Article

Theology
2015, Vol. 118(3) 179–187
New Directions in ! The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:

Western Soteriology sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0040571X14564932
tjx.sagepub.com
Joshua D. A. Bloor
University of Manchester

Abstract
Traditionally, the doctrine of deification has been embraced significantly in the Eastern
tradition. Though glimpses of it can be found throughout Western Christendom, it has
often been cast out and labelled as sacrilegious Greek myth. This article however, will
seek to prove that, amid contemporary Western theological discourse, deification has
experienced a renewed sense of appreciation and appropriation. As well as examining
contemporary theologians over the last few decades – from a broad spectrum of
Christian traditions – this article will also touch on the brief history of the doctrine,
as well as the Western hesitation which the doctrine has received.

Keywords
anthropology, deification, Eastern Christendom, ecumenism; soteriology, theosis,
Western Christendom

The pursuit of a satisfactory soteriology is a common quest among theologians.

Finding a scriptural, traditional, experiential and reasonable explanation for sal-
vation, however, has never been an easy task. Yet, amid all the plethora and bag-
gage which has dominated Western soteriology, there remains, one could argue,
one of the most ancient and enigmatic models of salvation outside the West –
deification.1 In recent decades it is evident that this Eastern doctrine has experi-
enced an emergence in Western theological circles,2 being traced in key theolo-
gians.3 Although deification has traditionally been embraced in the East as the
sole model of soteriology for almost two millennia, it is fair to assert that, as
Gösta Hallonsten wrote, ‘theosis, deification, or divinization is no longer a topic
limited to Eastern Orthodox thought’.4 With this said, the following study will seek
not only to reveal a Western emergence of deification but also to explain the doc-
trine, as well as taking note of the array of hesitation deification has received.

Corresponding author:
Joshua D. A. Bloor
Email: joshuabloor@live.co.uk

Downloaded from tjx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 21, 2016

180 Theology 118(3)

Defining deification
‘God became man so that man might become god’5 remains a commonly cited
maxim when addressing deification and soteriology in patristic thought. The prob-
lem with this maxim, and the problem with deification in general, is that it was not
officially defined until the sixth century, when Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite

stated that ‘deification (theosis) is the attaining of likeness to God and union with
him so far as is possible’.6 In recent times though, many have attempted to define
the doctrine. Finlan and Kharlamov defined deification as ‘the transformation of
believers into the likeness of God’.7 Panayiotis Nellas wrote that ‘deification is
Christification’,8 with Carl Mosser describing the process of deification as ‘a trans-
forming union of the believer with God’.9 While these descriptions appear verbatim
with the Western idea of sanctification, it is important that the two are not com-
pared, ‘while there is no ontological change of humanity into deity there is a very
real impartation of the divine life to the whole human being’.10

Hesitation in the West

Despite the pursuit of influential Eastern theologians to bring deification to
Western shores, it remains stigmatized. While Vladimir Lossky and John D.
Zizioulas have produced key and influential works, deification in many Western
circles is misunderstood.
One of the main accusations posited towards deification is that is a result of
Hellenistic thought. For example, in addressing 2 Peter 1.4, Ernst Käsemann
regarded it as a ‘theological slip’ and argued that the inclusion of Peter ‘in the
New Testament canon is dubious’.11 Writing on 2 Peter 1.4, Käsemann stated that
‘it would be hard to find in the whole New Testament a sentence which . . . more
clearly marks the relapse of Christianity into Hellenistic Dualism’.12 According to
David Cairns, in writing this epistle, Peter was apparently speaking ‘off the record’:
Cairns argues that Peter was merely ‘referring’ to traditional Greek notions of
immortality.13 This statement from Cairns may be considered as equally improper
as the doctrine against which he is writing.
Another theologian who is notorious for being openly hostile to anything
‘Eastern’ is Adolf von Harnack. To von Harnack, ‘the Orthodox Church is in
her entire structure alien to the Gospel and represents a perversion of the
Christian religion, its reduction to the level of pagan antiquity’.14 Von Harnack
regarded Eastern Orthodoxy as a ‘pagan’ Hellenistic pollution in Christianity,
which he argued led to theological ‘casualties’ such as deification.15

Removing the obstacles

This hesitation has unfortunately led to an Eastern stigma, which is fuelled with
false presuppositions within Western theology. It is important to note that, unlike

Downloaded from tjx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 21, 2016

Bloor 181

the accusations above, traditional Eastern teaching does not assert that humans
become God in any sense. In helping to remove obstacles in Western thought,
Clendenin wrote:

There is a real and genuine union of the believer with God, but it is not a literal fusion
or confusion in which the integrity of human nature is compromised. Orthodoxy
consistently rejects the idea that humans participate in the essence or nature of
God. Rather, we remain distinctly human by nature but participate in God by the
divine energies or grace. At no point, even when deified, is our humanity diminished
or destroyed.16

Humans become like God, by his grace, therefore, without diminishing human
nature.

Deification in the West

My study of literature from Western theologians writing during the past few dec-
ades suggests that deification is not only recognized as a theological concept but
also reluctantly embraced across many traditions.
One of the most influential theologians in recent years was Clark H. Pinnock.
Known by most for his controversial views on ‘Open Theism’,17 Pinnock remains
an interesting theologian mainly as a result of the drastic changes in his own the-
ology, moving from a spiritually hesitant Baptist towards Charismatic Pentecostal
leanings.18 In his Flame of Love, Pinnock encourages and embraces deification
explicitly, while writing against the forensic form of justification.
In describing the nature of salvation Pinnock states that,

God invites creatures to participate in this divine dance of loving communion . . . We

are invited inside the Trinity as joint heirs together with Christ . . . to participate in
God’s life. This is what the Church Fathers meant when they said, ‘God became man,
that man might become God.’19

By quoting this famous maxim, and by describing soteriology in terms of partici-

pation in the triune God, Pinnock indicates his assent of deification. With this,
Pinnock calls for a return to patristic and Eastern soteriology:

To think of salvation in this way is to recover what early theologians called theosis
[deification]. This category invites us to think of the goal of salvation as participation
in the divine nature, in a way that preserves distinctions proper to Creator and crea-
ture without losing sight of their union.20

Consequently, for Pinnock, it is important to return to an Eastern understanding of

soteriology, by arguing that salvation is participating in God’s divine nature.

Downloaded from tjx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 21, 2016

182 Theology 118(3)

Furthermore, in criticizing traditional Western Protestant soteriology, Pinnock

asserted the following:

Because of Luther’s influence, Protestants have often seen salvation in terms of acquit-
tal rather than union with Christ through the Spirit. Elevating the Spirit’s role renders
the situation more relational and less juridical. The indwelling Spirit is leading us into
a transforming, intimate, personal relationship with the Lord, even to final participa-
tion in the triune life of God (called in the Eastern Churches, theosis or deification).21

Thus, for Pinnock, salvation is not a legal transaction, rather, it is deification, or

union with God. Intimate union with God and participating in the Trinity is a more
satisfactory description of salvation for Pinnock.
The Pentecostal theologian Frank Macchia offers a pneumatological doctrine of
justification in Justified in the Spirit (2010). This is significant, mainly because
deification – especially in the Eastern tradition – has a pneumatological emphasis.
Consequently, by offering a pneumatological form of justification, Macchia
appears to embrace deification. For example, Macchia stated that it is important
‘to discern an essential connection between justification and theosis . . . this idea that
we partake of Christ through the indwelling Spirit is a valuable point of departure
for discovering the relatively neglected pneumatological link’.22 Thus, Macchia
affirmed that ‘both Pentecostals and Eastern Orthodox theologians emphasize
the work of the Spirit in all dimensions of salvation’.23
What is even more striking is Macchia’s suggestion that the traditional ordo
salutis (salvation order) should be merged into one. Macchia stated, ‘rather than
justification and sanctification representing two thoroughly distinct stages or
dimensions on one’s salvation, they are to be viewed as two overlapping and mutu-
ally complementary lenses’.24 From this, Macchia rejects the traditional forensic
form of justification, stating that ‘there can be no justification apart from the
fullness of life in the Spirit’.25
According to Macchia, forensic justification has led to ‘a growing Protestant
effort to overcome the overly legal and extrinsic notions of justification by basing
justification in part on union with Christ or participation in Christ by faith’.26 This
distaste of traditional Western forms of soteriology has therefore culminated in a
pneumatological deification soteriology. According to Macchia, this ‘involved a
conscious return to the ancient, especially Eastern, emphasis on divine indwelling
and participation in God’.27 ‘This discovery’, for Macchia, ‘is important, since it
implies that union with Christ by the Spirit is at the very essence of justification as
an eschatological reality.’28 This link between justification and deification is
important for Macchia, who wrote that ‘as Christ the divine Logos is one
person, so also are Christ and the believer in dynamic union’.29
By viewing soteriology as pneumatological and based on union and participa-
tion in God, Macchia presents a soteriology which is similar to what is often
associated with Eastern forms of deification. Finally, as Macchia wrote, ‘union
and participation are implicitly tied to the pneumatological notions of mutual

Downloaded from tjx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 21, 2016

Bloor 183

indwelling and koinonia, while the more legal categories of reconciliation and
imputation are not’.30
Throughout various works, the Pentecostal theologian Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen
has promoted deification as a soteriological model to be embraced globally. For
Kärkkäinen, deification is simply ‘becoming like God’.31 Kärkkäinen unashamedly
hopes for deification to provide the means by which ecumenism can blossom, and,
although he acknowledges that doctrinal unity within the Church is doubtful, ‘a
common perspective on salvation could be realistic’.32
In a paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society for Pentecostal
Studies, Kärkkäinen proposed that the recent emergence of deification in
Lutheran and Free Church soteriologies is a critical development, and should be
encouraged. Kärkkäinen stated that ‘deification is an ecumenically fruitful and
biblically-theologically legitimate image of salvation’.33 Much more than this,
Kärkkäinen affirmed that ‘deification is a suitable image of salvation since it is
both faithful to the ancient Church and viable for the need of contextualization in
the modern world’.34
For Kärkkäinen, deification is not necessarily opposed to Pentecostal theology.
In examining Free Church soteriologies, Kärkkäinen argued that ‘one might even
contend that had not the Free Churches adopted the doctrine of justification in its
Reformation form, Free Church soteriologies most probably would have been
much closer to emphases of the Eastern tradition’.35
In embracing deification, Kärkkäinen stated that ‘what gives special flavour to
the Eastern view of the Church is that its doctrine of salvation is not focused on
guilty concepts and sin—as in the West—but focused rather on a gradual growth in
sanctification culminating in deification, becoming like God’.36 Finally, for
Kärkkäinen, Western traditions have been dominated by legal, juridical and foren-
sic categories, while Eastern soteriology appears more satisfying.
The Catholic feminist theologian, Catherine LaCugna, has contributed signifi-
cantly to the doctrine of the Trinity, with her God for Us (1991) considered a
primary reference in any discussion on the doctrine of God. Continuing in the
tradition of Karl Rahner’s immanent-economic Trinity, LaCugna argued that
the doctrine of the Trinity ‘is the affirmation of God’s intimate communion with
us through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit’, and thus ‘it is an eminently practical
doctrine with far-reaching consequences for Christian life’.37 These consequences
for LaCugna include Christians becoming ‘sharers in the very life of God, par-
takers of divinity as they are transformed and perfected by the Spirit of God. The
motive of God’s self-communication is union with the creature through theosis 
[deification].’38
Deification, according to LaCugna, ‘presupposes a real unity between divine and
human; the Spirit through grace transforms the human being so that it becomes
what God is’.39 LaCugna explains the process by stating:

The Spirit deifies human beings, makes them holy, sets them free from sin, free from
the conditions of the ‘biological hypostatsis’, conforms them to the person of Christ . . .

Downloaded from tjx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 21, 2016

184 Theology 118(3)

The Holy Spirit incorporates us into the very life of God, into the mystery of peri-
 esis,
chor  the ‘to and fro’ of being itself which exists in personhood.40

Deification is personal communion with God, which deifies the human in the pro-
cess, conforming him/her into being Christ-like. Finally, LaCugna evokes and
defends the Palamite essence–energies distinction while criticizing ‘the Western
theologian’, whose metaphysical and epistemological reasoning has hindered theo-
logical hermeneutics.
The late Anglican Priest and theologian Canon A. M. (Donald) Allchin engaged
with the doctrine of deification considerably. In the preface to his Participation in
God, Allchin writes, ‘‘‘God became man so that man might become God’’ is not so
foreign to Anglican tradition as is commonly assumed.’41 Allchin continues, stating
that the doctrine of deification ‘is of vital importance for any truly human living
and thinking today’.42
Allchin regards deification as an essential doctrine to combat those who have
‘turned to the East, to the religious traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism’43 in
order to find true spiritual fulfilment. Allchin argues that people ‘have abandoned
the Christian tradition which seems only to talk about God without showing any
way to realise his presence, and have turned to other ways of discipleship which
offer an experienced knowledge of our union, our identity with him’.44 For Allchin,
deification has been made possible through the Incarnation in which ‘God has
come down to be where we are, in our human mess, but that he has lifted us up
to be where he is in his divine splendour.’45
Yet, deification is not simply an ancient doctrine, but it remains a biblical one
too. Allchin affirms that

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.46

Allchin continues and appears to evoke an ontological change in the human,

stating that ‘We can become ourselves only by transcending ourselves.’47 He goes
on to argue that deification brings about absorption into God, ‘in a way which is
more than metaphorical’.48 According to Allchin deification is ‘seen as an imme-
diate consequence of the doctrine of the incarnation . . . [as] man is lifted up into
participation in God by the loving movement of God’s coming to share in the very
nature and predicament of man’.49 Thus, Allchin argues throughout this work for a
definite inclusion of the doctrine of deification in the life of Christians.

Concluding thoughts
This article has explored the rise of deification within contemporary Western soteri-
ology. It is clear that deification has existed minimally in Western discourse, yet its

Downloaded from tjx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 21, 2016

Bloor 185

home has always been primarily in the East. Recent times nonetheless have seen a
reversal of this. While the harsh words of von Harnack puts deification with Greek
myth, it is more than evident that influential Western writers have found it to be
quite appealing.
Although only a few theologians have been mentioned in this study, it is import-
ant to note the diversity. From the Catholicism of LaCugna to the Evangelical
Charisma of Pinnock, the Anglican approach of Allchin and, finally, the
Pentecostal approach of Kärkkäinen and Macchia, the broad spectrum with
which deification has touched remains impressive.
Ecumenically speaking, deification could prove to be fruitful. The devastation
left behind by the Second World War led to a blossoming and a hopeful fulfilment
of Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer (John 17.11). That the Church would, as Pope John
Paul II said, ‘breath with both lungs’,50 is a hope that many Christians share. Yet,
for ecumenism to blossom, ignorance must be addressed. As F. W. Norris noted:

Poorly-read Protestants have insisted that the Eastern Orthodox idolatrously make us
all little gods or that they think of participation in the divine nature only in physical
terms. These charges are false. Orthodox theologians keep deification away from
Gnostic or Manichaean speculation, or what we might recognise as the worst aspects
of Far Eastern mysticism and now so-called New Age musings.51

While these presuppositions have been addressed in this study, David Litwa argued
that the problem is simply that ‘most modern Western theologians normally sus-
pect, or even excoriate deification as something frightful’,52 with the term appear-
ing ‘unnatural to post-Enlightenment, empirically-minded thinkers’.53 Yet
regardless of these concerns, deification, despite its provocative overtones –
namely, its over positive anthropology – has provoked Western interest.

Notes

1. ‘Deification’ and ‘divinization’ (the Latin translation of theosis) will be referred to on the
assumption that it is synonymous with yŒosi& (the´osis, the Greek form).
2. Some important recent works: S. Finlan and V. Kharlamov (eds), Theosis: Deification in
Christian Theology: Volume II (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2012); M. J. Christensen and
J. A. Wittung (eds), Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of
Deification in the Christian Traditions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007).
3. Recent publications have traced deification in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin,
Edwards, Wesley and Paul, as well as C. S. Lewis, Karl Rahner, Karl Barth, Hans Urs
von Balthasar and Thomas Torrance.
4. Gösta Hallonsten, ‘Theosis in Recent Research: A Renewal of Interest’, in Christensen
and Wittung (eds), Partakers of the Divine Nature, pp. 281–93 (281).
5. Irenaeus was the first to coin this extrapolation, yet it is found in the writings of both
Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as in
Athanasius’ De incarnatione verbi Dei.
6. Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, trans. Thomas L.
Campbell (Washington: University Press of America, 1981), 1.3.

Downloaded from tjx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 21, 2016

186 Theology 118(3)

7. Finlan and Kharlamov (eds), ‘Introduction’, Theosis, vol. 1, pp. 1–15 (1).
8. Panayiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ (Crestwood: Vladimir’s Seminary, 1987), p. 39.
9. Carl Mosser, ‘The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification’, Scottish Journal
of Theology 55 (2002), pp. 36–57 (36).
10. Robert V. Rakestraw, ‘Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis’,
Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997), pp. 257–69 (261).
11. James Starr, ‘Does 2 Peter 1:4 Speak of Deification?’, in Christensen and Wittung (eds),
Partakers of the Divine Nature, pp. 81–94 (81).
12. Ernst Käsemann, ‘An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology’, Essays on New
Testament Themes (London: SCM Press, 1964), pp. 179–80, quoted in Starr,
‘Deification?’, p. 81.
13. David Cairns, The Image of God in Man, revd edn (London: Collins, 1973, 1953), p. 50.
14. Adolf von Harnack, quoted in Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A
Western Perspective (Michigan: Baker Academic, 1994), p. 139.
15. Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buchanan (New York: Dover
Publications, 1961), pp. 230–300.
16. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox, p. 130.
17. Clark H. Pinnock, The Most Moved Mover (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001).
18. James Garrett, Baptist Theology (Georgia: Mercer University, 2009), pp. 575–9.
19. Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1996), pp. 153–4.
20. Pinnock, Flame of Love, pp. 150–1.
21. Clark H. Pinnock, ‘Holy Spirit’, in Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price (eds), New
and Enlarged Handbook of Christian Theology, rev. edn (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
2011), pp. 245–6.
22. Frank D. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption and the Triune God
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), p. 11 (Justified henceforth).
23. Macchia, Justified, p. 84.
24. Macchia, Justified, p. 8.
25. Macchia, Justified, p. 4.
26. Macchia, Justified, p. 50.
27. Macchia, Justified, p. 50.
28. Macchia, Justified, p. 51.
29. Macchia, Justified, p. 51.
30. Macchia, Justified, p. 73.
31. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global
Perspectives (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 18.
32. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification
(Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004), p. 5. (OWG henceforth).
33. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ‘The Ecumenical Potential of the Eastern Doctrine of Theosis:
Emerging Convergences in Lutheran and Free Church Soteriologies’, in Toward Healing
Our Divisions: Reflecting on Pentecostal Diversity and Common Witness, The 28th
Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, Springfield, 11–13 March
1999, vol. I.27, available at <http://pentecostaltheologians.wordpress.com>, accessed
9 December 2014.
34. Kärkkäinen, ‘Ecumenical Potential’.
35. Kärkkäinen, ‘Ecumenical Potential’.

Downloaded from tjx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 21, 2016

Bloor 187

36. Kärkkäinen, Introduction to Ecclesiology, p. 18.

37. Catherine M. LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and the Christian Life (San Francisco:
Harper San Francisco, 1991), p. ix.
38. LaCugna, God for Us, p. 228.
39. LaCugna, God for Us, p. 236 n.17.
40. LaCugna, God for Us, pp. 297–8.
41. A. M. Allchin, Participation in God: A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (London:
Darton, Longman and Todd, 1988), p. ix.
42. Allchin, Participation, p. ix.
43. Allchin, Participation, p. 1.
44. Allchin, Participation, p. 1.
45. Allchin, Participation, p. 3.
46. Allchin, Participation, p. 6.
47. Allchin, Participation, p. 6.
48. Allchin, Participation, p. 16.
49. Allchin, Participation, p. 49.
50. Kevin J. P. McDonald, ‘The Legacy of John Paul II: Ecumenical Diologue’, in Michael
A. Hayes and Gerald O’Collins (eds), The Legacy of John Paul II (London: Bloomsbury
Publishing, 2008), pp. 110–28 (119).
51. F. W. Norris, ‘Deification: Consensual and Cogent’, Scottish Journal of Theology 49
(1996), pp. 411–28 (418).
52. M. D. Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology (Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2012), p. 7.
53. Litwa, Being Transformed, p. 6.

Author Biography
Joshua D. A. Bloor is currently studying for a PhD in New Testament with the
University of Manchester. Joshua has a scholarly passion for ecumenism, pneuma-
tology and biblical studies. He lives in Manchester with his wife Charlotte, where
they both help to lead in various roles in their church.

Downloaded from tjx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on February 21, 2016