Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis

by Jordan B. Cooper

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

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Religion, History, Christian

144 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 18, 2014

About the author

Dr. Jordan B Cooper is an ordained Lutheran pastor, an adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, and a Ministry Fellow with Christian Union at Cornell University. He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. He hosts the Just and Sinner Podcast, and is a frequent guest on many other podcasts. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his wife Lisa and their two boys: Jacen, and Ben.

Reviews

[R.L.S.D]

An attempt to revive the teaching of mystical union in Protestant circles and promote dialogue with the Eastern Church on the Christian doctrine of theosis, in five dissertation-like chapters.

Ch 1: Pursuing a definition of theosis as the deification of man through unification and participation in God, as opposed to apotheosis in which man becomes a unique divine entity among a pantheon of gods. "God became man so that man might become god." - Athanasius

Ch 2: An assertion of the presence of theosis in the confessional Lutheran heritage, through a specifically incarnational and Christological vocabulary. "The theotic movement toward God is not due to Christians' obedience, but continual reception of the forgiveness of sins,  especially as granted through the sacraments...baptism in fact initiates the process of theosis." -Cooper

Ch 3: An exegetical exploration of theosis in Holy Scripture with attention to Scripture's juridical language (basically, we are atonement theology maximalists and Lutherans are *really* emphasizing the necessity but insufficiency of substitionary atonement by itself.)

2 Pet 1:4 "...He has granted to us His precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature..."

Gal 2:17-21 "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live,  but Christ who lives in me."

Ch 4: A defense of theosis in the writings of the church fathers as incarnational, historical, and Christological. (Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Athanasius.)

Ch 5: A gracious examination of apophatic Eastern theotic understanding and its relationship to Neo-Platonism.

-Western Thomism views God on the basis of of commonality between the creature and Creator. Through observing the goodness in created things,  humanity is able to reason up to God who embodies the perfection of these attributes.

-Eastern theology is based on the dissimilarity between creatures and their Creator which argues that God is utterly transcendent beyond explanation. (apophatism)

-In the Lutheran theological tradition, God is not known by way of negation **or** by the analogy of being [my suspician that I rejected the analogy of being caused me no end of distress in political theory and philosophy classes at my Christian college], BUT by the revelation of of *his historical acts in Christ*. [A fundamentally narrative and literary paradigm as a opposed to a philosophical one.]


I appreciate that Cooper is present and active in some of what I consider to be the most interesting and pressing questions of Christendom today.  Broadly speaking, I agree with the content of this short volume, and it will have an immediate and clarifying influence on the vocabulary I use for religious instruction. The doctrine of theosis significantly impacts how we understand sanctification and the Christian life. That being said, he is a fairly inelegant communicator and I will look forward to engaging other writers on the subject.

[Jared Mindel]

Very good. Just wish it were like 200 pages longer! Best sections were those comparing the Neoplatonic form of theosis to a more Christocentric version.

[Scott W. Blankenship]

The first time I stumbled across the puzzling concept of Theosis was a couple Christmas ago. I was reading On the Incarnation by Athanasius, in which he wrote this baffling statement:

"God became man so that men might become gods."

Was Athanasius a Mormon? Oh course not, he was a staunch defender of orthodoxy and a faithful trinitarian Christian. So then what did he mean when he said "men might become gods?" This is a question that I've been chewing on for a while, and this book finally brought a lot of clarity to the topic.

Arguing persuasively from both the Scriptures and from the Church Fathers, Cooper describes theosis in this way: "Christification is the ontological union of God and man, initiated through the incarnation, which the Christian partakes in through faith. Through this union, that which belongs properly to Christ—namely divine incorruptibility and immortality—is transferred to the believer by faith. This union is increased and strengthened as the Christian participates in the sacramental life of the church, and it is demonstrated through growth in personal holiness."

[Knut Kåre]

En veldig interessant bok der Cooper forsøker å bygge en bro mellom luthersk og ortodoks teologi, gjennom å påvise hvordan den oldkirkelige formuleringen av theosis kan komme til sin rett i møte med både Luther og bekjennelsen. Ireneus, Athanasius og de apostoliske fedre har en Kristus-sentrert måte å formulere sin teologi om theosis på, som Cooper mener står seg godt i møte med den lutherske bekjennelsen.

Jeg liker slike forsøk på å utforske det økumeniske potensialet i dogmer og synes at Cooper lykkes med å vise at luthersk og ortodoks teologi har mye felles på dette området.

[Mark]

Though Jordan Cooper is characteristically diplomatic and nuanced, this book is exactly what I predicted it would be; slightly paraphrased: "sure, theosis is a historic teaching of the church, but ya gotta ensure it stays second to justification!" Really the only interesting part was when he tried to differentiate the earliest Church Fathers' conception of theosis from the later medieval Palamite approach of essence/energies (as influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius and neoplatonism), but rather than making a convincing point, he merely raised an interesting question of prioritization: do we value the oldest things simply because they're oldest, or do we value the continuing development of religion? Do we value scripture/writing because (we have a belief that it) doesn't change? Because despite the Orthodox claims to be the "original, unchanged" Church, I think that their primary strength is the union of scripture and tradition, which I'd wager is wiser and more moderate than sola-anything, since it allows for clarification and development in the first place.

The doubly ironic thing about Cooper attacking the Palamite position is that it was developed in direct contradistinction to the Barlaamite (and Roman more generally) over-reliance on Reason, which Luther famously called the "Devil's harlot." I agree with him, but not on that many other things, especially because he (Luther) contradicts himself here. For example, I don't see any reason to make justification the central Christian doctrine unless you have a weirdly rationalistic/juridical approach to theology, like Luther did. Cooper reconfirms what is to me the least attractive shortcoming of Lutheran theology, namely the a priori privileging of forensic justification above the real focus of Christian life, which to me (and many of the Church Fathers) is clearly love for God and for neighbor, which has as its end goal Theosis, not merely this ego-stroking we call "the assurance of salvation."

The strange thing is that Cooper tries so hard to argue how these two ideas (Justification and Theosis) are not in any contradiction with each other, but he refuses to explain why justification is "the 'doctrine upon which the church stands or falls.'" Because of this anxious attachment style, if I may borrow from developmental psychology, all Lutheran theologians must necessarily privilege the means of grace over and above any progressive, purative practices, which are by far more common in theological writings than assurances of salvation via the means of grace.

Which is why it's disappointing but not surprising when Cooper admits that "In a Lutheran mindset, there is no mystical experience to be sought after in personal prayer or contemplation; rather, union with God must be sought in the life of Christ, in which God united himself with humankind. Our consequent union with God arises only through Christ's incarnation and his presence in Word and Sacrament." Though I applaud Cooper's qualification that this is only in a Lutheran mindset (and doesn't represent historical, i.e. Orthodox Christian thought), I find it disappointing that he would rather stick to a strict, I would argue rationalistic, egotistical concern with (self) justification, rather than admitting the importance of apophatic theology.

Maybe that's another place where Orthodoxy and Lutheranism diverge widely; the Orthodox are wise to eschew the bold, borderline fundamentalist Confessions of the conservative Lutherans, because the Orthodox are (in my opinion) more honest about the contingency of language, texts, and transmission of teachings. Something I learned when researching Jewish theology was how important the oral Torah is to them, and how the Orthodox (Christians) also appreciate an oral tradition in addition to the scriptural tradition. But because the oral tradition isn't inerrantly preserved and verbatim inspired by the Holy Spirit, Lutherans will never be able to accept it as anything more than a quaint addendum. In my case, I take it seriously because to not do so is to risk falling into the very pharisaism that I see so rampant in Lutheranism today. If only there was a solution... oh yeah! Just prioritize theosis over justification, and things will basically work out. Too bad that can't happen if we follow the well-worn paths...

[Josh Traylor]

Very clear, well-articulated introduction to the historic doctrine of theosis. Though from a Lutheran point of view, Cooper presents the historic data for the various models of how theosis was understood in the Patristics, Medieval East, and in the Lutheran Scholastics. Unsurprisingly, Cooper favors the more compatibilist approach to reconciling forensic justification and early Patristic theosis, but he does a good job to differentiate this from the Eastern Neo-Platonic Mystic views of Dionysius, St. Maximus, Gregory Palamas, and Vladimir Lossky. Worth a read for anyone that is unfamiliar with the doctrine, but especially to those looking to understand how the Lutheran Reformation chose to take the middle-road between the heavily mystical views of the Eastern Orthodox tradition and the heavily forensic and skeptical views of the Reformed/Calvinist tradition.

[Denny Skoch]

Overall good introductory level book on the subject of theosis (deification) from a Lutheran-Protestant perspective. Cooper does a good job with trying to present things in a clear and careful manner and shows some of the dichotomies between forensic and participatory categories are false and actually complement each other. Seen this is introductory (from my understanding), some deeper discussions are not held or not dug as deeply, which depending on how knowledgeable one is on the topic, may impact some of the reading for good or just as a quick refresher. Overall, enjoyed the book and recommend it.

[Elijah McArthur]

This is one of the best books I have ever read. Though there are occasional typos, the argumentation is clear and to the point. The summaries at the end of each chapter are particularly helpful in relating everything back to the author's thesis. Furthermore, this work provides a phenomenal take that is truly encouraging for believers while at the same time grounding its teaching in the church fathers, the reformers, and (most importantly) revelation of Christ itself. I couldn't recommend this book more to those who are interested in theology and have a basic understanding of systematic theology, especially concerning the Sacraments, soteriology, and union with Christ.

[Manuel Marbun]

A must read for one who wants to know a difference between Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Cooper shows that biblical deification is patristic deification and is Christocentric, that the biblical deification is not what Eastern Orthodox holds, and that it is held in Lutheranism in the doctrine of Mystical Union or what Cooper called "Christification".

[Michael T Moos]

Good primer on theosis. Dr. Cooper explains the two historic views. One view uses the lens of the Incarnation and can be seen in the writings of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Athanasius. The other sees theosis primarily through mystical experience and prayer that can be seen in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius and developed fully with Gregory Palamas.

[Andrew Kneeland]

I was confused by the structure, and lack of a satisfying conclusion, but this is an important book to help expand the way we talk about justification. Every pastor should read chapter 3.

[Jonathon Moore]

This book was enlightening, but the writing style was very dry.

[Alex Monseth]

Really good!

[Kolter Sands]

An excellent explanation of Lutheran Theosis.

[Ashley]

Great book. Too many typos

[Kenny Parnell]

Excellent treatment of Christification/Theosis. I appreciate the comparison and contrast of the various schools of thought and ultimately showing how it fits in with the historic teaching of the church. I also really appreciate how well it was footnoted and the solid bibliography. I look forward to digging even deeper.

Ultimately though I appreciate how the discussion of the participationist nature of Christification draws me closer to Christ.

[K B]

EXCELLENT!