# Reformed Perspective on Theosis



## jwithnell (May 22, 2013)

I am trying to understand theosis. In reformed circles, I suspect it might better be found in concept than by name: Henry Scougal's _The Life of God in the Soul of Man_ is the primary example that I've found so far. Are there others? Am I correct in guessing that the early Christological debates may have eclipsed this doctrine in the western church?


----------



## jwithnell (May 23, 2013)

If I may be so bold as to "bump" this up?


----------



## Philip (May 23, 2013)

The concept that correllates most readily with theosis in Reformed doctrine is union with Christ (though sanctification is also part of that). The idea is that the Christian becomes more like God by taking part in the life of the Trinity, which is only possible because the Christian is in Christ.


----------



## louis_jp (May 23, 2013)

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but it may help: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-2/JETS_50-2_289-310_Fairbairn.pdf


----------



## arapahoepark (May 23, 2013)

I think Cameronian told me once that there is nothing really novel about, and it's similar to a Reformed 'union with Christ.'
Perhaps he can better answer that, I hope I did not misquote him.


----------



## Claudiu (May 23, 2013)

If you want to understand Theosis, I would recommend reading some Eastern Orthodox papers/books on it. I can post some if you are interested. There are also many resources online.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 23, 2013)

See also:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/40/40-2/40-2-pp257-269_JETS.pdf


----------



## jwithnell (May 23, 2013)

These articles look very helpful, thank you guys!

I'm not sure union with Christ really captures the idea. If you consider John 17 (the launching point of my interest) you see Jesus praying: and "they also may be in _Us_." The puritans seemed to be approaching the idea. John Owen remarked that his position on communion with all three members of the Trinity might be considered novel but he placed it well within orthodoxy. I had seen some idea of participation in the divine but did not have a name to put to it until Theosis came up in a recent sermon.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 23, 2013)

This has some commentary related to Calvin's view on theosis and union with Christ:

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/clarkiustitiaimputatachristi.pdf

See comments at footnote #8


----------



## jwithnell (May 23, 2013)

I've downloaded these articles. Thanks!


----------



## Philip (May 23, 2013)

jwithnell said:


> I'm not sure union with Christ really captures the idea.



Not entirely, no. But I would say that union with Christ would certainly be the mechanism of theosis. Properly understood, I could see theosis as a valuable insight into both union with Christ and sanctification.


----------



## py3ak (May 23, 2013)

It might be helpful to compare the language of sanctification and glorification in the Puritans with the language of theosis in the Greek fathers. Obviously commentaries on 2 Peter 1:4 would be a logical place to begin, but of course wouldn't tell you everything.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 24, 2013)

arap said:


> I think Cameronian told me once that there is nothing really novel about, and it's similar to a Reformed 'union with Christ.'
> Perhaps he can better answer that, I hope I did not misquote him.



Here is what I was trying to get at, and I don't intend to give a full answer. Lord willing, if I write my book on EO I will deal with it in greater depth:

1. EO will use striking language (taken from Athanasius and others) about becoming "god." But when you get them to gloss it, the careful ones will deny that you are being absorbed into the divine nature (this is one of Gregory Palamas' more interesting criticisms of Aquinas).

2. While 2 Peter 1:4 uses a cognate of "theosis," I see it as problematic for EO. EO say we are (or they are, anyway) united to the divine energies, not the divine nature (since the divine nature is simple and admits no admixture). Problem is, Peter says nothing about the divine energies (which concept is problematic anyhow). He says "divine nature."

3. The Puritans were aware of this and used much better language to capture the reality.

4. The problem with EO is that they take a real facet of salvation (union/participation) and refuse to deal with other aspects like justification (the EO Study Bible even admits this).


----------



## Marrow Man (May 24, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> 3. The Puritans were aware of this and used much better language to capture the reality.



Which Puritans, in particular, would you recommend here?


----------



## Marrow Man (May 24, 2013)

Don Fairbairn (in the article that Louis links above) was my church history professor in seminary. He has spent considerable time in EO contexts in Russia and is very knowledgeable about the doctrine. He has also written a couple of books on EO that might be helpful (particularly the latter):

Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes: Donald Fairbairn: 9780664224974: Amazon.com: Books

Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers: Donald Fairbairn: 9780830838738: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## lukeh021471 (May 24, 2013)

also as it refers to justification "Justification: Five Views" a view taken by (Veli-Matti Karkkainen) called the deification view of justification talks about theosis, an ecumenical Lutheran view, and how it is distinguished from the Eastern view pertaining to theosis


----------



## jwithnell (May 24, 2013)

I find it interesting that justification and sanctification jump into the discussion. It seems, and I've only just scratched the surface, that a discussion on the doctrine of theosis would proceed from what a Christian _is_. I'd think that our creation in the image of God would be a huge doctrinal focus tied, in part, to the communicable and incommunicable attributes. Certainly eschatology comes into play here, because we are not yet what we will become. 

I've nothing learned to contribute at this point, just following some logical lines. I'm developing a mental picture that includes boundaries shaped like some kind of polygon, formed primarily by the creature/creator distinction, our time/space limitations, and other items that I'm sure will pop up in my reading; a center area that includes the spirit of God having been placed in us, the law written on our hearts (and more to come) and a crossing of the boundary primarily by revelation, covenant and prayer. The latter is particularly fascinating to me because you see Jesus, as both man and God, communicating with the father in this manner and specifically teaching us to do so both in word and example.


----------



## py3ak (May 24, 2013)

A previous thread and a post with a Calvin quote may also prove informative.


----------



## jwithnell (May 24, 2013)

Thanks! My memory that I hadn't seen this discussed was no substitute for a search .


----------

