings of Paul, the early fathers, and Luther.
It is my contention that theosis is a helpful and needed approach to salvation, and should be seen as "Christification." The earliest fathers including Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Athanasius took a Christological approach to the concept of deification. this is apparent in Athanasius' formula that "God became man so that man might become god." God took a human nature upon himself, and consequently gives us various attributes of divinity including immortality, incorruptibility and righteousness. This is to be carefully distinguished from the concept of apotheosis which teaches that humans can actually become divine by nature. Later Eastern writers, stemming from the writings of Dionysius the Areopogite, place deification in philosophical categories rather than the more strictly Biblical and less speculative approach of Athanasius. This latter approach has been adopted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially by those in the Neo-Palamite school of thought. It is the earlier approach of Irenaeus and Athanasius which comports with a Christological and Biblically oriented theology, rather than Palamism.
Christification is not a replacement of forensic justification as some in the Finnish approach to Luther have argued, but it's a complimentary reality. The Lutheran scholastic tradition spoke of this concept under the phrase "mystical union." Adolf Hoenecke is particularly insightful on this subject in his Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics. He writes,
"The mystical union of the believers with God consists in that the triune God through the Holy Spirit essentially is graciously present in believers, through which those thus united with God not only blessedly rejoice and are filled with comfort and peace but are also made constantly more certain in grace, strengthened in sanctification, and preserved for eternal life." ELD III, 385
Along with forensic justification, through the imputed righteousness of Christ, God himself also dwells in his people. This divine indwelling is a real-ontic reality as opposed to the Ritschlian concept that it is a unity of will, rather than an actual ontological union. Through this divine indwelling, God grants grace, eternal life, and growth in holiness. Through this union, the believer is continually conformed to the image of Christ. Hoenecke also writes,
"According to these passages the essence of the mystical union is that God according to his substance in a miraculous way is close to the substance of humans and permeates their substance with his essence (Jn 17:21-23), and dwelling in the believers, he so works in them that they are filled with knowledge and all the fullness of God (Eph 3:17-19). When we describe the mystical union as the presence of the divine substance with the substance of humans, we express its intimacy. Two intimate friends cannot be so closely united. With the substance of their souls they are near each other; but God and the believers are in each other. The substance of both touches each other most closely; indeed the divine permeates the human. But self-evidently, every thought of an essential partaking of the believer in the substance of God, every mixing of God and man, every pantheistic notion of deification is far from this." ELD III, 386
Hoenecke is careful to argue for a real union with God without allowing for a blending of natures, so that the unique character of God is protected. Luther writes similarly in many places, especially in his Galatians commentary. For example:
"But so far as justification is concerned, Christ and I must be so closely attached that He lives in me and I in Him. What a marvelous way of speaking! Because He lives in me, whatever grace, righteousness, life, peace, and salvation there is in me is all Christ’s; nevertheless, it is mine as well, by the cementing and attachment that are through faith, by which we become as one body in the Spirit." LW 26, 127-128
For Luther, there is no separation of God's person from his gifts. When he grants us the righteousness of Christ, he grants us Christ himself. This idea is reflected in the Large Catechism,
"But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us righteous and acceptable to God. Through this knowledge we come to love and delight in all the commandments of God because we see here in the Creed how God gives himself completely to us, with all his gifts and power, to help us keep the Ten Commandments: the Father gives us all creation, Christ all his works, the Holy Spirit all his gifts." (LC II.68)
God grants his gifts including creation, and the work of Christ. Along with such gifts he grants himself, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Through this gift, the Christian is able to delight in God's Law. This union becomes the basis by which Christians grow in their faith, and are daily renewed, killing the old Adam. It is to be noted, however, that the Lutheran approach to this is much less optimistic than the Orthodox, who reach toward a possible goal of sinless perfection prior to one's eschatological glorification. For Luther, the continual forgiveness of sins is still the most essential aspect of the Christian life, though this does not negate the reality of divine indwelling and the actualization of holiness within the Christian.
12 comments:
"in a process which is initiated in this world through our life of ecclesial communion and moral striving and finds ultimate fulfillment in our union with the Father—all within the broad context of the divine economy." (Fellow Workers With God, 21)
I would say this "process" BEGINS at our baptism into Christ Jesus.
Thank you for this helpful post. I see a huge problem in making an abstraction out the doctrine of justification, thereby separating it from the person of Christ, who we receive by faith in baptism. Christ for us is the Lutheran's basic foundational message. And then we can and must speak of Christ in us, because we get all of Christ by faith. But we should be careful to *never* speak about these incredible realities in a way that separates them from Jesus.
It has been helpful for me to understand the connection between Christ for us and in us by thinking in sacramental terms. I like to think of "Christification", as you call it, as that daily baptism of repentance. Christ is given to us from outside of us, washes over us. As we receive Christ for us, Christ then lives within us. And this Christ in us lives out of us in fruits of obedience. The same happens as we hear the preached word, or partake of the sacrament of the altar.
Anyway, thanks for the article. I really appreciate you bringing in your knowledge of church history and especially of the fathers.
I think it is a reach to incorporate the nomenclature of "theosis" or "deification". Words mean things. As Lutherans, we define our terms. Which is why a phrase like "mystical union" serves us well. Professor Voeltz back at Sem used "participatory model of justification" which was also both clear and helpful.
Rev. Bob Liichow, I agree, the process does begin at our baptism. And Russel's language of "moral striving" reflects a more Eastern view of this which is highly synergistic.
Kurt, those are my thoughts exactly. I fear that many of the ways we have spoken about justification in the past have divorced Christ's work from his person.
Question, Jordan: how would theosis differ from the concept of "entire sanctification" as asserted by the Wesleyan-Arminians? Because one of the chief objections to theosis I've seen is that is is an attempt to smuggle perfectionism or salvation by works through the back door.
Entire sanctification is dead wrong. A concept like that would negate the notion that the Christian is simul iustus et peccator. The Eastern view of theosis would seem to teach something like this, but I don't adopt an Eastern understanding of deification. St. Augustine, for example, has a bold teaching on deification but makes it abundantly clear that the believer will continue to struggle with sin until death.
We have to remember that whatever union with God we have in this life, whatever holiness we might have, is and always will be hampered by sin. That's why I think we have to be careful to keep justification central in our theology. I think sanctification and mystical union are important concepts, and they are unfortunately neglected by many. However, these always have to be seen in light of God's perfect work for us on the cross, so that the temptation for some type of perfectionism or works righteousness is avoided.
Jordan,
Good post. I just recently started visiting your site, but I have enjoyed what I am reading.
Have you read Karkkainen on theosis? He has a book that tries to lay groundwork for ecumenical dialogue on the issue:
http://www.amazon.com/One-God-Salvation-Deification-Justification/dp/0814629717
Fascinating subject Jordan! Also, congrats on your previous book that was published.
In regard to theosis... It was stated that, "through this divine indwelling, God grants grace, eternal life, and growth in holiness. Through this union, the believer is continually conformed to the image of Christ."
My concern/question with respect to theosis is, 'what is the role and function of the Word and Sacrament in regard to grace, growth, eternal life, etc...?' Does theosis open the door to the idea that God becomes an inner teacher to us (directly speaking) within a realm of inner depth, without external means like Word and Sacrament? In other words, my ultimate concern is the possible creation of a Platonic ontological gap between an inner-man and outer-man, as well as a gap between soul and sign. We can easily drift away from the theology of God coming to us in external means that justify and sanctify (i.e., earthly means like bread, wine, water, and words), 'to' the creation of a seperate compartment of inner depth where Jesus deals with the person directly apart from external means. To create a seperate inner depth compartment is to divide the person and thus advertently/inadvertently distance the person from the external Word and Sacrament.
Just my $0.02.
Grace and Peace Brother.
In your book, will you discuss Mannermaa and the Finnish perspective on this subject? I just read Two Kinds of Love by Mannermaa and I found it helpful.
Matt,
That's a great question. I certainly don't want to open the door to any kind of enthusiasm that looks for the work of the Spirit apart from Word and Sacrament. Hoenecke makes a distinction between a false type of mysticism and a good type of mysticism. False mysticism, taking its cue from Pseudo-Dionysius, places it's emphasis on one's experience of God through ecstatic experience, taking a cue from Neo-Platonists like Plotinus. A Lutheran conception of mystical union arises from Word and Sacrament, and is strengthened and increased by these same means.
Cruxsola,
I do somewhat, but it is a more prominent subject in my recently published work.
Justin,
I have, but I fear that Karkkainen conflates mystical union with justification, and overlooks Luther's forensic terminology.
Post a Comment