Southwest Journal of Arts and Sciences Spring (2021) 01 No. 01 1 © 2020 University of the Southwest An Analysis of Synergistic Theosis and Deification in Light of Monergistic Perspective Daniel Kirkpatrick 1 1 Associate Professor of Christian Studies, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Southwest, Hobbs, NM USA. E-mail: dkirkpatrick@usw.edu Abstract There is more that separates Western Christianity from its Eastern counterpart beyond the historical rifts of the Filioque clause. Indeed, the very nature of salvation is perceived in radically different ways. While Western Christianity (largely) views salvation as remission of guilt from sin, Eastern Orthodoxy views salvation as “becoming god” or “deification.” Some (such as Tuomo Mannermaa) attempt to minimalize (and even harmonize) these differences. This article argues that notions of theosis (as proposed by historic and modern theologians within and surrounding Eastern Orthodoxy) prevent unification of these two branches given the synergism required to its attainment. Keywords: theosis, deification, Eastern Orthodoxy, monergism, synergism Historic and Modern Tensions While the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed led to a lasting schism between Western and Eastern Christianity in 1054 A.D., it is apparent that the inclusion of the phrase “and of the Son” to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit from God (as being “of the Son” as well as the Father) is by no means the only major difference between the two major, historic traditions of Christianity. Trinitarian issues aside, Eastern and Western Christianity distinguished themselves apart (historically speaking) in their views of iconography, celibacy, and even the date of Easter. 1 Yet while the issue of theosis (the Eastern concept of deification whereby one becomes divine in and through Jesus Christ) lacks historical precedent for the division of the parties, it remains a current and formidable factor in the split between Rome (the West) and Constantinople (the East). 2 Since the 1970s, however, an ecumenical effort has been made to find common ground between theosis and the Luther view of justification. 3 Led by Finnish theologian Tuomo Mannermaa in what is called the Mannermaa School, efforts have been made to downplay any distinguishing elements between Martin Luther’s d octrine of justification and sanctification. Mannermaa writes: “Luther does not differentiate, as does subsequent Lutheranism, between the person and work of Christ. Christ himself, both his person and his work, is the righteousness of man before God.” 4 Mannermaa then goes on to state that this “righteousness” that a believer has is the “essence” of God. Because the believer shares in such righteousness and divine essence (in such attributes as wisdom, power, holiness, and joy to name a few), Mannermaa states that Luther and the Eastern tradition are agreed in that the believer shares such an essence of God in their earthly lives, which Mannermaa claims is theosis. 5 Despite these efforts, the schism between East and West continues, particularly concerning the issue of theosis. Moreover, as even Mannermaa observes, the schism (which he desires to bridge) extends beyond that of Roman Catholicism into the Protestant doctrine of justification and sanctification. The success of the Mannermaa School in showing the link between Luther and theosis is questionable, and the reasons for this are many. However, could one of the reasons for such division be in the traditional Protestant position of monergism versus the Eastern Orthodox’s position of synergism? This chapter seeks to address this very issue yet must first begin with a clear definition of theosis and how it is interpreted in Eastern thought.