Eastern Orthodoxy: The What and How of Salvation

In this article we will examine Orthodox theology in its description of what "salvation" means
for individuals and of the means by which individuals come to possess it. It is important to note
at the outset that though Orthodox theologians do often speak of the incarnation as itself
uniting the whole human race with God, they do not believe that salvation is therefore
automatically a possession of everyone. Rather, people must respond in a certain way if they
are to enjoy the blessings of salvation which have been made available to them through the
incarnation. As we proceed, we will find that there is much interesting, Biblical teaching in
Orthodox theology on these matters, but that there is also important Biblical material that is
down played or ignored.

In what, then, do the blessings of salvation consist in Orthodox theology? There is one concept
which is of far greater importance than any other: salvation consists of the process of "theosis"
(alternatively called "deification" or "divinization"), the process of human beings becoming
"gods." As Athanasius famously exclaimed, "For he (Christ) became man that we might become
divine."1 Such language is likely to strike Protestants as the height of blasphemy. Yet Orthodox
theologians should not be written off as New Age gurus advocating absorption into the One or
some other monistic religious concept. Orthodoxy does not mean by this that we somehow
become equal with God or a part of God. It means, as 14th century Orthodox theologian
Gregory Palamas explained, that we participate in the "energies" of God, though not in His
"essence." There is, in fact, Biblical warrant for the language Orthodoxy uses. 2 Peter 1:4 says:
"(H)e has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may
participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires"
(NIV). Orthodox theologians place great stress upon the intimate fellowship with God to which
people have been called. To be fully human is to enjoy our God in the closest conceivable
communion. The blessings of being a child of God consist of more than simply receiving good
gifts from Him and loving Him in return – it means a relationship with God, union with God. This
is seen most fully in the union of human nature with the divine in Jesus incarnation, and we are
called to attain something akin to this. To the Eastern Orthodox, this is truly what "salvation"
refers to.

The reader may wonder what becomes of the concepts of justification, sanctification,
glorification, and the like, which Reformed theology speaks of so often. Such terms are often
not used at all in Orthodox theology. When they are, they are not defined very precisely and
they are usually all included together within the process of theosis, without sharp distinctions
made between them.

Theosis is not something which is fully attained here, but neither is it something wholly future.
Contemporary Orthodox theologian Christoforos Stavropoulos has described theosis as "a
journey, a road," something achieved "step-by-step." He writes:
The theosis of man, his perfect union with God made possible by grace, will be realized
completely in the future age after the resurrection of the dead. However, beginning in this life,
this union which divinizes people can be made more and more real. Our corrupt and weakened
nature ought to be transformed little by little and adapted to eternal life.2

Thus, Orthodox people will often refer to salvation as something which has been achieved in
the past, is being achieved in the present, and will be finalized in the future. How, then, are
people to attain this salvation of theosis? There is no one short definition like we find in the
Reformed faith, "by grace through faith." Orthodox theologians do stress that salvation is by
grace, and ultimately not of human works. "Faith alone," however, is not a phrase one is likely
to meet in Orthodoxy. Instead, salvation is attained as Christians do the range of activities
which God has commanded of them. This statement by Timothy Ware is illustrative:

If someone asks, "How can I become god?" the answer is very simple: go to church, receive the
sacraments regularly, pray to God "in spirit and in truth," read the Gospels, follow the
commandments. The last of these items – "follow the commandments" – must never be
forgotten.3

Faith, though absent from this statement by Ware, is also mentioned often by Orthodox
theologians, though it is almost always considered as just one virtue among others. As there is
little distinction made between the various aspects of salvation, such as justification and
sanctification, there is also little distinction made between the roles played by things such as
faith, works, and the sacraments.

Before analyzing Orthodox thinking on these points, it may be helpful to briefly pause and
observe how Orthodox doctrine fits together on the matters we have been discussing. Before
the fall, Adam was created in the image of God and called to grow in communion with God. But
because of his sin, the image of God in him was damaged, and he was made unable to progress
as he was commanded. Death and Satan held great sway over him and his posterity. When
Christ came and assumed flesh, the image of God in human nature was restored to what it was
originally called to be. Christ challenged that which stood in the way of man, namely, Death and
Satan, and triumphed over them. Now, with these enemies conquered and his nature renewed,
man is able again to ascend to God and commune with Him in intimate fellowship. And so he
now takes up the task at which Adam failed, and by sure and steady progress is "deified," until
the fulness is realized in heaven itself. Notice the great measure of consistency here: The
problems brought in by the fall were Death and Satan and estrangement of human nature from
God; Jesus came to conquer these enemies and unite human nature to God once again; people
now, with their enemies conquered and their nature reunited with God, are able to ascend to
their calling of communion with the divine. One concept follows from the other. And because
there is little concern about guilt in the fall, there is also little concern about Christ's taking
away guilt and little concern about the specifics of how guilt is taken away in justification.

What are Reformed readers to make of this notion of salvation as theosis? It is certainly quite
foreign to us in many ways. We are accustomed to thinking of the attainment of salvation as a
series of rather distinct blessings, beginning with regeneration and continuing with justification,
adoption, sanctification and glorification. Each term for us has quite a precise meaning, and it is
bad theology to confuse one term with any other. But in Orthodox theology all these concepts
are lumped together into one grand process, and precise distinctions between them are rarely
made. There are certainly positive things which should be said for the Orthodox presentation.
First, there is much Biblical warrant for the concepts employed. Not only does 2 Peter 1 refer to
Christians partaking of the divine nature, but books such as the Gospel of John and many of the
Pauline epistles are replete with references to our union with God or our life "in Christ."
Second, it is almost surely true that union and communion with God is the greatest blessing
that human beings can ever know.

Our Lord Himself said, "This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom you have sent."

John 17:3 (NIV)

The best of Reformed theology has not missed this. Indeed, the first question and answer of
one of the great Reformed confessional statements, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, reads:

What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.

There are, however, also points at which the Orthodox definition of salvation as theosis ought
to be criticized. Orthodox thinkers are often quite proud of their aversion to making distinctions
between the various aspects of salvation (justification, sanctification and others). Yet, such a
practice was viewed as a great danger by theologians of the Reformation. Men such as Luther
and Calvin thought that such differentiation was critical to an understanding of Biblical
soteriology. In their day, the Roman Catholic Church did not properly distinguish between
justification and sanctification, and this led directly to their belief that good works were
required for justification. The Biblical teaching is that justification is a judicial pardon of sin and
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which is attained only by faith, apart from works. It is
a momentary decree of God. Sanctification, on the other hand, is a lifelong process that follows
justification and that very much involves good works.

Is it really important to make such distinctions? Absolutely!

In Galatians 1:8 Paul wrote: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel
other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned" (NIV)!

What was the problem Paul was here addressing? The churches in Galatia had perverted the
doctrine of justification and confused the roles of faith and works. Far from being minor issues,
these matters were and are of the essence of the Gospel, as defined by no less an authority than
the Apostle Paul! Therefore, it is important for us, even as we acknowledge the many fine
descriptions of salvation made by Orthodox theologians, that we call Orthodox people with
whom we have contact to a new appreciation of these Biblical truths. We also should
remember, however, that Eastern Orthodoxy has not officially rejected Protestant positions on
issues of salvation, as the Roman Catholic Church has. Whereas the Roman church in the
Council of Trent anathematized those believing that justification is by faith alone, the Eastern
church has never officially defined its position on these matters. John Meyendorff made this
interesting statement: "Byzantine theology did not produce any significant elaboration of the
Pauline doctrine of justification expressed in Romans and Galatians."4 Meyendorff apparently
has no problem with the idea that there is a specific doctrine of justification in Paul's writings.
He states only that Byzantine (that is, Orthodox) theology has not developed it. Therefore, we
may perhaps hope that Orthodoxy will someday soon develop its theology in this area. It would
not require a radical rejection of their ecclesiastical creeds, as a similar move would for Roman
Catholicism.

And there is precedent for sound thinking on subjects like justification among the Greek
Fathers. John Chrysostom, for example, took justification very seriously. He clearly viewed it as
a matter of a judicial decree rather than as a lifelong process: he contrasted it with the
condemnation that comes from sin and he used judicial analogies to illustrate the doctrine.5 He
also stated that justification was the purpose of Christ's death, consisting of a two-fold gift,
forgiveness and righteousness. Furthermore, he stressed the importance of faith in the
attainment of justification: justification comes "without needing works" and is by "faith
only."6 To be sure, John Chrysostom was not simply a crypto-Protestant born a millennium too
soon, but his writings do suggest that there is much Reformational truth lying hidden in Eastern
theology which is waiting to be developed.

Eastern Orthodoxy: How Should We Speak about

Salvation?⤒🔗
We have seen that Orthodox theology stresses the work of Christ as being one of victory over
Death and Satan, and the salvation of sinners as one of thesis. On the other hand, Reformed
theology emphasizes the work of Christ as a substitutionary atonement, and the salvation of
sinners as a judicial decree of justification followed by the believer's sanctification in good
works. One relevant question which may have crossed the reader's mind is whether there is a
real connection between these two conceptions, or whether they are simply independent
Biblical themes which bear little relation to each other? While it is true that these conceptions
usually are not dealt with together in preaching or theology, this does not have to be. I would
like now to offer a couple of suggestions as to how these Biblical themes can be integrated.

First, consider the connections between Christ as the victor over Death and Satan and Christ as
the justifier of His people. Christ came as the Second Adam, and He stands as the head of the
covenant of grace as Adam stood as head of the covenant of creation. As we studied above in
the context of Romans 5, Christ brought justification and life to the people under His covenant
in a manner similar to that by which Adam brought condemnation and death to those under his
covenant. Both Adam and Christ were representatives who acted on behalf of others, and the
consequences of their respective actions (whether condemnation for disobedience or
justification for obedience) were also laid upon the people they represented.

Consider now what the task of obedience was which Adam should have rendered: God told
Adam not only to refrain from eating of the forbidden fruit, but also to guard the Garden of
Eden (Genesis 2:15). Thus, when Satan came to Eve, Adam should have recognized that this
intruder did not belong in the pristine paradise he was to guard, and he should not only have
resisted Satan's temptations, but also driven him from the land. At this task he failed. But when
God promised to Adam and Eve that a Saviour would come, he told Satan that this hero would
accomplish the task that Adam should have carried out:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will
crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Genesis 3:16

When Christ came, he did just this, as Eastern Orthodox theology has well recognized. Unlike
Adam, he resisted the temptations of Satan, both in the wilderness for 40 days, and in the New
Garden, that of Gethsemane. He faced Death head on, but emerged victorious, for as Peter
preached on Pentecost, "It was impossible for death to keep its hold on him" (Acts 2:24) (NIV).
In the resurrection, victory was won by our Saviour: "Where, o death, is your victory? Where, o
death, is your sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55) (NIV). But this resurrection was more than simply a
military victory. It was also Christ's justification (compare Romans 1:4 and 1 Timothy 3:16):
Whereas Adam had failed to overcome Satan and had been condemned, Christ prevailed over
Satan and was justified, that is, declared to be righteous. This was the reward of His obedience.
And, gloriously, Christ's justification is also our justification:

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised for our justification.

Romans 4:25 (NIV)

Because Christ is our covenant head, our representative, His obedience is reckoned as ours and
His judicial vindication imputed to us. Christ the Victor is also Christ the Justifier. Indeed,
Christ's conquest of Satan was a key element of His obedience to God. And it is this very
obedience which is the ground of our justification.

It is perhaps along these same lines that we can see how the concept of thesis can be
integrated with the concerns of Reformed theology. Recall that one crucial element of thesis is
union with Christ. In what are we united with Him? Scripture tells us that we are united with
Him in His death (2 Timothy 2:11), in His burial (Romans 6:4), in His resurrection (Colossians
3:1), and in His reign (2 Timothy 2:12). Because of all this, His death, burial, resurrection and
reign have become ours as well. Why are we justified in Christ's resurrection, as we remarked
above? It is because we were united with Him when He burst the bonds of death. Why have we
conquered death? Because we are united with our resurrected Lord in His kingly reign, as He
sits at God's right band.

And this union with Christ also has consequences for the kinds of lives we live here on earth. As
Paul wrote in Colossians 3:1, 3:

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is
seated at God's right hand... For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God (NIV).

If we are united with Christ as He sits at God's right hand in heaven, then should we not live as
those who have been brought into the presence of God? And if "our life" is really not to be
found here on earth, but is hidden with Christ in God, should we not feel compelled to conform
our lives to the way life is lived in heaven? Therefore, union with Christ does involve a process
(though not only a process), a process of being conformed unto the image of Christ, a process
of growing in intimate fellowship with God.

Conclusion←⤒🔗
We have shared the doctrines of fall and salvation in Eastern Orthodox theology. We have
found much to appreciate and much to criticize. We have found much rich, Biblical imagery,
and also much Biblical truth which has been greatly overlooked or lost in other truths. Eastern
Orthodoxy is a world with which we Protestants are largely unacquainted, but is not a world
with which we will likely be unacquainted much longer. As Reformed Christians, we ought to
take the time to learn about this ancient religious tradition, that we might more knowledgeably
interact with it in years to come.

In response to Eastern Orthodoxy, the Biblical truths taught in Reformed theology ought to be
vigorously defended. While there are many points of common doctrine between the two
traditions, the points of difference are too serious to be downplayed. And this is true not only
of the doctrines we have discussed. There are also serious differences in matters of worship, of
the sacraments, of Scripture and tradition, and of the nature of the church. But we might pray
that God would one day soon send a Reformation to the East, as He did centuries ago to the
West. Specifically, we might pray that many old doctrines hidden in its traditions would be
rediscovered and that many of the Biblical truths proclaimed in the Protestant Reformation
would be seriously considered and believed. Perhaps our Lord would use an Eastern
Reformation to cause ever more light to shine forth from the inexhaustible treasure of His word