theology; and 5) recognition of flexible coherency, allows Gorman to construct Paul’s understanding of justification in a very deiforming perspective. Gorman masterfully argues against reducing justification to a simply forensic expression that significantly minimizes the soteriological importance of this theological theme in the context of Christ’s salvific mission. Gorman expands the common Protestant cliché of forensic justification to a more complex, but well grounded in Pauline and Christian tradition, understanding of justification as a participatory and transformative experience, closely connected with sanctification and holiness. Thus, justification is understood as deification, where there is no separation of God’s justice from love, and love from faith, and faith from action. Holiness and sanctification are not additions to justification, but its actualization. The interconnectedness of justification, sanctification, and holiness with kenotic, transformative, reconciliatory and theoforming participation in faithfulness of Christ, expressed in the trinitarian contextualization of cruciform theosis in Pauline theology, presents one integrated soteriology.
Gorman’s interpretation of Paul’s understanding of kenosis, justification, reconciliation, sanctification, holiness, participation, co-crucifixion, and theosis, reciprocally tied together not only sheds a new light on the contemporary field of Pauline studies but also allows us to see Paul and the coherence of his theology in a more historically and theologically adequate perspective. Intentionally or unintentionally, Inhabiting the Cruciform God creates a bridge from exclusively New Testament Studies, to the role and influence of Paul’s writings on the development of patristic theology; or at least how early Christian authors read and understood Paul.
In my book, “The Beauty of the Unity and the Harmony of the Whole:” The Concept of Theosis in the Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (2009), I attempt to trace the emergence and development of the deification theme in Greek patristic theology with its subsequent transformation into the theology of theosis in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. The main focus is to present the deification theme as it is situated in the complex context of its historical development and, thus, to avoid the commonly stated tendency to treat this notion of Christian theology in an anachronistic manner. In my opinion, the universal presence of deification in early Christian writers was often overstated. Historical analysis of the development of the deification theme, and the formation of a specific terminology associated with it, shows that it was a gradual process, far from being homogeneous. The notion of deification in the first five centuries had a very marginal character and was often addressed on the periphery of other theological issues. This marginal application of the deification theme indicates that it was predominantly used as a rhetorical tool and a notion of popular theology, as it still lacked coherent systematic theological treatment.
The role of Pseudo-Dionysius in the consolidation of theosis is crucial, but it is by no means final. Nevertheless, after Pseudo-Dionysius, theosis experienced not only more systematic treatment as an independent subject of theological discourse, but it becomes one of the basic principles of Byzantine theology, and consequently of Eastern Orthodoxy.
The peculiar character of Dionysian theology could not be accurately appropriated without study of its relationship to later Neoplatonism. Therefore, significant attention in my book is given to the aspects of the influence this tradition had on Pseudo-Dionysius, in connection to the deification theme. Pseudo-Dionysian theology is justified neither as essentially “orthodox” Christian nor essentially “orthodox” Neoplatonic. Dionysius’ intricate synthesis of Christian and Neoplatonic elements, especially in his exposition of theosis, pays better justice to this anonymous author’s originality, and demonstrates the significance of his influence, both on the further development of Christian theology, and the advancement of Neoplatonic tradition.
The enigmatic nature of the Dionysian Corpus does not cease to puzzle scholars. Generally, Pseudo-Dionysius is approached from a solely Neoplatonic, or solely Christian, perspective. The outcome of this tendency obviously predetermines the treatment of his works, and in neither case pays proper justice to this body of literature. In my book, I attempt to research both lines of influence in the context of the overarching cultural background that was a significant aspect for the formation of a Christian imperial identity, and the development of Late Antiquity. This approach helps to situate and appropriate the Dionysian Corpus in a more accurate historical context, and to throw some additional light on the possible attribution of these works to Dionysius the Areopagite, not as a conscious forgery, but as a literary device, not an uncommon feature of the time.
Another recent book that mostly deals with Pseudo-Dionysius, but also touches on deification, is Divine Light: The Theology of Denys the Areopagite (2008) written by William Riordan. In Divine Light, the reader finds a friendly treatment of Dionysian theology presented in very accessible, but well researched and documented, form. The author attempts, and to some degree succeeds, to present this enigmatic corpus of Christian literature in its adequate historical and theological context. Treating the content of the corpus as unquestionably Christian and orthodox, Riordan clears, often without sufficient argumentation, Pseudo-Dionysius of all unfavorable charges.
Overall, the author presents a very attractive and innovative, although frequently speculative, synthesis of Dionysian theology, at times interpreting Dionysian theology in the context of its later appropriation in Christian tradition and contemporary scholarship. He even goes as far as trying to fill in gaps in Dionysian discourse; in other words, trying to state affirmatively what Pseudo-Dionysius might have been thinking, where the text of the corpus does not state it explicitly. His analysis of the relationship between Pseudo-Dionysius and Neoplatonic philosophy often betrays rather sketchy and limited, rather than comprehensive, engagement with Neoplatonic sources, and the tremendous complexities of this philosophical tradition in Late Antiquity and its impact on Pseudo-Dionysius.
The central role of theosis in Dionysian discourse is properly acknowledged, but its treatment is predominantly contextualized to the main exposition of Dionysian theology, rather than giving it a detailed and systematic assessment for its own sake. Riordan’s analysis of the Dionysian view of God, and God’s relation to the cosmos, as a sacred theatre of divinization, and his analysis of the human divinizing ascent of the soul, at times seems unintentionally slipping into the typically Neoplatonic form of paradoxical, but pantheistic, understanding of divine unity. Riordan’s handling of deification, as well as his general outlook on Dionysian theology, will be more reminiscent of the eclectic synthesis of the mystical spirituality of Plotinus, an understanding of the role of theurgy in Iamblichus, and the pantheistic metaphysical structure of Proclus than an accurate appropriation of this theme in the text of the Areopagitica.
The appendix to his book, on the treatment of rites of initiation in the work of Mircea Eliade, is remarkable in itself. It is probably the first precedent in Dionysian scholarship to draw a comparative analysis “between the Buryat shamanic initiation ceremony and the mystical initiation described by Denys.” Only one thing remains, what would the author of the Mystical Theology think about it?
Among other recent publications on theosis, I shall mention the thorough treatment of Thomas F. Torrance’s approach to deification in Myk Habet’s book, Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance (2009); the published dissertation of William Schumacher, Who Do I Say That You Are? Anthropology and the Theology of Theosis in the Finnish School of Tuomo Mannermaa (2010); and Stephen Davis’s book, Coptic Christology in Practice: Incarnation and Divine Participation in Late Antique and Medieval Egypt (2008), that, through the narrative of Coptic Christology, extensively touches on the deification theme.
The last, but not the least, recent book on theosis I would like to discuss briefly in this introduction is Daniel Keating’s Deification and Grace (2007).18 Keating offers a very thoughtful and clear introduction to the basic aspects related to the deification theme/doctrine “as the full outworking of grace in the Christian life.”19 Starting his exposition with variations of the deification exchange formula and the language of deification, with its scriptural and christological significance in the history of Christian theology, Keating turns to the discussion of soteriological implications, where deification is closely linked to divine
