Volume 64 (2007): 186-200

Today R O G E R E. O L S O N

Deification in Contemporary Theology

Abstract: Although the concept of theosis, or deification, is usually associated with Eastern Orthodoxy, it has enjoyed an ecumenical renaissance in modern and contemporary Christian theology. Nevertheless, not all uses of the idea are equal; some fall short of its full significance in Orthodox soteriology. Within Orthodox theology deification has become the cause of some debate. The Palamite essence/energies distinction is essential if the idea of deification is not to lead to panentheism.

The concept of humani ty ' s deification, or theosis, is alive and well in con tem­

porary Christ ian thought even outs ide its traditional h o m e in Eastern Or tho­

doxy. This phenomenon should be considered a renaissance rather than an

entirely new discovery; interest in deification has been around in Protestant

theological circles for a long t ime and perhaps even from the very beginning.

As w e shall see, Mar t in Luther had a lively interest and belief in deification.

H e used the term Vergottung several t imes in his wri t ings, including in his

Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. H e referred to the justified

Christ ian as a divine creature (ein göttliche Creatur)} John and Char les Wes­

ley incorporated ideas of h u m a n deification into their doctr ine of sanctification

and drank deeply at the wells of the Greek church fathers as their source. Of

course, both Luther and the Wesleys appealed to the famous text of 2 Peter 1:4,

Roger E. Olson is professor of theology at Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Sem­inary in Waco, Texas. He has served as president of the American Theological Society (Midwest Division), chair of the Evangelical Theology Group of the American Academy of Religion, and editor of Christian Scholar's Review. He is the author of 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age (with Stanley J. Grenz), The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Cen­turies of Tradition and Reform, and The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology.

1. For this and other uses of "deification" by Luther, see Bruce D. Marshall, "Justification as Declaration and Deification," International Journal of Systematic Theology 4, no. 1 (March 2002): 3-28.

186

Deification in Contemporary Theology 187

which says, "by which he [God] has granted to us his precious and very great

promises , that through these you may escape from the corrupt ion that is in the

world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine na tu re" (RSV) .

Besides Luther and the Wesleys , other Protestants interpreted this and other

biblical passages as referring to a real part icipation in G o d and not only, as

especially in neo-Protes tant ism, a mora l imitat ion of Christ .

Nevertheless , Protestants have often been reluctant to speak of real deifica­

tion. R o m a n Catholics have always bel ieved in it and spoken of it even if not

precisely as it has been taught in Eastern Orthodoxy. In any case, it never was

rejected by R o m a n Catholics as much as by Protestants. Especially the neo-

Protestantism of post-Kantian theology in Europe and Amer ica shied away

from the idea as too metaphysical (if not physical) and mystical to fit in with the

project of moralizing dogma. According to much nineteenth- and mid-twentieth-

century neo-Protestant and even neo-or thodox theology, we can only experi­

ence God ' s effects on us, which are primarily moral , and never God in himself.

Karl Barth scoffed at the idea of deification as a real ontological transformation

of persons through participation in God. Emil Brunner considered it mystical

and therefore useless to the emphasis he wished to place on the I-Thou

encounter between God and the individual. Even in R o m a n Catholic thought

the idea of deification fell on hard t imes during the later nineteenth to mid-

twentieth centuries. Whi le Karl Rahner could make room for it, Hans Küng

could not. By the 1970s and 1980s the t ime was ripe for a rediscovery and

retrieval of deification in Western theology.

One has to wonder to what extent the rise of something that came to be

called the "New Age m o v e m e n t " contributed to this renaissance of deification

in Western theology. One can only suspect that the increasing cultural thirst for

real spiritual experience and even for some union with God in and through reli­

gion served as a catalyst for deification's rediscovery. Some N e w A g e book­

stores stocked not only Western Christian mystical writ ings such as those of

Meister Eckhar t but also the collection of Eastern Or thodox writ ings k n o w n as

the Philokalia. Eventual ly this desire for union with God spurred more main­

line Western theology to appropriate the ancient concept of theosis, which

expresses real union be tween God and humans without the pantheist ic or

panentheistic connotations of much that goes under the label of N e w Age . Even

if the renaissance of interest in deification has nothing at all to do with the N e w

Age movemen t and the reach of Eastern religions and spiritualities into West­

ern society, another explanation for it mus t certainly lie in a weariness with

shallow moralist ic accounts of salvation. Even liberation theology, for all its

188 Roger E. Olson Theology

contr ibut ions, falls short of offering a t ransforming exper ience that energizes

h u m a n spiritual and ethical life. The search for t ransformation through spiritu­

ality lies at the heart of the new interest in deification. Finally, some of the ren­

aissance of interest in deification arises from the ecumenica l movemen t s and

especially dialogues be tween Protestant and Eastern Or thodox theologians . As

Western Christ ians have c o m e into increasing contact with representat ives of

Orthodoxy, they have begun to see that deification holds promise for greater

mutual unders tanding and cooperat ion be tween the Christ ian East and the

Christ ian West.

When asked to identify w h o is talking about deification in Western theolog­

ical circles, my initial response is " W h o i sn ' t ? " It seems that almost every

Protestant and Catholic theologian writing creatively and constructively in the

last two to three decades has found it necessary to address the subject, and many

are trying to incorporate it into their emerging theological visions. A m o n g

Catholics, Catherine M o w r y LaCugna and Hans Urs von Balthasar come to

mind. Most surprisingly, however, much of the contemporary discussion of

deification is taking place in Protestant circles, including among evangelical

Protestants. Lutherans are in the forefront, especially the Finnish school of

Luther research led by Tuomo Manne rmaa and his students, who have received

hearty endorsement from American Lutherans Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson.

A former Lutheran, and recent R o m a n Catholic convert , who has embraced

deification is Bruce Marshall of the Methodist-related Perkins School of Theol­

ogy. Anglicans and Episcopalians are reaching back into their roots and redis­

covering and newly appropriat ing deification from Richard Hooker and

Lancelot Andrewes . Notable among them is A. M. Allchin, author of many

books on Anglican spirituality and theology. Christian Church/Church of Christ

theologian F. W. Norris has publicly endorsed deification as "consensual and

cogent ." 2 Methodist Thomas Oden explicitly embraces deification as part of sal­

vation in the third volume of his Systematic Theology, entitled Life in the Spirit

(1992). German Reformed theologian Jürgen Mol tmann makes constructive

use of the idea in several of his books , including The Spirit of Life (1992) and

The Coming of God (1996). Even the normally rationalistic and nonmystical

Wolfhart Pannenberg appropriates the concept in volume two of his Systematic

Theology (1994). A m o n g evangelicals, Clark Pinnock, Stanley Grenz, Robert

Rakestraw, Daniel Clendenin, and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen have all encouraged

2. F. W. Norris, "Deification: Consensual and Cogent," Scottish Journal of Theology 49, no. 4 (1996): 411-28.

Deification in Contemporary Theology 189

the idea of deification as a positive and helpful one for the construction of faith­

ful and contemporary evangelical theology and spirituality.

Some of the most intense and creat ive ferment surrounding the not ion of

deification in contemporary theology is taking place within that c o m m u n i o n

where it has traditionally been most at home , namely, Eastern Orthodoxy.

Mos t notably, lively debate has arisen around Or thodox John Ziz ioulas ' s

suppression of the traditional distinction be tween G o d ' s essence and G o d ' s

energies in account ing for deification. Zizioulas has dared to crit icize the

almost-canonical theology of Vladimir Lossky, whose books communica t e the

meaning of deification as inextricably tied to this distinction as interpreted by

medieval m o n k Gregory Pa lamas . Several Eastern Or thodox theologians have

j u m p e d into the fray, siding with ei ther Lossky or Zizioulas . Defenders of

Zizioulas , whose book Being as Communion (1997) has been well received by

Protestants and Cathol ics alike, see h im as a reformer whose work will

enhance interfaith dia logue and lead eventual ly to interfaith communion . Crit­

ics see h im as a maver ick, if not a heretic.

Two quest ions must be kept separate but related in any discussion of con­

temporary theological thinking about deification. First, is it a viable concept

for Protestant theology, or should Protestants cont inue to be wary of it as an

idea that will undermine the gospel of justification by grace through faith as

an extrinsic and forensic act of G o d ? Second, can deification be separated

from the traditional Palamite distinction be tween G o d ' s essence and energies?

M a n y contemporary Cathol ic and Protestant theologians adopt deification as a

helpful concept and even as necessary to a holistic account of salvation while

shying away from the essence/energies distinction. This is true of L a C u g n a

and most of the Protestants , including the evangel icals , w h o appropriate deifi­

cation. S o m e contemporary theologians cont inue to have little or no use for

deification. Evangel ical and ecumenica l theologian Dona ld Bloesch is one

example of a Protestant w h o fears its inclusion in theology in any form will

undermine the gospel . For Bloesch and others like h im w h o are wary of deifi­

cation, traditional Protestant ideas such as union with Christ do all that deifi­

cation is supposed to do without the lat ter 's pitfalls. This article will focus on

the second quest ion ment ioned above: Is deification l inked inextr icably with

the distinction be tween G o d ' s essence and energies, or can it be retr ieved and

bel ieved without that dist inct ion?

Contemporary Eastern Or thodox theology general ly reiterates the Palami te

doctr ine of deification. Lossky is as good a guide as any in discerning the

mainl ine contemporary Orthodox idea. For him, deification means "to become

190 Roger E. Olson Tbeology

by grace, in a movemen t boundless as God, that which God is by His na ture . " 3

This is possible because created beings have the faculty of being assimilated to

God because such was the very object of their creat ion. 4 All that Lossky says

about deification implies what Or thodox theologian Georgios Mantzar idis

explicitly says: " W h e n man shares the uncreated divinizing gift, he acquires

supranatural at t r ibutes." 5 In complete ha rmony with all Eastern Orthodox the­

ologians, Lossky affirms that deification never removes the difference be tween

uncreated God and the creature. Even the humani ty of Jesus Christ, i l lumined

as it was by union with the divine, remained finite and creaturely. Yet it was

divinized by union with the divine, which means it received immortal i ty and

supernatural qualities that belong to God alone. Jesus Christ as man was mys­

teriously more than human, not only because he was God incarnate but because

of the divinized quality of his humanity. The same can be true in some meas ­

ure of every saint. Yet, even as a "god by grace" or "created god ," the saint

remains infinitely less than Jesus Christ, w h o was not only that but also a divine

person w h o assumed human nature. Divinized persons never become God to

the extent that Jesus was God.

Lossky speaks for all Eastern Or thodox theologians when he says repeat­

edly that deification is not the result of h u m a n striving or meri t or vir tue; these

only open one up to the divinizing power of the Holy Spirit. Deification is a

gift. Mantzar id is says it well : "Div ine grace secretly performs m a n ' s deifica­

tion, whi le virtue simply renders h im capable of receiving deif icat ion." 6 Deifi­

cation may be a gift, but it is one that requires two wills , including a free

response of Holy Sp i r i t - empowered de tachment from all that is not G o d . 7 It

is, then, a synergistic process that includes divine initiative and h u m a n

response in an endless cycle until its complet ion, when the person is fully per­

fected in union with God. This process is possible only because of the Incar­

nation, which m a d e divinity available to humanity, and through the Holy

Spirit, w h o communica tes it to people . It is achieved only by those w h o

remove obstacles to it by faithfully part icipat ing in the sacraments and pray­

ing without ceasing. The ul t imate goal of deification was stated by M a x i m u s

3. Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Sem­inary Press, 1989), 72.

4. Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1973), 102.

5. Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man, trans. Liadain Sherrard (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984), 112.

6. Ibid., 88. 7. Lossky, Mystical Theology, 126 and 130.

Theo! Deification in Contemporary Theology 191

the Confessor: to b e c o m e all that God is except identity with his essence . In

other words , in the fullness of deification the creature remains dependent on

God for his divine life in God.

In concert with the bulk of Eastern Orthdodox tradition, Lossky connects

deification inextricably with the distinction between God ' s essence and God ' s

uncreated energies. He traces this distinction through the early church fathers,

especially Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea, up through Gregory

Palamas and finds it even in Augustine. According to this idea, "God . . . exists

both in His essence and outside of His essence" in his energies , 8 which are ema­

nations of God ' s hidden and ineffable essence. God is more than his essence; he

is also his energies and is wholly present in each "ray" of his divinity. 9 Lossky

explains the distinction most clearly in his statement that "wholly unknowable in

His essence, God wholly reveals Himself in His energies, which yet in no way

divide His nature into two parts 'knowable and unknowable ' but signify two dif­

ferent modes of the divine existence, in the essence and outside of the e s sence . " 1 0

This is how Lossky and Eastern Orthodoxy in general understand 2 Peter 1:4.

Christians become partakers of the divine uncreated energies and of the divine

essence only through them. Otherwise, deification would mean a pantheistic dis­

solution of the person in God or God in creation. Both the transcendence and

unique personhood of God are protected, according to Lossky, only by the

Palamite distinction, which is not unique to Gregory. Part of the nature of per­

sonhood is ineffability; a person is ultimately a mystery. As person and as tran­

scendent, God cannot be treated as an object; no creature can penetrate God ' s

essence. But God graciously reveals himself and draws creatures into real, onto-

logical communion through his emanations or uncreated energies without dero­

gating from the inviolable mystery of who and what he is in and of himself.

In various writ ings but especially in Being as Communion, John Zizioulas

has chal lenged or a t tempted to c i rcumvent the traditional Palamite dist inction

be tween G o d ' s essence and energies. Zizioulas regards deification as partici­

pation in the hypostasis of Christ rather than in the divine energ ies . 1 1 This is

no doubt one reason for Ziz ioulas ' s popular i ty a m o n g R o m a n Cathol ics and

Protestants w h o cannot grasp or do not appreciate the tradit ional Or thodox dis­

tinction be tween God ' s essence and energies. For Zizioulas , the church is

8. Ibid., 73. 9. Ibid., 74.

10. Ibid., 86. 11. Aristotle Papanikolaou, "Divine Energies or Divine Personhood: Vladimir Lossky and John

Zizioulas on Conceiving the Transcendent and Immanent God," Modem Theology 19, no. 3 (July 2003): 358.

192 Roger E. Olson

Chris t ' s identity in history and Christ is the church ' s identity; there exists a real

ontological unity be tween them. This is at the heart of his " c o m m u n i o n ontol­

ogy." The church not only reflects but really part icipates in the Trinity, which

exists eternally as c o m m u n i o n be tween three persons . " G o d " is the com­

munion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, jus t as "church" is the c o m m u n i o n

be tween Christ and his people and be tween bel ievers and bel ievers through the

Spirit. Zizioulas replaces the divine energies with the hypostas is of Christ in

redempt ion; each person is divinized in the depths of his or her soul ( includ­

ing body) through union with Christ in eucharist ic fel lowship. "The signifi­

cance of the union with Christ is not the communica t ion of divine energies, but

becoming a son of God by t ransforming one ' s hypostasis through a relat ion­

ship identical with that of the Son [with the F a t h e r ] . " 1 2 Especial ly Protestants

can buy into this not ion of deification more easily than the Palami te doctr ine

espoused by Lossky and most other Eastern Or thodox theologians . Their o w n

tradition includes much talk about union with Christ that is truly t ransforma­

tive. But Ziz ioulas ' s critics insist that abandonment of the essence/energies

distinction leads inevitably to one of two results: either a near-pantheist ic iden­

tity of the redeemed person with G o d or belief that deification is merely a

metaphor and not real part icipation in God. Only the concept of uncreated

divine energies provides the br idge be tween G o d and the creature that avoids

pantheism and shal low moral ism.

Cather ine L a C u g n a thinks along the same lines as Zizioulas and has been

critical of the Or thodox essence/energies distinction whi le nevertheless pro­

mot ing an idea of salvation as deification. For her, salvation includes a real

perichoresis (coinherence) of the redeemed person and Christ through the

Holy Spirit. It is union with Chris t and therefore with the Trinity that truly

transforms a person into something more than merely human . "The Holy Spirit

incorporates us into the very life of God, into the mystery of perichoresis, the

' to and fro ' of being itself which exists in p e r s o n h o o d . " 1 3 Because being is

inseparable from personal communion , becoming G o d by part icipation (deifi­

cation) automatical ly takes place when a person is inserted into real fel lowship

with Christ by the Holy Spirit. " G o d ' s nature is unders tood not as an imper­

sonal substance but as the reality of ecstatic and se l f -communicat ing persons

exist ing together in c o m m u n i o n and love. Deification is another n a m e for what

12. Ibid., 369. 13. Catherine LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperSan-

Francisco, 1991), 298.

Deification in Contemporary Theology 193

was descr ibed . . . as the c o m m o n vocat ion to g lo ry . " 1 4 Deification means that

the Holy Spirit t ransforms persons in commun ion with Christ in both will and

knowledge and "communica tes to us the divine reality according to our capac­

ity to r e c e i v e . " 1 5 It is a c o m m u n i o n of love that surpasses discursive knowl ­

edge. But LaCugna differs from the Orthodox doctrine in that for her, deification

does not involve a change in substance; it is only a personal t ransformation

and renewal . It is a new capacity for re la t ionsh ips . 1 6 She calls this an ontolog-

ical change , but traditional Or thodox theologians would no doubt argue that

it does not amount to what they bel ieve 2 Peter 1:4 s ignals—namely , a real,

substance-transforming part icipation in God ' s own nature that elevates one

above mere humanity.

L a C u g n a is a good example of a contemporary Western theologian w h o

appropriates deification language wi thout reference to the Eastern essence/

energies distinction. The quest ion, of course , is whether this is still deification.

If deification has any standard, the definition provided by the Eastern Or tho­

dox tradition must be taken very seriously. To a very large extent both Cathol ic

and Protestant traditions abandoned it for a long t ime. It seems somehow

dis ingenuous for them now to rediscover union with Christ and call it deifica­

tion, which everyone associates especial ly with Eastern Or thodox theology,

but empty it of its Or thodox meaning. O n the other hand, defenders of L a C u g n a

and others w h o speak of deification wi thout the essence/energies dist inction

can respond that the term does not have to mean what it means to tradit ional

Or thodox theologians. Whi l e this is true, it is confusing to find "deification"

being used of something that has for a very long t ime been called "sanctifica-

t ion," or "union with Chris t ," or " c o m m u n i o n with God , " or even "being filled

with God . " W h y now adopt the terminology of deification if one is unwil l ing

to take on the older meaning of elevat ion above humani ty into created godness

through divine energies?

One Protestant w h o has not hesitated to adopt that Palamite distinction into

his discovery of deification is F. W. Norr is . He makes the pragmat ic value of

deification explicit . Within a world that yearns for spirituality, "Chris t ians

ought to speak of dei f ica t ion." 1 7 For h im, "Koinonia, fel lowship with God, is

actually deification, part icipation in G o d . " 1 8 He goes through the entire history

14. Ibid., 345-46. 15. Ibid., 348. 16. Ibid., 404. 17. Norris, "Deification," 413. 18. Ibid.

194 Roger E. Olson

of Christ ian talk of real oneness with God by part icipation through the Incar­

nation and the Holy Spirit and concludes that "deification should be v iewed by

Protestants not as an oddity of Or thodox theology but as an ecumenica l con­

sensus, a catholic teaching of the Church , best preserved and developed by the

O r t h o d o x . " 1 9 This is because he finds deification not only in the early church

fathers but also in the Reformers , including the Anabapt is ts and other Radical

Reformers , and in modern or thodox theologians such as John Polk inghorne .

However , Norr is bel ieves the not ion of deification in its fullness necessari ly

includes the distinction be tween divine essence and energies . One might be

surprised to hear an adherent of the Restorat ionist m o v e m e n t declar ing that

we Christians have the promise of participating in the divine nature. We are gods, united with Christ through baptism in his death and resurrection. We participate in his body and blood through the Eucharist. Not only East­ern Orthodox but also Western theologians find solace in a sense of deifi­cation. Such restoration does not mean that we become God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God. Our participation in the divine nature is in God's energies, not the essence, a participation through grace accepted in faith which includes being participants in Christ's sufferings. 2 0

Norris is brave and right. Surely deification means real ontological partici­

pat ion in G o d ' s nature that elevates us above our humani ty wi thout infringing

on G o d ' s own essence or our real humanity. Our deified humani ty is still

humani ty jus t as Chris t ' s was and is. But it is more than mere , ordinary human­

ity. It is humani ty energized, empowered , and t ransformed within the divine

presence. The old patristic analogy of iron and fire comes to mind even though

that was usually used by the church fathers of the union be tween Chris t ' s two

natures . Never theless , Norr is provides a good example of a Western theolo­

gian w h o dares to appropriate not jus t the language and imagery of deification

but also its metaphysical underpinnings .

A contemporary Protestant theologian w h o seems to say the same thing as

Orthodox theologians without explicitly ment ioning the divine energies as the

power of deification is Angl ican A. M. Allchin, w h o defines deification as

"becoming God by God ' s gift and g r a c e . " 2 1 Whi le acknowledging Protestant

suspicion of the language of deification as becoming God, he forges on by link­

ing it closely with the Incarnation, which plays a very important role in Angl i -

19. Ibid., 422. 20. Ibid., 428. 21. A. M. Allchin, Participation in God: A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Wilton, CT:

Morehouse-Barlow, 1988), 68-69.

Theology Deification in Contemporary Theology 195

can tradition. For him, the Incarnation demonstrates that both God and the

human person are "ecstat ic ," meant for each other. The union be tween God and

humani ty once for all achieved in Christ is "constantly renewed in varying

ways in the coming of the Spi r i t . " 2 2 According to Allchin, if the Incarnation is

true, the truth of deification follows. God became what we are to lift us up to

what he is because we are meant for each other. The Trinity shows that God is

constituted by relationships; the Incarnation shows that one such relat ionship is

external to God, and deification expresses that the Incarnation was not only for

Christ but also for us. The coinherence of divinity and humani ty in Christ is not

absolutely unique to the Incarnation:

Throughout the New Testament a co-inherence of human and divine is implied, a relationship of union and communion which overthrows our customary ways of thinking both of God and humankind, and opens the way towards the wonder of our adoption into the circulation of the divine life. This faith and experience is not something peripheral to the New Tes­tament writings. It is at their heart. 2 3

Allchin defines deification as a fusion of love be tween God and people and

be tween humans and other humans . It is accompl ished by the Holy Spirit as

God ' s power, wisdom, and joy overflowing into creation. It lifts us up to be

where G o d is in his divine sp lendor . 2 4 "Div ine splendor" is another te rm for

divine energies in Eastern Or thodox theology; wi thout doubt, Al lchin k n o w s

this. Even though he does not explicit ly ment ion the energies , he seems to

think a long those lines.

Another Protestant theologian w h o makes use of the Or thodox Palamite

distinction in explicat ing a contemporary doctr ine of deification is Jürgen

Mol tmann . In The Spirit of Life he attributes the wor ld ' s t ransformation to the

"vital izing energies of the Sp i r i t . " 2 5 H e calls deification a reciprocal per ichore­

sis or mutual indwel l ing of God and ourselves that causes us and the entire

cosmos to part icipate in the eternal life of God. It comes from an " i m m e n s e

outflowing source of ene rgy . " 2 6 Deification is an emanat ion of divine powers

and energies through the Holy Spirit overcoming the difference but not the dis­

tinction be tween Creator and c rea tu re . 2 7 Accord ing to Mol tmann , "If be ing the

22. Ibid., 5. 23. Ibid., 6. 24. Ibid., 2 - 3 . 25. Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 196. 26. Ibid., 199. 27. Ibid., 177.

196 Roger E. Olson Theology [orb-'

child of God is meant in a more than metaphor ical sense, it implies kinship to

God. T h e children are of the same nature as their father and mother. Even if

they are adopted, they acquire the full r ights of inheri tance. They become par­

takers of the divine n a t u r e . " 2 8 M o l t m a n n ' s dist inctive contr ibut ion to con tem­

porary Protestant thinking about deification may be his extrapolat ion from

deification of r edeemed persons to cosmic deification. In this he follows M a x -

imus and John of Damascus closely. For h im, as for them, the purpose of the

Incarnat ion and deification is the transformation of all of creat ion by the divine

energies , which create a perichoresis or interpenetrat ion be tween God and the

universe. The effect is an elevat ion of the cosmos to G o d . 2 9 G o d ' s Shekinah

(glory) fills the whole creat ion and releases it from mere mortal i ty into the

eternal life of God. Mol tmann dist inguishes his idea (which borrows heavi ly

from Johann Tobias Beck) from Or thodox theology, which, he says, envis ions

a future spiritualization of the cosmos . His o w n expectat ion is not that but an

elevation of the cosmos into God. This is his controversial Christ ian panenthe-

ism of the future. Mo l tmann does not ment ion the distinction be tween G o d ' s

essence and energies explicitly, and one is hard pressed to k n o w exactly what

he thinks of it. However , his use of the language of energies may justify the

assumpt ion that he does envision them as distinct from the essence of God.

Two contemporary evangelical thinkers who make use of deification in their

soteriologies but w h o never ment ion the Palamite distinction are Clark P innock

and Stanley Grenz. Deification plays a significant role in P innock ' s Flame of

Love: The Theology of the Holy Spirit, which is really a systematic theology

using the Holy Spirit as its central unifying theme. According to Pinnock, sal­

vation includes more than justification. It necessarily includes "transforming,

personal, int imate relationship with the triune G o d " because "God intends to

elevate humani ty to life with God . " "Salvat ion is the Spirit, w h o indwells us ,

drawing us toward participation in the life of the triune G o d . " 3 0 P innock dis­

tances himself from the Orthodox doctrine of deification when he says that

"this is a personal union, not an ontological o n e . " 3 1 Of course, Zizioulas and

others who espouse an ontology of communion would object and say that is a

false dichotomy. Pinnock does not seem to see that. In the end one wonders if

28. Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 272. 29. Ibid., 274. 30. Clark Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-

Varsity, 1996), 149, 150. 31. Ibid., 154.

Deification in Contemporary Theology 197

he has really expressed deification or simply a traditional Protestant notion of

union be tween God and redeemed persons through Christ and the Spirit. In The

Social God and the Relational Self, Stanley Grenz at tempts to develop a con­

cept of deification using Zizioulas 's communion ontology. For him, salvation

includes participation in Christ, which "entails sharing in his filial relat ionship

with the one he called ' Fa the r . ' " 3 2 Al though Grenz explicitly called this aspect

of salvation deification, his account of it falls short of the strong doctr ine of

Eastern Orthodoxy and expresses instead a transformation and re-creation of

personal identity through the indwell ing Spirit: "The indwell ing Spirit shapes

the fellowship of Chris t ' s followers after the pattern of the love that preexists

in the triune l i f e . " 3 3 For Grenz, the distinction between an ontological change

and a change of identity is false; if a person 's self is consti tuted in a certain rela­

t ionship, the person 's being is so constituted. One has to wonder, however ,

whether this really rises to the meaning of 2 Peter 1:4 and its tradition of inter­

pretation by the Greek fathers and later Eastern Or thodox theologians. Again,

is this really deification?

Perhaps the mos t intr iguing and ta lked-about contemporary theological use

of deification has been m a d e by some Lutherans as they have entered into ecu­

menical dia logue with Eastern Or thodox theologians . This d ia logue has

spurred Lutherans to reconsider Lu the r ' s doctr ine of justification, and some of

them are finding that it includes an e lement of inward transformation that they

bel ieve can fairly be called deification. In fact, Luther called it that himself.

Finnish Lutheran scholar Tuomo M a n n e r m a a has writ ten extensively about

Lu ther ' s use of deification language and how it is not secondary to his empha­

sis on imputed r ighteousness but part and parcel of it. This has led to what is

called the Finnish school of Luther research. It is embraced by several Amer ­

ican Lutheran theologians, especially Carl Braaten and Rober t Jenson, w h o

hosted a co l loquium be tween M a n n e r m a a and his Finnish students and Amer ­

ican theologians at St. Olaf Col lege in which I part icipated. Accord ing to

M a n n e r m a a and his students , Luther v iewed justification as "Chris t present

in f a i th . " 3 4 In other words , for Luther, justification was not only a forensic

32. Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 325.

33. Ibid., 336. 34. Tuomo Mannermaa, "Why Is Luther So Fascinating? Modern Finnish Luther Research,"

Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 2.

198 Roger E. Olson Theology

declarat ion that the sinner w h o bel ieves is r ighteous but also, and even more ,

a real communica t ion of Christ to the believer, such that " the bel iever . . . par­

takes of the propert ies of G o d ' s b e i n g . " 3 5 This is bound to c o m e as something

of a surprise to those w h o have only read about Lu ther ' s doctr ine of justifica­

tion from textbooks. M a n n e r m a a and others involved in this new Luther

research pile up references to jus t such a real, ontological , t ransforming union

be tween Christ and the bel iever in Lu the r ' s wri t ings about justification. The

traditional Lutheran dist inction be tween justification and sanctification in

which Christ is present only in the latter and not at all in the former is false.

Luther explicitly called one aspect of justification deification wi thout denying

imputed r ighteousness; G o d imputes Chris t ' s r ighteousness to bel ievers pre­

cisely because by faith Christ is present in them, t ransforming them into new

people united with God. Bruce Marshal l concurs wholehear tedly with M a n ­

ne rmaa ' s discovery and concludes on the basis of numerous Luther s ta tements

that "it seems that for Luther bel ievers have a real part icipation by faith in

Chris t ' s own divinity, and so in his own divine attributes or characterist ics. At

the same t ime, a dist inction remains be tween a divine and creaturely way of

possess ing the divine a t t r ibu tes . " 3 6

One has to wonder what Eastern Or thodox theologians think of this new

interpretation of Luther. N o doubt they are thrilled about the discovery that

Luther bel ieved in deification and that he included it as a m o m e n t in justifica­

tion and did not relegate it to sanctification. However , few of these Lutheran

theologians ment ion the al l- important Palamite dist inction except as they

explain the Eastern Or thodox doctr ine of deification. W h a t role did it play in

Lu the r ' s th inking? W h a t role will it play in these Lu the rans ' th inking? M a n ­

nermaa muddies the waters of ecumenica l unders tanding when he declares

that for Luther the Christ ian part icipates in G o d ' s essence and becomes a par­

taker of this divine e s s e n c e . 3 7 Of course , even Lossky bel ieves something like

this, but for h im we are m a d e partakers in the divine essence only indirectly

by means of the uncreated divine energies. Otherwise , the result would be a

b lending of the h u m a n and the divine, which is not possible. Did Luther accept

this? D o the Finns? D o Amer ican Lutheran theologians? This is as yet unclear.

In his book One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (2004) ,

Finnish evangelical theologian Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen discusses the Palami te

35. Ibid., 16. 36. Marshall, "Justification as Declaration and Deification," 6. 37. Tuomo Mannermaa, "Justification and Theosis in Lutheran-Orthodox Perspective," in

Braaten and Jenson, Union with Christ, 34.

Theology] Deification in Contemporary Theology 199

distinction but then does not ment ion its role, if any, in Lu ther ' s thought or in

the thought of other Protestant reformers.

Norr is (and the traditional Or thodox theologians such as Lossky and

Mantzar idis) is correct in averring that the essence/energies dist inction with­

out separation is part and parcel of the doctr ine of deification. Those w h o

reject it or purposely neglect it should probably find some other te rm for their

belief in real, ontological union be tween G o d and the believer. The difference

be tween an account of deification that is based on the dist inction and one that

is not is too great to be br idged by one word . Perhaps "divinizat ion" should be

reserved for those views of part icipation in God that do not rest on the dist inc­

tion. "Deificat ion" should be reserved for those that do rest on it. Chris t ians

should speak of deification and should m a k e clear that they mean w e are being

made partakers of G o d ' s own nature by the energetic presence of Chris t and

the Spirit within us t ransforming us into replicas of G o d that actually bear

something of his own being. We are becoming more than merely h u m a n with­

out being b lended with G o d ' s own essence, which remains t ranscendent . The

distinction is like that be tween the immanen t and economic Trinity: one Trin­

ity in two modes or a spec t s—one God-in-himself and the other God-wi th-us .

It is not the same as the neo-Kant ian dist inction be tween God- in-himself and

his effects; God with us and for us in Chris t and the Holy Spirit is really G o d

but through his uncreated splendor, power , and grace—in other words , through

his uncreated energies. G o d ' s essence is not a prison that encloses h im, but it

is his alone and is not to be shared with any creature except by way of the ema­

nations of his energies. Just as the sun communica tes life-giving propert ies to

the organism that cannot enter into the sun or be entered by the sun, so God

communica tes himself to creatures in faith through Christ and the Holy Spirit

even though believers cannot become one with God ' s essence. The " h i m s e l f

that he communica tes t ransformingly is the c o m m u n i o n of love of the Father,

Son, and Holy Spirit that flows out from the divine essence and carries some

port ion of it along and into creation. But actual oneness with G o d ' s essence

would obliterate the God/creature distinction.

Protestants w h o exper iment with the Eastern Or thodox doctr ine of deifica­

tion or w h o talk about deification should consider adopt ing the Palamite dis­

tinction even if not apophat ic or Hesychas t myst ic ism. W h a t they can

contr ibute to the Pro tes tan t -Or thodox conversat ion is a strong emphas i s on the

personal nature of the transformation involved in deification through divine

energies. The energies should not be thought of as impersonal forces or pow­

ers but only and always as bound up with the personal presences of Chris t and

200 Roger E. Olson

the Spirit in commun ion with them and the saints. We do not k n o w G o d only

in his effects; we also k n o w G o d in and through his personal , t ransforming

presence, which includes the emanat ions of his essence that we call his uncre­

ated energies bound up with the hypostases of Son and Spirit that take us into

the trinitarian life itself.