bs_bs_banner

Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox

Discussions
Corneliu C. Simuț

Corneliu C. Simuț is professor of historical theology, Emanuel University, Oradea, Romania.

Abstract

Baptist–Orthodox discussions could take the shape of a continuous and constructive

dialogue if their historical understandings of the Bible are investigated based on their specific
perspectives on doctrine. Concretely, the idea of theosis, present in Greek Patristics and
later used by the Eastern Orthodox Church as deification, can be investigated by Baptists
in at least three distinct ways: as Christification, as participation, or as perichoresis. All
these are prevalent in the works of contemporary Baptist theologians such as Dongsun Cho
(United States), Paul Fiddes (United Kingdom), and Emil Bartoș (Romania). Based on
the foundation provided by theosis and its range of interpretations, the Baptist–Orthodox
dialogue can be further strengthened by a series of common concerns such as apologetics,
evangelism, politics, economics, social work, and education.

Keywords

theosis, deification, Christification, participation, perichoresis, Baptist, Orthodox,

ecumenical dialogue

Dongsun Cho, associate professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has recently argued that the concept of  the-
osis – known to be part of the Eastern Orthodox theological heritage through the medi-
ation of Greek Patristics – was also used by Baptists to explain their soteriology. Even
if the word theosis cannot be found in the early or the later Baptist tradition, the concept
behind the word theosis and its translation into English as deification appears to have
been utilized by Baptist theologians like Benjamin Keach, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon,
and Alexander Maclaren.

DOI: 10.1111/erev.12586
© 2021 World Council of Churches 111
The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

Building on this particular tradition, this article demonstrates how theosis can work as a

bridge concept between Eastern Orthodox and Baptist theologies of salvation based
on more recent attempts to explain, and even appropriate, the idea of deification in the
works of contemporary Baptist theologians, such as Paul Fiddes, of the University of
Oxford, and Emil Bartoș, from the University of Bucharest. While prior to the 20th cen-
tury, theosis was used by Baptist authors only as a result of their dealings with scripture,
Fiddes and Bartoș (re)discovered theosis through the mediation of Eastern Orthodox
theology in an attempt to understand, interact with, and dialogue with it. After consid-
ering the approach of Cho, this article turns to that of Fiddes, as a Western European
Baptist, and to Bartoș’ Eastern European perspective on the soteriological significance
of deification, as attempts not only to better understand Eastern Orthodoxy but also to
establish at least the possibility of meaningful ecumenical interaction between the two
Christian traditions.
Building on the proposals by Cho, Fiddes, and Bartoș, I provide a set of five areas
of possible common interests for both Baptists and Eastern Orthodox as a tentative
foundation for an initial set of bilateral discussions. This is followed by a list of minor
issues that should be taken into consideration for further interconfessional interaction
between Baptists and Eastern Orthodox, including a specifically Romanian proposal.

Theosis as Christification in Dongsun Cho

In order to prove his point that the idea of theosis can and should be used by Baptists to
describe their soteriology, Dongsun Cho (an American Baptist theologian) makes a
thorough presentation of what he calls the “historical root of deification in the Baptist
tradition.”1 From the ecclesiastical history of the Baptists, Cho selects four prominent
names: Benjamin Keach (1640–1704), John Gill (1697–1771), Charles Spurgeon (1834–
92), and Alexander Maclaren (1826–1910). Starting from Athanasius’ famous dictum
that Christ became human so that we might be made God, Cho claims that Keach’s
argument follows the same trajectory. The purpose of the incarnation is to make us like
Christ, which in early Baptist theology was understood in terms of Christification, a
sort of theological umbrella for all the phrases used in the incipient forms of Baptist
thought.2 Incidentally, the idea of Christification is used not only by Baptists, but also
by Eastern Orthodox. For instance, Paul Ladouceur describes in his Modern Orthodox
Theology how Panayiotis Nellas used the term in his Deification in Christ under the direct

1 Dongsun Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition: Christification of the Human Nature through Adopted and
Participatory Sonship without Becoming Another Christ,” Perichoresis 17:2 (2019), 51–73, at 57.
2 Ibid., 51.

112 © 2021 World Council of Churches

Corneliu C. Simuț Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

influence of Nicholas Cabasilas’ The Life in Christ,3 a crucial piece of information that
could have strengthened Cho’s general argument.
Cho, however, goes directly to Greek Patristics. While acknowledging that the language
of deification is missing in Keach, Cho insists that Keach dwells on the idea of the
­hypostatic union that provides us with the necessary prerequisite for the union with God
to happen as part of our soteriological experience under the guise of Christification. In
this respect, Cho quotes Keach, who uses a consistent range of phrases common to
Patristic theology, such as “union with the Godhead,” “mystically . . . united to God,”
and “the hypostatical union of the two natures in the person of Christ,” to select only a
few.4 Cho continues his argument by linking Keach not only to Irenaeus and Athanasius,
but also to Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Confessor, in an attempt to
demonstrate that there is a historical connection between Patristic theology and the early
Baptist theology of the 17th century, since fundamental ideas such as the mystical union
with Christ and the hypostatic union of Christ’s two natures can be found in both. Cho
goes so far as to compare Keach with Gregory Palamas and his differentiation between
God’s essence and uncreated divine energies, although he does admit that Keach “does
not use the exact Palamite distinction” but makes “a theological distinction between the
communicable graces and the divine essence not communicable to us.”5 It would have
been impossible for Keach to use Palamas’ distinction anyway; his cataphatic, specifically
Western, theology was not designed to overlap what Georgios Panagopoulos describes
as Palamas’ “apophatic ground of the (Eastern) Orthodox tradition.”6
Cho’s treatment of John Gill is not as thorough as his evaluation of Keach, at least not
with reference to Patristic names, which are totally lacking in this section. Cho even
underlines that, in Gill, the references to deification bear some clearly negative conno-
tations because of the hermeneutic possibility of mixing divine and human essences
into one reality; this is why Christification was seen in a far better epistemological light.
However, he seems convinced that Gill does express “the concept of the patristic doc-
trine of deification with the exchange formula,”7 most likely because of phrases like

3 Paul Ladouceur, Modern Orthodox Theology: Behold, I Make all Things New (London: T & T Clark, 2019), 320.
4 Benjamin Keach, The Display of Glorious Grace, or, the Covenant of Peace Opened in Fourteen Sermons Lately Preached, in
Which the Errors of Present Day about Reconciliation and Justification are Detected (London: S. Bridge, 1698), 43.
5 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 59.
6 Georgios Panagopoulos, “Patristic Evidence Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Gregory Palamas,”
in Triune God, Incomprehensible but Knowable: The Philosophical and Theological Significance of St Gregory Palamas for
Contemporary Philosophy and Theology, ed. Constantinos Athanasopoulos, 44–65 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, 2015), 50.
7 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 60.

© 2021 World Council of Churches 113

The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

“partakers of the divine nature,” “likeness to Christ,” “everlasting and uninterrupted

communion with Father, Son, and Spirit,” “vision of God,” and “beatific vision,” which
are present in Gill’s theology as constitutive to Christification.8 As in the case of Keach,
Cho believes that Gill is “theologically much in agreement with the Palamite distinc-
tion” because of the differentiation he postulates between the “communicable and in-
accessible essence or nature of God.”9 Such an agreement is an indication that theosis, as
cleverly suggested by Mark S. Medley, “has gained currency among evangelical and Free
Church theologies,” including Baptists.10
Cho’s analysis of Spurgeon seems to be identical to that of Gill. Even if no Patristic names
are associated with his theology, phrases like “partakers of the divine nature” (which is “not
. . . to become God”), or “union with . . . the divine person of Christ,” or (Christ as) “par-
taker of flesh and blood”11 are meant to place Spurgeon in continuity with the Patristic
notion of deification and with Palamas’ distinction between “communicable and incom-
municable attributes of God in relation to participation.”12 It is important to understand,
though, that all these traditional phrases that are so naturally associated with Greek patris-
tics are used by Spurgeon under the general perspective of Christification. Cho’s failure to
list Patristic theologians in his analysis of Spurgeon is unfortunate, since Spurgeon himself
indicates Athanasius in connection with a negative use of deification in the phrase “deifi-
cation of lust,” which he reportedly applied to religion.13 This would explain, at least par-
tially, why a Baptist like Spurgeon would refrain from using the term “deification.”
Unlike Gill and Spurgeon, Maclaren benefits from his association, by Cho, with one
Patristic theologian, namely Maximus the Confessor, particularly with reference to the
fact that human nature can never be mixed with divine nature. According to Cho, this is
demonstrated by Maclaren’s perspective on the “hypostatic union of Christ,” which “is
the ideal model for our continual deification” perceived along the lines of Christification.14
As in the previous cases of Keach, Gill, and Spurgeon, Cho is convinced that Maclaren

8 John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred
Scriptures, vol. 2 (London: Thomas Tegg, 1835), 179.
9 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 62.
10 Mark S. Medley, “Participation in God: The Appropriation of Theosis by Contemporary Baptist Theologians,” in
Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, vol. 2, ed. Vladimir Kharlamov, 205–46 (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2011),
234.
11 Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 10 (Pasadena: Pilgrim Publications), 59.
12 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 64.
13 Charles H. Spurgeon, “A Sermon Delivered on Lord’s Day, Morning, May 17th, 1884,” in Charles H. Spurgeon,
The Complete Works of C. H. Spurgeon, vol. 30: sermons 1757 to 1815 (Fort Collins: Delmarva Publications, 2015).
14 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 65.

114 © 2021 World Council of Churches

Corneliu C. Simuț Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

is in line with Patristic theology because he presents saved people as “partakers of

[God’s/Jesus’] immortal life”15 or “participant of, and conformed of, the glory of His
own triumphant manhood.”16 Nevertheless, it should be stressed here that, in Maclaren,
such a participation in the divine life by Christification is not only a matter of raising
human nature to the stature of God’s existence, but also, to use a phrase employed by
Dan Lé, of reshaping human existence into “a lifestyle of renunciation.”17
By connecting some of the early Baptists like Keach, Gill, Spurgeon, and Maclaren to
the Patristic tradition, Cho’s intention is not to obliterate his own Baptist tradition. He
does emphasize the basic Baptist concerns about the language of deification. For in-
stance, he mentions James Leo Garrett’s concern about the “absorptive mysticism” of
deification as presented by Greek Patristics18 or Millard Erickson’s warning about the
potential harm of deification terminology19 “in the contemporary New Age cultural
setting.”20 At the same time, however, Cho is personally convinced that the doctrine of
deification holds a real potential for enriching the Baptist theology of salvation in at
least three main aspects: first, the building of a more integrative theology; second, the
evangelization of heretical groups (such as the Mormons, singled out by Cho himself)
that promote the ontological union between God and human; and third, the recognition
that deification has always been part of the Baptist tradition. This third is based on his
demonstration that Keach, Gill, Spurgeon, and Maclaren are supposed to be considered
later promoters of the early Patristic theology of deification, although, in their thought,
deification should be translated as or at least particularized as Christification.
In my estimation, Cho’s attempt to place early Baptists like Keach, Gill, Spurgeon, and
Maclaren in line with the Patristic theology of deification as promoted by Irenaeus,
Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Confessor – and even with the much
later hesychast understanding of Gregory Palamas – is forced and gratuitous. In their
capacity as Protestants, Baptists are heirs of the Western tradition and its theological
language,21 which includes ideas like hypostatic union, mystical union, communication
21 Robert E. Johnson, for instance, speaks of “the traditional Western ordering of Baptist history” in his A Global
Introduction to Baptist Churches (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 285.
15
Alexander Maclaren, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians 1-3, Exposition of Holy Scripture, vol. 14 (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1974), 33–34.
16 Alexander Maclaren, Philippians 4 to Hebrews 6, Exposition of Holy Scripture, vol. 15 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974),
8–9.
17 Dan Lé, The Naked Christ: An Atonement Model for Body-Obsessed Culture (Eugene: Pickwick, 2012), 231.
18 James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2001),
364.
19 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 904.
20 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 55.

© 2021 World Council of Churches 115

The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

of attributes, incommunicable divine attributes, and communicable attributes, divine

essence, and human nature. From Augustine to Bonaventure and from Luther to Calvin,
these theological concepts permeated the entire Western tradition,22 so linking Baptists
with the Eastern Patristic tradition based on the doctrine of deification is – at least in
my view – worthless and pointless. After all, Cho himself admits that the “theology of
deification will not add any new content to a traditional Baptist soteriology.”23
Nevertheless, I fully agree with Cho when he writes that the concept of deification can
enrich Baptist theology by making it more comprehensive, especially when seen as
Christification. So, while I disagree with Cho’s fundamental thesis that “Baptists have
already had their own understandings of deification before the twentieth century”24
because Baptist theology can be traced back historically to Western Patristics, not to
Eastern Patristics as he attempts to demonstrate, I do support his conviction that con-
temporary Baptists should get involved in “discussions on deification.”25

Theosis as Christification and the Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

Since I agree with Cho that it is beneficial for Baptists to become involved in various
conversations about theosis, I am going to briefly present his set of suggestions for these
discussions. From the very start, Cho intends to clarify that Baptists should discuss dei-
fication not only inside their own tradition, but also with what he calls “other tradi-
tions.”26 His first suggestion refers to the term “Christification,” which is not only an
alternative concept for deification, but, as he argues, was used by the early Baptists
(Keach, Gill, Spurgeon, and Maclaren) to describe “participation in the glorified
­manhood of Christ.”27 In other words, while Baptists did not use the actual term
“deification,” whereby the Eastern Patristic tradition conveyed the idea of the partici-
pation of human nature into the divine reality of the incarnate Christ, they nevertheless
employed the word “Christification” as what he believes was a successful solution to the
issues described by deification.

22
For details about concepts like mystical union in the Western tradition, see Amy Hollywood, “Introduction,” 3;
Walter Simmons, “New Forms of Religious Life in Medieval Western Europe,” 102; Edward Howells, “Early
Modern Reformations,” 126, all in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Mysticism, ed. Amy Hollywood and Patricia
Z. Beckman (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
23 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 54.
24 Ibid., 54.
25 Ibid., 67.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.

116 © 2021 World Council of Churches

Corneliu C. Simuț Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

In this respect, however, Emmanuel Hatzidakis reveals that Christification is used quite
naturally by the Eastern Orthodox tradition to convey the idea of salvation as deifica-
tion.28 According to Cho, Christification refers to the hypostatic union, namely to Christ
“as the source and model for human participation in God,”29 and manages to preserve
both the reality of human transformation and the equally important reality of God’s
transcendence. Why is Christification beneficial to Baptists in the context of the discus-
sions about deification or why should Baptists read Christification as deification?
Because, Cho argues, it has the potential to make Baptists slightly more contemplative,
in addition to their traditional focus on “biblical Christian virtues.”30
Cho’s second suggestion concerning how Baptists should become involved in discus-
sions about deification has to do with the “real transformation of human nature”31 as
part of Christification. Evidently, Christification should be understood as a process that
involves the traditional doctrine of sanctification; so, according to Cho, Baptists need to
be more attentive about sanctification, which leads to moral transformation but not to
an ontological change. Cho is aware that, taken out of its theological and historical con-
text, the very idea of deification may imply an ontological transformation; but this is
not the case, as he correctly points out. Even Christification may have the same negative
and defective effect if understood within an improper theological framework. Either
way, neither deification nor Christification has to do with an ontological transformation
of the sanctified men and women into something they were not created to be. In other
words, sanctified believers will never become ontologically identical to either God or
Christ as God: not in the very least.
What happens in both deification and Christification or in deification as Christification
is that believers grow in sanctification to the point that they constantly seek to be more
like Christ in accordance with his moral perfection. In fact, according to Vladimir
Cvetković,32 this is an Athanasian idea that discloses that Christification is “the fullness
of deification.” Cho is careful to underline that this Christlikeness, another term used
by Baptists, will never lead to moral perfection, but it will promote a constant growth in
sanctification. Christification as deification refers to the fact that believers are made
partakers of divine life, not divine nature. It is, as Cho puts it, a “maximized

28
Emmanuel Hatzidakis, Jesus: Fallen? The Human Nature of Christ Examined from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective
(Clearwater: Orthodox Witness, 2013), 508.
29 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 67.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Vladimir Cvetković, “T. F. Torrance as Interpreter of St. Athanasius,” in T. F. Torrance and Eastern Orthodoxy:
Theology in Reconciliation, ed. Matthew Baker and Todd Speidell, 54–91 (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 86.

© 2021 World Council of Churches 117

The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

transformation of human nature without participating in the essence or incommunica-

ble attributes of God”33 that maintains the ontological distinction between God and
humans, between divine nature and human nature.
If these first two suggestions refer to how Baptists could benefit from being involved in
discussions about deification in the sense of improving or enriching their own theology,
the next two are more about how Baptists could relate to other theological or confessional
traditions. The third suggestion has to do with the Baptists’ involvement in what Cho calls
the “Palamite–Zizioulas debate,” the former with reference to the “participation in the di-
vine personhood” while the latter to “participation in the divine energies.”34 Cho contends
that the early Baptists (Keach, Gill, Spurgeon, and Maclaren) share with Gregory Palamas
and Vladimir Lossky – one of Palamas’ modern champions – the “categorical distinction
between the incommunicable nature or essence and the communicable nature of God.”35
In this respect, I disagree with Cho, who misses the point of Palamas’ theology: that is, the
distinction between divine substance and the reality of divine persons,36 or at least the dis-
tinction between divine substance and the reality of incarnation, which makes the former
appear so distant from the latter that the latter seems almost impossible to exist as ontolog-
ical reality. Put differently, the divine essence and persons appear to be impossibly distant
from humanity without the mediation provided by the uncreated divine energies.37
What I personally find problematic in Cho’s argument is his failure to mention the possibil-
ity of continuing the dialogue between Baptists and the Eastern Orthodox through the
mediation provided by Greek Patristics and even Palamas, for which there are recent prec-
edents in Baptist history. For instance, Constantine Prokhorov indicates that in the 1980s,
Russian Baptists often quoted Palamas alongside Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa,
Athanasius of Alexandria, Nilus of Sinai, Macarius the Elder, and many others in their
official publication called Bratsky Vestnik (Fraternal Herald).38 It is true that Cho does men-
tion Lossky and Zizioulas, both representatives of the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical tra-
dition, but the name of the tradition itself is never present in his argument. This may be
because he misses the fact that while Palamas’ theology is based on the (Neo-)Platonic

33
Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 68.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 See, for details, Jennifer A. Herrick, Does God Change? Reconciling the Immutable God with the God of Love, Dissertation.
com, 40–41, https://scina​pse.io/paper​s/58480124.
37 Nicholas Laos, The Metaphysics of World Order: A Synthesis of Philosophy, Theology, and Politics (Eugene: Pickwick,
2015), 50.
38 Constantine Prokhorov, Russian Baptists and Orthodoxy, 1960–1990: A Comparative Study of Theology, Liturgy, and
Traditions (Carlisle: Langham Monographs, 2013), 120.

118 © 2021 World Council of Churches

Corneliu C. Simuț Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

philosophy of Eastern Orthodoxy, Baptist theology is tributary to the traditional Aristotelian

understanding of theology so specific to the Western Catholic/Protestant tradition.39
Cho’s fourth suggestion is a thesis that I find extremely useful and pertinent. In short,
he argues in favour of the traditional distinction between justification and sanctification
within Protestant theology, thus taking a different position to that of the Finnish
Lutheran School, which argues in favour of understanding justification as deification.
Building on Carl R. Trueman’s excellent explanation,40 Cho demonstrates, quite con-
vincingly, I would say, that Baptist discussions about deification should focus on sancti-
fication, union with Christ, and partaking of divine life, but not on justification.41 This
particular sort of discussion has nothing to do with changing Baptists’ traditional doc-
trine of justification into something different, so Baptists should discuss deification to
the point that they do not depart from their classical Protestant convictions. In other
words, Baptists should benefit as much as they can from any involvement in discussions
about deification but only as long as they do not move away from their fundamental
conviction that justification and sanctification are distinct, while inseparable, soterio-
logical realities.42 This is to say, the doctrine of deification can and should enrich
Baptists’ awareness of the reality of salvation provided they do not succumb to pres-
sures that may lead to the cancellations of their adherence to the doctrine of forensic
justification, sola fide, and union with Christ within their fundamental Protestant be-
liefs.43 For Baptist theology, therefore, deification can refer to sanctification and moral
transformation, union with Christ and participation in the divine life, a more

39
I admit that my explanation is not only succinct but also classically controversial and perhaps even ambiguous.
However, as a Protestant theologian (of Baptist confession) whose activity has been based in Romania, a country
dominated religiously by the Eastern Orthodox tradition, I have had numerous discussions with local Eastern
Orthodox theologians who see Palamas’ theology and Palamism in general as a theological oddity. Most of them
describe Palamas’ work as an exception (to Eastern Orthodoxy), and a consistent number of Eastern Orthodox
theologians (at least from those I had the chance to discuss with) voiced their concern about the validity and re-
ality of the actual distinction between divine essence and uncreated divine energies.
40 Trueman argued that if the Finnish Lutheran School is correct and justification should be read in terms of deifi-
cation, then the distinction between justification and sanctification is cancelled and the very founders of
Protestantism (Luther and Calvin, to name the most famous) should be condemned as heretics while Osiander,
who understood justification as ontological transformation and union with Christ, should be accepted as a theo-
logian in good standing within Protestant orthodoxy. For more informative details, see Carl Trueman, “Simul
Peccator et Justus: Martin Luther and Justification,” in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and
Contemporary Challenges, ed. B. L. McCormack, 73–98 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).
41 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 69.
42 For details about the traditional distinction between justification and sanctification in Protestant theology, see
R. Newton Flew and Rupert E. Davies, eds, The Catholicity of Protestantism (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1950,
reprinted 2002), 80.
43 Cho, “Deification in the Baptist Tradition,” 69.

© 2021 World Council of Churches 119

The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

encompassing or comprehensive perspective of eschatological realities and glorifica-

tion in the presence of God, but never justification and its forensic aspects which reveal
God’s primacy in human salvation.
Cho does not specifically refer to the possibility of formal dialogue between Baptist and
Eastern Orthodox theologians in connection with the positive aspects of discussions
about deification among the Baptists. His set of proposals is mostly directed toward
the development of Baptist theology and the point that contemporary Baptist theol-
ogy could benefit from serious consideration of the ecclesiastical past of the Patristic
period and its preoccupation with theosis. Thus, although Cho’s suggestions connect
Baptist tradition with the Eastern Patristic past, they are not ecumenically oriented; this
is why I shall now turn to the thought of a Baptist theologian who is concerned with
setting Baptist theology in a constant dialogue with Eastern Orthodoxy as a possible
way toward the future. Is this even possible? According to Paul Fiddes, a foremost rep-
resentative of the British Baptists, the answer is yes.

Theosis as Participation in Paul Fiddes’ Western Baptist Theology

Paul Fiddes’ theology is more focused on how Baptist theology can develop by looking
at what Eastern Orthodoxy has to say about theosis within the context of the Greek fa-
thers. According to Fiddes, one of the most distinctive characteristics of Eastern
Orthodoxy is its continuous preoccupation with the idea of deification with constant
references to Greek Patristics. In Fiddes’ words, “the [Eastern] Orthodox church con-
tinually explores the theme of theosis or the divinization of human life, as found in the
Eastern Church Fathers but given firm outlines by St Maximus the Confessor.”44 Fiddes
singles out Maximus the Confessor as the premier theologian of the Eastern Orthodox
Church, the very same way he identifies Thomas Aquinas as fundamental for the Roman
Catholic Church, Luther for the Lutheran church, and Calvin for the Reformed church.
In other words, each of these confessional traditions has a theologian to look at for one
basic theological idea that shaped those respective churches. Concretely, for Fiddes,
Maximus the Confessor developed the doctrine of deification, which then modelled the
theology and practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church. When compared to the Baptist
tradition, however, Eastern Orthodoxy claims a sort of heritage that Baptists do not
have.45 According to Fiddes, “Baptists do not have such formative theologians,”46 which
44
Paul S. Fiddes, Tracks and Traces: Baptist Identity in Church and Theology (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 17.
45 These days, however, this may not be so important because, if Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen is right in his assessment that
“many Protestants are now rereading their heritages through . . . Eastern Orthodoxy” (and I would say even through
Greek Patristics), then contemporary Baptists should see their own history as part of the history of the “church cath-
olic.” Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004), 8.
46 Fiddes, Tracks and Traces, 17.

120 © 2021 World Council of Churches

Corneliu C. Simuț Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

may be indicative of the fact that they do not have a decisive idea, such as theosis, to cling
to ecclesiastically either. While this is true, Baptists borrowed from the Reformed tradi-
tion the idea of covenant, which became paradigmatic for their own church life.
How is this relevant to the connection between Eastern Orthodoxy and Baptists? As far
as Fiddes is concerned, this is extremely relevant because the covenant speaks about
participation, first ecclesiologically and then soteriologically through what Fiddes calls
“the horizontal and the vertical dimensions of covenant.”47 For Baptists, soteriological
participation in the covenant is the traditional idea of participation in God or in divine
life, so prominently featured in Greek Patristics and the theology of the Eastern church.
This seemingly impossible connection between Baptists and Eastern Orthodoxy is not
unfounded because, as John Milbank notices, “recent Reformed theologians (like, for
example, Colin Gunton) have tried to make common cause between Calvin and Eastern
Orthodoxy.”48 This is why Fiddes is convinced that, based on the notion of covenant,
“Baptist theologians will be interested in the theological idea of ‘participation’ in God.”49
Building on Stanley Grenz’s connection between the ecclesiological community and
God’s communion that helps believers look beyond what happens in the church to the
very life of God as Trinity, Fiddes argues that the idea of the covenant not only con-
nects time and eternity but also “has some affinity . . . to the Orthodox theology of
theosis.”50 At this point, Fiddes is extremely careful to indicate that deification, or di-
vinization, as he calls it, does not entail the possibility that humans will become divine.
Deification is not a reference to the erroneous claims that human nature can be trans-
formed ontologically into divine nature to the point of a mixture of humanity and di-
vinity or the collapse of humanity within divinity. On the contrary, as Fiddes explains,
deification means only “sharing to the most intimate degree in the fellowship of the
divine life.”51 This theology of participation is crucial not only for Baptist and Eastern
Orthodox churches, but also for a possible, and very real, conversation between Baptist
and Eastern Orthodox believers in their variegated capacities.
Why so? Because, as Fiddes explains based on John Zizioulas’ idea of progress from “bio-
logical existence” to “ecclesial existence,”52 we move from a “biological hypostasis” to an
47
Ibid., 18.
48 John Milbank, “Alternative Protestantism: Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition,” in Introducing Radical
Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular Theology, ed. James K. A. Smith, 25–42 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 31.
49 Fiddes, Tracks and Traces, 18.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., 19.
52 John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985),
49–65.

© 2021 World Council of Churches 121

The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

“ecclesial hypostasis,” which is nothing but a transformation on two levels: ecclesiastical

and soteriological.53 In this respect, namely the reality of ecclesiastical and soteriological
transformation, both traditions (Baptist and Eastern Orthodox) share a common interest
which, as shown by David Trementozzi, transcends confessional boundaries.54 In Fiddes,
the very idea of theosis as deification is crucial for Baptists and Eastern Orthodox because
it reveals God’s very mission to renew humanity by means of including each individual
transformed by grace within the reality of God’s existence as Trinity.55 To demonstrate that
deification has nothing to do with one’s personal development in human terms, Fiddes
writes about “the crucified Christ” who “has chosen to define his deity in weakness” and
who “strikes a blow against all human self-aggrandizement and self-deification.”56
As a Baptist theologian, I can see why Fiddes uses “the crucified” Christ as a sort of her-
meneutical key for a Baptist understanding of theosis. As it happens, Baptists are extremely
interested in Christology, especially in the idea of atonement, so any connection between
deification and Christ’s atoning death will become a topic of interest for Baptist theolo-
gians, especially when deification is understood “in the sense of incorporating human na-
ture into the fellowship of the divine life.”57 In other words, if presented in terms of
fellowship, transformation, and incorporation, deification can become extremely meaning-
ful to Baptists and so a dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox becomes a real possibility.
Deification, however, should not be explained only in terms of Christology but also
with consistent references to soteriology, which is the predilect dogmatic choice of the
Baptists. In the Greek Patristic tradition, as well as in Eastern Orthodox theology, dei-
fication captures the very essence of salvation, which will never convince the vast ma-
jority of Baptists. Their focus on justification, viewed as distinct if not also separate
from sanctification, constitutes not only the foundation of their soteriology but also
their conviction about the need to promote global evangelization, which Bill J. Leonard
sees as essential to Baptist missiology.58 The language of incorporation and the reality
of fellowship that highlights “divine personalness,” as Fiddes puts it,59 will most likely

53
Fiddes, Tracks and Traces, 73.
54 David Trementozzi, Salvation in the Flesh: Understanding How Embodiment Shapes Christian Faith (Hamilton: McMaster
Divinity College Press; and Eugene: Pickwick, 2018), 129, note 71.
55 Fiddes, Tracks and Traces, 258.
56 Paul S. Fiddes, The Creative Suffering of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 89.
57 Paul S. Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1989), 151.
58 Bill J. Leonard, Baptists in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 33.
59 Paul S. Fiddes, Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000),
76.

122 © 2021 World Council of Churches

Corneliu C. Simuț Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

be appealing to Baptists in their discussions with the Eastern Orthodox from the per-
spective of human participation in the divine life.
Nevertheless, perhaps the best way to convince Baptists to discuss the issue of theosis
with Eastern Orthodox is to present deification in the more encompassing and practical
context of the Trinity as model for Christian spirituality, as suggested by Daniel Oprean
in his Theology of Participation: A Conversation of Traditions.60 According to Oprean, the
theology of participation, intensely promoted by Fiddes, has the capacity to transform
any human being “from observer to participant in the spiritual mission of the Father,
through the Son in the Spirit, a mission in the world and for the world,” and such a
presentation of deification will surely resonate with Baptists.
Even if Cho is quite optimistic about the possibility of Palamism to present a cer-
tain degree of interest for Baptists so that they get involved in discussions about de-
ification, Oprean (who lives in Eastern Orthodox Romania) is much more likely to
be right in his assessment that Baptists would concede more easily to ideas like those
presented by Fiddes – participation, fellowship, and transformation, all in the context
of God’s mission to save the world – than to specifically Palamite tenets. I do not see
Baptists being convinced about the veracity of divine essence as inaccessible and the
accessibility or even the mediation provided by uncreated divine energies, which are so
specific to Eastern Orthodoxy’s appropriation of Palamism. Nevertheless, is it possi-
ble for Baptists to even discuss Palamism and uncreated divine energies as part of a
more comprehensive perspective on theosis? Romanian Baptist theologian Emil Bartoș
demonstrates that the answer to this question is affirmative.

Theosis as Perichoresis in Emil Bartoș’ Eastern Baptist Theology

Bartoș’ expertise lies in the theology of Dumitru Stăniloae, arguably Romania’s premier
Eastern Orthodox theologian. When I translated Bartoș’ doctoral thesis on Stăniloae
into Romanian in 1997, I was struck by the latter’s explanation of theosis in terms that
highlight the activity of God in working out the deification of humanity, an explanation
that Bartoș seems to endorse in general terms. Although I had been accustomed to
Eastern Orthodox theology before reading Bartoș’ thesis, I was under the false impres-
sion that deification referred to a reality that had to do more with human accomplish-
ment than with divine activity. However, while reading Bartoș’ exceptional take on
Stăniloae, I was able to understand that Stăniloae’s main purpose in defining theosis was
to connect it with God’s work. This is why, as Daniel Oprean in his monograph also

60
Daniel Oprean, Theology of Participation: A Conversation of Traditions, Kindle edition (Carlisle: Langham Monographs,
2019), 10.3.

© 2021 World Council of Churches 123

The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

notices, Bartoș links theosis with perichoresis, or deification with the reality of the complex
relationships between the persons of the Holy Trinity.61 In other words, even if the
concept of deification itself leads one to at least consider the possibility of human be-
coming divine or partaking of divine life by means of a movement from below, Stăniloae
indicates that things are totally different, to the point that the very origin of theosis is to
be found in the deepest, most profound, and most mysterious locus of divine life. For
Stăniloae, however, perichoresis is not exclusively a designation of intra-divine relation-
ships; on the contrary, it is also a reality that involves the mutuality of divine and human
relationships, or a “double penetration,” as Bartoș puts it.62 Concerning this aspect,
John D. Garr writes, with reference to Bartoș, that perichoresis should be understood as
likeness or union with God, which is essentially a spiritual process.63
This is why, as Bartoș sees in Stăniloae, deification is deeply rooted in perichoresis, which
becomes the “real act of deification of the human nature.”64 This spiritual process –
although experienced by adoption, grace, and imitation – is God’s gift. For a Baptist
theologian like Bartoș, this is most significant because, in its capacity as means of salva-
tion, deification is primarily a divine, not a human, reality, although it is simultaneously
the very goal of human life. This key issue was captured by James D. Gifford in his ex-
amination of theosis, which features Bartoș prominently.65 The very roots of deification
lie within the reality of the Holy Trinity, not in that of human efforts.
Nevertheless, as significant as this is for Baptist theology as part of the Protestant tra-
dition, Bartoș notices that this sort of theology, which is always linked to its Patristic
roots, falls short of entering a much-needed dialogue with modern and contemporary
issues. While being appreciative of the capacity of the doctrine of deification to pre-
serve divine transcendence and even the divine initiative of salvation so dear to
Protestants, Bartoș also notices that, at least in Stăniloae, theosis is an instrument of the
past, not a pathway toward the future. This very observation, however, reveals Bartoș’
desire to see theosis as a doctrine that speaks not only to the present but also to the
­future.66 In his mild and elegant critique of Stăniloae’s theology of deification, Bartoș
reveals how theosis can be used to encourage the discussions between Baptists and

61
Oprean, Theology of Participation, ch. 4.
62 Emil Bartoș, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999), 183.
63 John D. Garr, Christian Fruit – Jewish Root: Theology of Hebraic Restoration (Atlanta: Golden Key Press, 2015), 201.
64 Bartoș, Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, 183.
65 James D. Gifford Jr, Perichoretic Salvation: The Believer’s Union with Christ as Third Type of Perichoresis (Eugene: Wipf and
Stock, 2011), 11.
66 Emil Bartoș, Conceptul de îndumnezeire în teologia lui Dumitru Stăniloae (Oradea: Editura Institutului Biblic Emanuel,
1998), 466.

124 © 2021 World Council of Churches

Corneliu C. Simuț Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

Orthodox in a way that is beneficial for both Christian confessions and their histori-
cal-ecclesiastical development.
Again, even if Bartoș does not clearly explain how the doctrine of deification can be
used practically to encourage discussions between the Baptist and Eastern Orthodox
traditions, at least four possible pathways for dialogue could emerge from his critical
assessment of Stăniloae’s presentation of theosis.
A first one, which could lead to a useful dialogue between Baptists and Orthodox, is the
acknowledgement that the doctrine of deification, in its Greek Patristic and Eastern
Orthodox formulations, is inspired by scripture.67 It does not matter if the reading of
scripture that leads to the doctrine of deification is correct or not; what matters, espe-
cially for the possible discussions between Baptists and Orthodox, is the direct liaison
between theosis and the Bible, because this connection reflects what Charles C. Twombly
calls “the language of participation.”68
A second pathway that can fuel discussions between Baptists and Eastern Orthodox is
their willingness to discuss doctrines that the other party sees as controversial. For in-
stance, Baptists should be ready and willing to delve into the complexity of deification
even if their soteriology is based on a different concept, namely that of justification; at the
same time, Eastern Orthodox should be equally ready and willing to investigate the valid-
ity of justification as instrumental for salvation.69 For as long as each party is at least will-
ing to try to discuss their interlocutor’s favourite soteriological concept, confessional
interactions could be most promising. Since each soteriological system is heavily based on
the scriptures, it seems only fair that Eastern Orthodox should lend their ears to Baptist
biblical exegesis, just as Baptists should listen to Eastern Orthodox Patristic exegesis.
A third potentially fruitful pathway for the dialogue between Baptists and Eastern
Orthodox is the mutual examination of each other’s system of thought and fundamen-
tal concepts like perichoresis. The more one knows about it, the better. For instance, Joas
Adiprasetya reveals one benefit of the in-depth study of perichoresis as a concept, namely
that it has at least a triple doctrinal meaning: nature-perichoresis (Christ’s divine and human
nature in their hypostatic union), person-perichoresis (the intra-trinitarian relations of the
Father, Son, and Spirit), and reality-perichoresis (“God’s cosmological embrace of the
world”).70 Doctrines are part of soteriological systems that were built over many centu-

67
Ibid., 466.
68 Charles C. Twombly, Perichoresis and Personhood: God, Christ, and Salvation in John of Damascus (Eugene: Pickwick,
2015), 90.
69 Bartoș, Conceptul de îndumnezeire în teologia lui Dumitru Stăniloae, 466–67.
70 Joas Adiprasetya, An Imaginative Glimpse: The Trinity and Multiple Religious Participations (Eugene: Pickwick, 2013), 1.

© 2021 World Council of Churches 125

The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

ries, so a thorough investigation of such systems is anything but easy. However, if

Baptists acquire a better understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy’s reliance on Greek
Patristics while Eastern Orthodox show openness to inquire into the Baptists’ legal
framework of their specifically Western soteriology, any discussions about deification
will eventually prove useful.71 To be sure, this is not a matter of hermeneutic rectitude:
it is only an exercise in theological debate for the sake of mutual knowledge, respect,
and cohabitation – an exercise that can nevertheless become a constructive interconfes-
sional endeavour in the long run.
A fourth and final pathway for the rapprochement between Baptists and Eastern
Orthodox is the admission that such discussions deal with an extremely difficult sub-
ject. Bartoș is careful to underscore the necessity that both parties should be aware of
the “delicate balance” the dialogue needs to keep between scripture, tradition, Christian
experience, the logic and dynamics of philosophical systems, and their own presuppo-
sitions. Such an exercise is indeed a demanding one, especially given the complex capac-
ity of the doctrine of deification to become what Brock Bingaman calls the “summary
of . . . theological anthropology . . . enabled by divine grace.”72 However, it appears to
be the only way whereby the doctrine of deification can be discussed meaningfully and
constructively by Baptists and Eastern Orthodox. Concretely, theosis as perichoresis, as
Bartoș wisely noticed, can realistically become a major locus for the theological encoun-
ter between Baptists and Eastern Orthodox in the years to come, precisely because de-
ification links anthropology with soteriology. But is this the only aspect that could
encourage discussions between Baptists and Orthodox? Fortunately, the answer is neg-
ative, and this time negative is good.

Contemporary Baptist Doctrines and the Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

In addition to the ideas explored by Cho (theosis as Christification), Fiddes (theosis as

participation), and Bartoș (theosis as perichoresis), there is a whole set of doctrines in
contemporary Baptist theology that could not only encourage but also advance the
dialogue between Baptists and Eastern Orthodox. What I am about to present in this
article is a list of contemporary Baptist theologians whose academic and practical in-
terests contain the seeds of potentially fruitful ideas that could be discussed by Baptists
and Eastern Orthodox in academic or ecclesiastical dialogue. To be sure, none of these
Baptist theologians mentions the possibility of dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox
tradition, but their theological investigations are open to it.

71
Bartoș, Conceptul de îndumnezeire în teologia lui Dumitru Stăniloae, 467.
72 Brock Bingaman, All Things New: The Trinitarian Nature of the Human Calling in Maximus the Confessor and Jürgen
Moltmann (Eugene: Pickwick, 2014), 75.

126 © 2021 World Council of Churches

Corneliu C. Simuț Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

To begin with, Rupen Das, who teaches at the International Baptist Theological Study
Centre at the Free University of Amsterdam, is of the opinion that the very idea of con-
version, so dear to Baptists and so deeply embedded in their theological-ecclesiological
tradition, should be explored in comparison with “the phenomenon of conversion of
those from non-Christian backgrounds”73 pertaining to world religions in general. If this
suggestion applies to so wide a range of possibilities, the dialogue with fellow Christian
theologians of different confessional traditions, such as Eastern Orthodox, should not
be a problem but rather an incentive to carry out the task of supporting constructive
interconfessional cooperation attempts in practical life, like the field of missiology.
A second domain in which Baptists could successfully dialogue with Eastern Orthodox
is Christian ethics, as suggested by Marion L. S. Carson, who also teaches at the
International Baptist Theological Study Centre and at the Scottish Baptist College in
Paisley.74 The complex problem of slavery is an issue of the past, but it was a reality in
which both Baptists and Eastern Orthodox lived until the 19th century. Concretely, the
treatment of abolitionism in the West by Baptists and in the East by Eastern Orthodox
provides a possible point of connection between the two traditions. Investigating this
topic could help them enrich their perspective on applied ethics. Western Baptists dealt
with the abolition of Black slavery, while the Eastern Orthodox were involved in the
abolition of Roma slavery; so in this respect, their common past may open a beneficial
exchange of ethical insights.
A third aspect that can present interest for the dialogue between Baptists and Eastern
Orthodox is open-air preaching. Stuart Blythe from Acadia Divinity College in Canada75
explores this specifically Baptist ecclesiological feature that has inspired generations of
Baptists across the globe, based on their 18th-century Evangelical heritage. In recent
times, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, Eastern Orthodox were forced by
the new medical situation to reconsider their traditional preaching within their church
buildings in favour of open-air liturgies. A theology of public engagement not only
with those who willingly attend church liturgy but also with disinterested passers-by
may prove extremely useful to both traditions, even for Baptists and their traditional
open-air preaching ecclesiology. In this particular case, learning from one’s own (Baptist)
past may become a practical concern for another one’s prospective (Eastern Orthodox)
future.

73
Rupen Das, “Becoming a Follower of Christ: Exploring Conversion through Historical and Missiological
Lenses,” Perichoresis 16:1 (2018), 21–40.
74 Marion L. S. Carson, “In Whose Interest? Ante-Bellum Abolitionism, the Bible, and Contemporary Christian
Ethics,” Perichoresis 16:1 (2018), 41–60.
75 Stuart Blythe, “Open-Air Preaching: A Long and Diverse Tradition,” Perichoresis 16:1 (2018), 61–80.

© 2021 World Council of Churches 127

The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

A fourth theological preoccupation within contemporary Baptist theology can be one of

the easiest ways to initiate and maintain an exceptionally successful dialogue with Eastern
Orthodox. Anthony R. Cross, also from the International Baptist Theological Study Centre
at the Free University of Amsterdam, investigates theological education and its role in the
preparation for ministry.76 In this respect, both Baptists and Orthodox may find that theo-
logical education is a key issue for their confessional traditions as well as their contempo-
rary ecclesiological development. However, Cross explores the role of theological education
for ecclesiastical ministry as applied not only to men but also to women; in this respect,
both Baptists and Eastern Orthodox have a lot of thinking to do, because finding mean-
ingful involvement in church ministry for women appears to be problematic in both tradi-
tions, even without discussing the sensitive issue of female ordination.
A fifth issue of interest for both Baptists and Eastern Orthodox is the connection be-
tween nationalism and the church. Lina Toth, from the Scottish Baptist College in
Paisley, takes the case of Lithuanian Baptists who had to learn not only how to be
Christians pertaining to the Baptist tradition but also how to live as Baptists in a country
that did not appreciate their Evangelical Protestant heritage.77 Romanian Baptists will
find the story of their Lithuanian brothers and sisters particularly interesting because
their own ecclesiological history within the Romanian-speaking lands was characterized
by conflict with Eastern Orthodox. This is all the more reason why both Baptists and
Eastern Orthodox should sit down and not only discuss issues that could prevent the
re-enactment of their past mistakes, but also find ways to further the kingdom of God
in the world in ways that lead to cooperation, not conflict. In other words, loving one’s
nation by both Baptists and Eastern Orthodox should be demonstrated by their work-
ing together in the present and the future, not by their mutual antagonism in the past.
In addition to these five major suggestions that have the real potential to promote suc-
cessful discussions between Baptists and Eastern Orthodox, recent Baptist theology
has delved into other significant issues that may and should be examined by the two
ecclesiastical traditions in dialogue: soteriology not only as deification but also as atone-
ment78; the classical relationship between church and state, irrespective of the actual
form of political government79; eschatology from the perspective of political attitudes

76
Anthony R. Cross, “The Place of Theological Education in the Preparation of Men and Women for the British
Baptist Ministry Then and Now,” Perichoresis 16:1 (2018), 91–98.
77 Lina Toth, “Strangers in the Land and True Lovers of the Nation: The Formation of Lithuanian-Speaking
Baptist Identity, 1918–1940,” Perichoresis 16:1 (2018), 99–118.
78 Stephen R. Holmes, “The Nature of Theology and the Extent of the Atonement,” Perichoresis 16:4 (2018), 3–18.
79 Ian Birch, “Baptists, Fifth Monarchists, and the Reign of King Jesus,” Perichoresis 16:4 (2018), 19–34.

128 © 2021 World Council of Churches

Corneliu C. Simuț Theosis and Baptist–Orthodox Discussions

toward Palestine and the Jewish state80; the constant rediscovery of the vital role of
pneumatology81; the recurrent necessity to fight for spiritual values82; and theological
attitudes toward the environment.83
In the end, here is a specifically Romanian proposal for discussions between Baptists
and Eastern Orthodox based on the research of contemporary theologians of the
American Baptist tradition. The Romanian Orthodox have Dumitru Stăniloae (1903–
93) as their star theologian. Romanian Baptists have no such indigenous name to claim
as their most famous representative, but they do have an international figure they can
relate to in the person of Carl F. H. Henry (1913–2003). Although Stăniloae was Henry’s
senior by a decade, their lives overlapped historically, so their concerns were tied to
roughly the same type of theological preoccupations, despite the former’s living in
Eastern Europe and the latter’s career in the United States of America. Both were well
acquainted with contemporary theology, especially post-Second World War German
theology. Given Henry’s complex and multifaceted literary corpus, a Baptist proposal
for possible discussions with the Orthodox should include the following: the problem
of good and evil84; evangelism and social concern85; historical or presuppositional apol-
ogetics86; revelation and education87; the legacy of the Reformation88; and biblical au-
thority and preaching.89

80
Alasdair Black, “The Balfour Declaration: Scottish Presbyterian Eschatology and British Policy towards
Palestine,” Perichoresis 16:4 (2018), 35–59.
81 Ian Stackhouse, “The Spirit as Transcendent Lord,” Perichoresis 16:4 (2018), 61–71.
82 Brian Talbot, “’The Struggle for Spiritual Values’: Scottish Baptists and the Second World War,” Perichoresis 16:4
(2018), 73–94.
83 Phia Steyn, “Religious Responses to Environmental Crises in the Orange Free State Republic,” Perichoresis 16:4
(2018), 95–113.
84 Edward N. Martin, “Carl F. H. Henry on the Problem of (Good and) Evil,” Perichoresis 17:3 (2019), 3–24.
85 Jerry M. Ireland, “Carl F. H. Henry’s Regenerational Model of Evangelism and Social Concern and the Promise
of an Evangelical Consensus,” Perichoresis 17:3 (2019), 25–41.
86 William C. Roach, “Historical or Presuppositional Apologetics: A Henrecian Response to Michael Licona’s New
Historiographical Approach,” Perichoresis 17:3 (2019), 43–61.
87 Jonathan Wood, “Orbit and Axis: Carl F. H. Henry on Revelation and Education,” Perichoresis 17:3 (2019),
63–82.
88 Robert W. Talley, “Carl Henry Evaluates the Reformation,” Perichoresis 17:3 (2019), 83–96.
89 Kevin King, “The Uneasy Pulpit: Carl Henry, the Authority of the Bible, and Expositional Preaching,” Perichoresis
17:3 (2019), 97–111.

© 2021 World Council of Churches 129

The Ecumenical Review Volume 73  •  Number 1  •  January 2021

Conclusion

Baptist–Orthodox dialogue is possible; one may even say that it is possible against all
odds. Traditional Baptist doctrines like Christification, their classical preoccupations
in the field of soteriology and Christology, and their contemporary interest in Greek
Patristics are all sufficient reasons for such a dialogue to continue based on at least these
doctrines and common concerns. One must admit that perhaps neither Baptists nor
Eastern Orthodox “feel” comfortable with each other, given their doctrinal and cultural
differences; Western patterns of thought and Eastern ways of seeing life are not always
easy to put together, let alone at the very same table.
Nevertheless, the fact that there is a doctrine, that of theosis, which has been appro-
priated or at least investigated by both traditions, is not something to be taken for
granted. Regardless of whether theosis is seen as Christification by Baptist or deifica-
tion by Eastern Orthodox, the possibility of concrete discussions exists. Dongsun Cho
demonstrated this historically with reference to the early Baptists. Paul Fiddes did the
same dogmatically by indicating that deification can be read as participation in God’s
life. Emil Bartoș provided a similar demonstration in showing that deification can be
understood as perichoresis.
Eastern Orthodox, therefore, should be gratified that the connection with Greek
Patristics has not been ignored; on the contrary, it was and it is profoundly and ear-
nestly investigated by some contemporary Baptist theologians. Baptists, on the other
hand, should be equally content that their propensity for a soteriology that is clearly
anchored in divine life, not on human actions, has not been ignored – quite the oppo-
site, it is affirmed by Eastern Orthodox and their interest in perichoresis. If only these
concerns had been met, the conditions for prolific discussions between Baptists and
Eastern Orthodox would be in place without equivocation. The fact remains that other
contemporary Baptist concerns, such as public involvement in various educational, so-
cial, political, economic, and ecclesiastic aspects of life, are significantly part of Eastern
Orthodox experience in any geographical setting. As a result, the actual Baptist–
Orthodox dialogue becomes almost exclusively a matter of communitarian willingness,
personal availability, and human fraternity.

130 © 2021 World Council of Churches