Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis

By Jordan Cooper

The doctrine of theosis has enjoyed a recent resurgence among varied theological traditions across the realms of historical, dogmatic, and exegetical theology. In Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis, Jordan Cooper evaluates this teaching from a Lutheran perspective. He examines the teachings of the church fathers, the New Testament, and the Lutheran Confessional tradition in conversation with recent scholarship on theosis. Cooper proposes that the participationist soteriology of the early fathers expressed in terms of theosis is compatible with Luther's doctrine of forensic justification. The historic Lutheran tradition, Scripture, and the patristic sources do not limit soteriological discussions to legal terminology, but instead offer a multifaceted doctrine of salvation that encapsulates both participatory and forensic motifs. This is compared and contrasted with the development of the doctrine of deification in the Eastern tradition arising from the thought of Pseudo-Dionysius. Cooper argues that the doctrine of the earliest fathers--such as Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Justin--is primarily a Christological and economic reality defined as "Christification." This model of theosis is placed in contradistinction to later Neoplatonic forms of deification.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Jul 18, 2014
• ISBN: 9781630873585

Jordan Cooper

Jordan Cooper is the pastor of Hope Lutheran Church in Brighton, IA, host of the Just & Sinner podcast (visit http://www.justandsinner.com), and the author of The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul (2013).

Book preview

Abbreviations

AC The Augsburg Confession

ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers

Apol Apology of the Augsburg Confession

FC Ep The Epitome of the Formula of Concord

FC SD The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

LC The Large Catechism

LW Luther’s Works

NPNF1 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1

NPNF2 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2

SA The Smalcald Articles

SC The Small Catechism

WA Weimarer Ausgabe

All references to the Lutheran Confessions are taken from Kolb, Robert, and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Translated by Charles Arand, et al. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.

Introduction

Theosis, or deification, is a prominent teaching in the history of the church. Though predominantly associated with the East, notions of participation in divinity are apparent in the great Western traditions as well. Such language is present in the literature from Ignatius of Antioch to John the Damascene and from Martin Luther to Robert Jenson. Recent years have seen a resurgence of the doctrine of deification. The early to mid-twentieth century saw a revival of the thought of Gregory Palamas within Eastern Orthodoxy by the Neopalamite theological school led by Vladimir Lossky. This involved a recapturing of a distinctively Eastern theology, which emphasized deification and mystical theology over the Scholastic tendencies of the West. In the 1970s, a school of Finnish Luther scholars following Tuomo Mannermaa discovered something of a doctrine of theosis in the writings of Luther, especially in his 1535 Galatians commentary. This discovery has allowed Lutherans to have more productive conversations with the Eastern Church; many purport that the soteriologies of Luther and the East are compatible with one another. There have also been recent attempts to argue for theosis within the theology of John Calvin and John Wesley, leading to a discovery of the doctrine within Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, and Methodist traditions.

This has, I think, been a positive movement within the church. With all of the divergences over the doctrine of justification since the Reformation, there is need for a soteriological starting point that can promote productive ecumenical dialogue, and deification is a doctrine that is truly catholic. That being said, the various theological traditions are not willing to simply admit agreement here by dismissing all their various other disagreements with a feigned unity of faith, nor should they. Indeed, there are many differences of opinion even on the doctrine of theosis itself. In the East, deification is the primary soteriological motif, eclipsing any discussion of forensic justification. In the Lutheran tradition, theosis can, at most, be viewed as a compatible and secondary soteriological category; justification is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls.¹

I propose that a thoroughly Reformational understanding of justification can coexist with a patristic understanding of theosis. For too long, theologians and exegetes have pitted legal and ontological soteric categories against one another, casting salvation as either about imputation or ontological renewal. This false dichotomy has built up walls between theological traditions that need not exist. A consistently and uncompromisingly biblical theology necessitates that salvation includes forensic justification along with a real-ontic union with God and participation in Trinitarian life.

1. Quia isto articulo stante stat Ecclesia, ruente ruit Ecclesia (WA

40

.III.

352

).

1

Defining Theosis

Theosis is a multifaceted doctrine with a variety of formulations; thus, it is a difficult concept to define. Most well known is the Athanasian proclamation that God became man so that man might become god.¹ This statement summarizes the patristic teaching on the subject and establishes a basis on which all further dialogue on the topic expounds. This statement, however, is subject to a variety of interpretations. It could be misread to support the pagan notion of apotheosis, wherein one becomes a unique divine entity among a pantheon of gods. A more precise definition will aid in proceeding with the present work. Though no definition completely captures all the implications and subtleties of this teaching, Norman Russel’s explanation of deification is perhaps the most comprehensive:

Theosis is 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.²

While the Lutheran tradition has placed soteriology primarily in the realm of event rather than process, the Eastern tradition proclaims deification, its central soteriological category, as a process.

Salvation as Process in Orthodox and Lutheran Theology

Notions of salvation as event and process need not be pitted against one another. Justification, in Lutheran (and Pauline) theology, is an event of the past and present, in which God’s eschatological verdict of righteous is placed on his people in advance. This occurs through the alien righteousness of Christ received by faith.³ As will be demonstrated below, the Lutheran Confessions are also willing to speak of a soteric process by which union with God is increased and the believer progresses in holiness. This is the context in which theosis is to be placed.

Such a distinction between event and process is not foreign to Orthodox theology either. In his popular handbook on the Orthodox Church, Anthony Coniaris distinguishes between justification and sanctification. He defines justification as the understanding that we have been saved from sin and death through baptism, which is our personal Golgotha.⁴ In Coniaris’ perspective, justification is the beginning of the Christian life—salvation spoken of in the past tense. Justification is received by faith, which is the humble acceptance of God’s gracious gift. It is the hand that takes the blessing. It receives what God gives, not as something we deserve, but as a gift of His grace.⁵ Good works do not cause justification, but are a grateful response, a feeble attempt on our part to show appreciation to God for what He has done for us.⁶ This is distinguished from sanctification, which is the understanding that we are being saved daily as we repent of our sins and continue to walk with Jesus yielding our will to Him in humble obedience.⁷ Like Luther, Coniaris speaks of conversion and repentance as a daily reality. The great saints were not converted once. Nor did they repent just once. Their life was a daily conversion and a constant repentance.⁸ If Coniaris is representative of Orthodox theology in this regard, there are many convergences between Lutheran and Orthodox soteriology. For both, salvation can be spoken of in the past tense in relation to justification. This occurs through faith and baptism, wherein God creates life from death and gives the forgiveness of sins due to the work of Christ at Golgotha. Works then serve as the result of God’s grace, in thankfulness for what God has done in Christ. Theosis is then placed alongside of justification as a compatible soteriological motif. It flows from justification and involves a process of growth.

The difference, then, between the two traditions is not over whether salvation is an event or a process, but over which aspect of redemption is primary. Orthodox theology, especially since Lossky’s critique of Western theology, has emphasized salvation as a process.⁹ The doctrine of justification has received little to no treatment in major orthodox dogmatic works. Lutheran theology emphasizes salvation as an event—as justification. Though some may claim this to be merely the outgrowth of medieval debates or as an overreaction to Semipelagianism, there are important theological reasons for this prioritization. In justification, one receives the benefits of Christ: namely, the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ. God’s eschatological verdict is placed upon the sinner in the present, resulting in the justification of the ungodly. This work is perfect in the present life, and assures the eternal salvation of God’s people. Growth is always incomplete; the Christian will always remain simul iustus et peccator because he or she simultaneously exists in eschatological life and the present Adamic age. The Christian is a citizen of both this age and the age to come. One progresses toward union with God as eschatological life moves toward the believer, and the old Adam is put to death. If the focus were on salvation as a process—in terms of sanctification or deification—one’s assurance would be misplaced. It is always the perfect act of God, rather than the imperfect and continual, which gives the assurance of salvation and which then serves as the basis for theosis.

Becoming God

The notion of becoming god falls deaf on Western ears. It likely brings up images of ancient hero cults in which a great figure, emperor, or pharaoh was said to become a divine figure. Or perhaps the Mormon conception of divinization comes to mind, under which a man can genuinely become a god, not merely through participation but in essence. Such misconceptions need to be clarified before proceeding. A distinction, which the fathers were careful to make, must be drawn between theosis and apotheosis.¹⁰ Apotheosis is the notion that a human can become a divine entity—that a complete ontological transformation takes place wherein humanity is transcended and becomes god by nature. This would displace the Trinitarian God and result in pantheism. Andrew Louth writes that:

Here is perhaps a good place to clear up a misconception about deification, namely, that it involves the transformation of our human nature into something other than human, some kind of apotheosis that removes our humanity: to quote some frequently quoted words, If the aim of the Christian is to cease to be ‘human, all too human,’ it would be a natural corollary in Christology to regard the humanity of our Lord as a problem rather than a datum. For the Orthodox tradition, and for St. Maximus in particular, nothing could be further from the truth: the aim of the Christian is to become once again truly human, to become the human partners of God as we were originally created, and as human partners to share in the divine life.¹¹

Deification thus involves the restoration of mankind’s original creation. Adam was created to share in God’s own life, but forfeited that life through sin. Through theosis, humanity once again regains that participation; there is no dissolution of human nature, but a more complete human nature.

There is a distinction at work in this concept between nature and grace. Humanity does not become in any sense divinized by nature; that would imply an identity with the divine essence and would violate the creature/Creator distinction inherent in orthodox Christian theology. It is only by grace that humankind can participate in divinity and share in God’s Trinitarian life. This secures the qualitative distinction between Creator and creature. God is the giver of grace, life, and salvation; humanity is simply the recipient. As Keating writes, Properly understood, the Christian doctrine of deification not only maintains the distinction between God and the created order, but is premised on it. Christian deification dissolves if the fundamental difference between what is divine and what is human is compromised.¹² To have a person, thing, or essence, and to state that one can participate in that person, thing, or essence, necessarily implies that there is a fundamental differentiation between the identity of the one who participates and the thing that is participated in. This is the case in the Orthodox doctrine of deification.¹³

Image and Likeness

Many Orthodox theologians utilize a distinction from Irenaeus between humanity’s creation in the image of God, and the likeness of God.¹⁴ Adam was created with both the likeness and image of God. Through the fall, the likeness was lost, but the image retained. The likeness is regained through grace, as a central soteriological reality. This distinction emphasizes both the reality of the fall and preserves the goodness of mankind as creation. In other words, humanity, though fallen, is not beyond redemption.

Lossky has written extensively on this topic, and his approach has significantly influenced contemporary Orthodox dialogue on the subject. Lossky argues that the image of God is a holistic motif that encapsulates the entirety of mankind, body and soul. In fact, rather than privileging the soul over the body, Palamas is willing to argue that humanity is more in the image of God¹⁵ than angels are, precisely because of because we inhabit bodies. Although Lossky does not dismiss patristic attempts to identify the image with various aspects of human mind, body, and soul, he argues that essentially the image of God in man is unknowable.¹⁶ This conviction flows from Lossky’s apophaticism, taken from Pseudo-Dionysius. Apophatic theology purports that God’s essence is unknowable. God is known by way of negation rather than positive affirmation because God’s being is beyond what can be captured by any locutionary act. Similarly, God’s image in humankind must also be, in essence, unknowable. Lossky writes, The image of God in man, insofar as it is perfect, is necessarily unknowable, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa; for as it reflects the fullness of the archetype, it must also possess the unknowable character of the divine Being.¹⁷ This view is supported by the fact that Scripture, while speaking often about the imago Dei, never defines it.¹⁸

Lossky argues that the image is not lost by the fall, but is greatly diminished. He claims that God’s image in man attains its perfection only when human nature becomes like God’s nature, when it begins fully to participate in uncreated goodness.¹⁹ The image is retained through the exercise of free will.²⁰ The human agent has the ability to move toward God, resulting in the renewal of the image through deification, or move away from God, resulting in a diminished image. The Eastern Church does not view the prelapsarian state in the same manner as the West.