Theosis vs Union with God
Summary: Both traditions teach an intimate, life-giving union/communion with God through Christ, but the Reformed tradition is extremely cautious about any language that sounds like we become divine in our being, whereas Orthodoxy embraces that language (with careful Palamite qualifications) as the very heart of the gospel.
Here’s a clear and concise comparison between the Reformed (Protestant, especially Calvinist) understanding of union with Christ and the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis (also called deification or divinization). While they share some striking similarities, the differences are significant and reflect deeper theological divergences.
| Aspect | Reformed View (Union with Christ) | Eastern Orthodox View (Theosis) |
|---|---|---|
| Core Concept | Mystical, vital, covenantal union with the person of Christ through faith, effected by the Holy Spirit. | Participation in the divine energies (not essence) of God, becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). |
| Goal | Justification, sanctification, adoption, and final glorification—all centered on being in right relationship with Christ. | Becoming by grace what God is by nature; ultimate transformation into the likeness of God without losing human personhood. |
| Nature of the Union | Federal (covenantal) and spiritual; we are united to Christ’s person, benefits, and merits. We remain creatures; no ontological merging. | Real participation in God’s uncreated energies (Palamite distinction: essence vs. energies). Ontological transformation while preserving the essence/nature distinction. |
| Language of “Divinization” | Almost never used; when 2 Pet 1:4 is cited, “partakers of the divine nature” is interpreted morally/relationally (sharing in God’s holiness, immortality in resurrection), not ontologically. | Central and literal: we are deified (theopoieo, theoumenoi); we become gods by grace (not by nature). |
| How It Happens | By faith alone, through the indwelling Holy Spirit applying the benefits of Christ’s finished work (justification → sanctification → glorification). | Through synergistic cooperation with grace in the sacraments (especially Baptism, Chrismation, Eucharist), asceticism, and prayer (hesychasm). |
| Limits / Boundaries | Strict creator–creature distinction is maintained. Any hint of blurring the two is rejected as heretical (often associating theosis language with Mormonism or New Age). | Creator–creature distinction is absolute (God’s essence remains utterly transcendent), but God’s energies are not created and can truly be participated in. |
| Key Theologians | John Calvin (Institutes 3.1–11), John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Sinclair Ferguson, Michael Horton. | Gregory Palamas, Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius (“God became man so that man might become god”), Pseudo-Dionysius, modern: Vladimir Lossky, Dumitru Stăniloae, John Meyendorff. |
| Typical Scripture Proofs | Rom 6:1–11; 8:1–17; Gal 2:20; Eph 1–3; John 15:1–11; Col 3:3. | 2 Pet 1:4; Ps 82:6 / John 10:34–35; John 17:21–23; Athanasian use of Incarnation texts. |
| Common Reformed Critique | Orthodox theosis sounds like it compromises the creator–creature distinction or borders on pantheism. | Reformed union is too forensic/external and fails to capture the real ontological transformation offered in Christ. |
| Common Orthodox Critique | Reformed view reduces salvation to a legal transaction and misses the transformative, healing, ontological dimension of salvation. | — |
Summary of the Main Difference
- Reformed: Union with Christ is primarily covenantal, forensic, and relational. We are united to Christ’s person and receive all His benefits (justification, adoption, sanctification), but we do not become “divine” in any ontological sense.
- Orthodox: Theosis is a real, ontological participation in the uncreated energies of God. We are truly deified—made partakers of the divine nature—while remaining fully human and never confusing the divine essence with the human.
Leave a Reply