Divinization and Theosis

Because of the possibility of terminological confusion within (and certainly beyond) Edwards studies, it is important briefly to define theosis, deification, and divinization. Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov provide a helpful overview in their edited volume Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology, claiming that deification is the closest English equivalent to theosis.Footnote ¹⁴ Divinization, furthermore, is synonymous with theosis and deification, at least in its Christian form. Therefore it is unhelpful to try to draw distinctions between the three. As already noted, divinization is not a participation in the divine essence but is, in some sense, a participation with God. How one parses that participation will depend on the tradition in which one works.

Since a doctrine of theosis provides something of a meta-narrative for the whole of God’s redeeming activity, it is often more helpful to locate the organizational structures of theosis than to provide a terse definition. One major difficulty for tight demarcations is that any robust analysis of theosis must take into consideration the doctrines of the Trinity, incarnation, pneumatology, anthropology, and atonement, and will, in some fashion, order justification, sanctification, and glorification. As thinkers develop these doctrines in their own analyses, they alter the function of theosis within their thought. For my purposes, I provide a broad working definition of theosis that will be fleshed out according to Edwards’s own theology. In short, theosis is creaturely participation in the divine life.Footnote ¹⁵ Addressing 2 Pet 1:4, Michael J. Christensen states, “What God is in nature, it is commonly argued and debated in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, humanity can become by participation, first in image and then in likeness, following the prototype of Christ, ‘the first born of a large family’ (Rom 8:29).”Footnote ¹⁶ Kenneth Leech provides a summary statement derived from Maximus the Confessor that proves helpful for my analysis: “Deification is the work of divine grace by which human nature is so transformed that it ‘shines forth with a supernatural light and is transported above its own limits by a superabundance of glory.’”Footnote ¹⁷ Building on Christensen and Leech, I understand theosis to be a participation through Christ in God’s Trinitarian life, which causes human nature to take on attributes of the divine nature (all the while maintaining a Creator/creature distinction).

Edwards, Chauncy, and the Family of Love

To fully analyze Edwards’s grammar of theosis, it is necessary to focus attention on that phrase taken by Caldwell to be a strict denial of divinization (i.e., that the saints are neither “‘Godded’ with God” nor “‘Christed’ with Christ”). It could be, for instance, that Edwards never read the primary literature on the issue (e.g., Palamas), and through hearing terms like “divinization” came to conclude that an “essential” participation was posited (that saints are “Godded” and “Christed”). Furthermore, little has been done on the background of Edwards’s denial that the regenerate are “Godded” and “Christed.” Alexander Allen suggests that Edwards discovered this language from James Lowde in a controversy with a disciple of Malebranche, but he gives us no hint to his reasoning other than that Lowde used the same phrase.Footnote ¹⁸ George Claghorn similarly points his readers to Lowde, presumably picking up Allen’s point, but he offers no other information.Footnote ¹⁹ Therefore, in this section my main concern is Edwards’s denial that the regenerate are “‘Godded’ with God” and “‘Christed’ with Christ,” and I question whether that does, indeed, speak to issues related to theosis.

This reference against being “Godded” and “Christed” appears in Religious Affections, in Edwards’s delineation of the “first sign,” in the context of the work of the Spirit of God on the soul of the regenerate. Importantly, Edwards has just quoted several key texts utilized in theological developments of theosis. Edwards’s criticism stems from an unorthodox interpretation of these texts. Note the nature of Edwards’s comment after the barrage of scriptural references:

There are two important points concerning this passage. First, it is clear that Edwards does not deny the existence of a doctrine of divinization or the truth of the doctrine, at least not conceptually. Second, based on the italicized portion, it seems clear that Edwards is not thinking of the Orthodox writers. Not only is it unlikely that Edwards would have made such a bold anathema concerning a position so widely accepted in the early church (even if he misunderstood it), it is doubtful he would have made such a statement about a position so far from his own polemical context.

As already hinted above, I do not believe that a Christian (orthodox) doctrine of theosis is Edwards’s concern in this passage. In fact, Edwards’s own polemical context had radicals positing a “Godding with God” and a “Christing with Christ.” Thomas Manton, in his work on the book of Jude, claims that “in times more modern, Swinkfield was observed to be always talking of illumination, deification, &c.; and the familists’ cant is not unknown, of being godded with God, and christed with Christ.”Footnote ²¹ As I argue here, Edwards’s concern is with the Familists broadly and founder Henry Nicolas specifically.Footnote ²² Furthermore, unlike Allen’s and Claghorn’s arbitrary claims of sources (based on no actual textual link), I argue that Edwards clearly knew of Nicolas and the Familists and expresses concern for their beliefs. In Religious Affections, in his “fourth sign,” Edwards lists the Familists and Henry Nicolas as putting forth “enthusiastic” beliefs and expounding a religion where Satan transforms himself into an angel of light.Footnote ²³ These are, in other words, proper candidates for the term “heretics.” Note Edwards’s description:

For my purposes, two points need to be noted from this passage. First, and rare for Edwards’s work, he provides the source he utilized in his research of these heretical religions—Samuel Rutherford’s Display of the Spiritual Antichrist.Footnote ²⁵ Second, it would be naïve to assume these groups are named at random by Edwards. Rather, by looking at the context of the eighteenth-century revivals and the particularly heated debates surrounding them, I want to identify the meaning of Edwards’s phrase as well as his purpose in using it in a much broader polemic. Therefore, in this section, I address Rutherford’s work and the terms “‘Godded’ with God” and “‘Christed’ with Christ,” and I provide a greater context for considering Edwards’s anathema. Building upon this background, I set his condemnation within the specific context of the debates concerning the revivals and, more specifically, Edwards’s polemical engagement with Charles Chauncy. This will enable me to establish my own understanding of Edwards’s condemnation and will provide a more fruitful analysis of its implications for a doctrine of theosis.

Samuel Rutherford, in chapter 9 of his A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, looks at Henry Nicolas, “older Familists,” and antinomians, noting that Nicolas is the father of the infamous “Family of Love.”Footnote ²⁶ Rutherford claims that Nicolas was something of a mystic who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and, subsequently, the full deity of Christ. Furthermore, in his work Evangelium Regni, Nicolas introduces himself in the following manner:

Rutherford, commenting on this passage, notes that the Familists in New England profess themselves to be “Christed with Christ.”Footnote ²⁸ He continues to explain Nicolas’s error by highlighting his exegesis. Nicolas understands the phrase “the power of the most high shall come on thee, and over-shadow thee” (Luke 1:35) as an allegory applicable to all believers. Therefore, believers are “partakers of the Godly nature and being, and according to the will of God, are wholly minded with God.”Footnote ²⁹ Rutherford continues by highlighting what Nicolas’s heresy does in relation to the doctrine of the incarnation. For Nicolas, a believer—by partaking in the being of God and the Spirit of love—becomes God incarnate.Footnote ³⁰ In short, the Familists (and other sectarian groups) posited what we can call a “radical divinization,” where the regenerate are truly “‘Godded’ with God” and “‘Christed’ with Christ.”

Edwards, it would seem, is concerned to signal that his own view is not akin to the position espoused by Nicolas and his “Family of Love” specifically, as well as to the broader heretical movements including Anne Hutchinson and the enthusiasts of his own day. It is noteworthy that Edwards does not engage these groups or their theology at this juncture in his work—he simply names them. This naming of heretical groups rather than actively engaging them in debate hints at the fact that Edwards is less concerned about their influence in his own context than he is concerned that his own view might be linked to theirs. This is not surprising. Edwards’s work on religious affection is not merely a piece of constructive pastoral theology; it is an apologetic for the revivals, which had been denounced by the “Old Light” theologian Charles Chauncy. Religious Affections, furthermore, should not be seen as a lone blow to the opposition. Rather, Religious Affections is Edwards’s final blow in a fight that had gone on for a decade. Edwards cemented his place as defender of the revivals in his work A Faithful Narrative (1736–1737) and reaffirmed that place even in the midst of revival excesses in his commencement address at Yale, published as The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God (1741). Building upon his previous attempts, Edwards then published Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival (1743), which would remain his most mature defense until the Religious Affections (1746).

While the frenetic publishing activity against Edwards is both interesting and illuminating, for my purposes, I will focus on just one such figure.Footnote ³¹ As mentioned, Charles Chauncy took it upon himself to lead the opposition against Edwards and the revivals, and Edwards’s flurry of apologetic material inevitably raised the stakes for Chauncy to respond in kind. Chauncy’s first move was to preach a sermon entitled “Enthusiasm Described and Cautioned Against,” in 1742.Footnote ³² Like Edwards’s Distinguishing Marks, Chauncy’s “Enthusiasm Described” was a commencement address.Footnote ³³ Chauncy stoked his assault by publishing A Letter from a Gentleman in Boston, to Mr. George Wishart, One of the Ministers of Edinburgh, Concerning the State of Religion in New England (Edinburgh, 1742), as well as an anonymous account of the French Prophets who were known and accepted as enthusiasts: The Wonderful Narrative; Or, A Faithful Account of the French Prophets, Their Agitations, Extasies, and Inspirations (Glasgow, 1742).Footnote ³⁴ In both works, Chauncy attempts a subtle but effective rhetorical strategy. He connects the term “enthusiast” to known heretical or radical groups and individuals and then links these groups to the New England revivals. The basic premise of the argument is that if something looks like, sounds like, and smells like enthusiasm, then it is.Footnote ³⁵

Chauncy’s strategy of linking known heretical and radical movements with the revivals finds its maturation in his Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England (1743), a direct attack on Edwards’s Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival. Amy Schrager Lang argues that Chauncy mimics the five-part structure to Edwards’s volume and attempts to refute Edwards point by point.Footnote ³⁶ More interesting than the argument of the volume itself, perhaps, is Chauncy’s preface. The cover page to the volume provides an explanation of the preface: “Giving an Account of the ANTINOMIANS, FAMILISTS and LIBERTINES, who infected these Churches, above an hundred Years ago: Very needful for these Days; the LIKE SPIRIT, and ERRORS, prevailing now as they did then.”Footnote ³⁷ Chauncy exposits these heresies with the purpose of linking them to Edwards and the revivals. He explains how the belief in “New Light” was condemned at the synod in 1637, how such “gross errors” could spread so quickly, and then focuses on the high ratio of women in the movements, which leads him to address Anne Hutchinson directly.Footnote ³⁸ Chauncy continues by noting that these heretical movements in the past and the “New Light” movement of the revivals are “surprisingly similar,” claiming that if he had not referenced these old heresies directly, one might assume they were written by proponents of the revival.Footnote ³⁹ Chauncy’s rhetoric is clear: the revivals are simply old heresy revived. By linking the revivals so closely with Hutchinson and the Familists, Chauncy also appears on the side of their forefathers who addressed these heresies so readily. We could say, anachronistically, that Chauncy was the first to argue against something on the basis of its being “un-American.”Footnote ⁴⁰ By focusing on Hutchinson, Chauncy is able to link the high number of women in the revivals to the early heresies, which also boasted a high yield of women followers. At every turn, Chauncy attempts to draw a clear line in the sand between enthusiasts and the orthodox.

In Chauncy’s work, we find the revivals linked to Anne Hutchinson, the Familists, the French Prophets, and to antinomianism in general. It should not be surprising then that when Edwards names heretics, he focuses on these heretical groups and specific individuals within them. Edwards is not prepared, as is Chauncy, to write off the value of the revivals at the expense of the excesses. His account of religious affection is an attempt to undermine the black-and-white arguments proposed by Chauncy and to ground affection biblically, theologically, and traditionally. This last mode of argumentation is particularly important in light of Chauncy’s use of the forefathers in New England.

In light of this background, it is clear that Edwards’s denial that the saints are “Godded” or “Christed” is not in reference to theosis, but is in fact an aspect of his broader argument for a distinctively Christian and Reformed doctrine of theosis. Edwards, immediately after making the original claim, goes on to argue that believers are “made partakers of God’s fullness (Eph 3:17–19, John 1:16), that is, of God’s spiritual beauty and happiness.”Footnote ⁴¹ Edwards continues by explicating his understanding of fullness:

In Edwards’s own polemical context, with Chauncy denouncing the “enthusiasm” of the revivals, it would be important for Edwards to distance himself from any such tinge of enthusiasm that might bring to mind the mystical heresies from the previous generation.Footnote ⁴³ Here, Edwards affirms a robust account of theosis but does so by invoking the language of “nature.” This is all the more imperative since the heretical groups were combining a partaking of the divine nature (Edwards’s position) with a participation in the divine being (from which Edwards distances himself). Therefore, it seems likely that Edwards’s polemical tirade in the “fourth sign” has as much to do with naming heretics as it does with placing himself on the right side of the “enthusiast-line.”Footnote ⁴⁴ Edwards’s use of the phrase “‘Godded’ with God,” therefore, is an attempt to highlight how his views differ from these enthusiasts and to make clear that his view, and by extension the “New Light” party, is orthodox.

The Glory of God and the Contours of Theosis

The previous discussion has revealed Caldwell’s worry to be unfounded—Edwards’s denial of being “Godded” and “Christed” was not in reference to an orthodox Christian notion of divinization but to radical and heretical accounts. Edwards’s choice of phrase makes sense only within the broad polemic against seventeenth-century heretical movements and the specific polemic concerning the eighteenth-century revivals. It is now possible to turn to the positive case for Edwards’s construal of theosis, to hone in on Edwards’s language of theosis and to ground that in its proper doctrinal context. To do so, I turn to Edwards’s doctrine of the glory of God. This is necessary because Edwards’s conception of glory finds its source deep in his Trinitarian theology and is woven through his thought as a whole. Glory can be understood, without exaggeration, to be the central defining feature of Edwards’s thought. For my purposes, it is noteworthy that his definition and expansion of glory outline his understanding of theosis.

Edwards’s Concerning the End for Which God Created the World (hereafter End of Creation) focuses on the standard Reformed doctrine that God created for his own glory. While his overall goal is not original, his development is. In section 7, entitled “Showing That the Ultimate End of the Creation of the World Is But One, and What That One End Is,” he ties together his previous biblical exposition on glory into a threefold movement. First, the glory of God consists of God’s eternal fullness. Second, glory is also used in Scripture to describe the communication of God’s fullness. Therefore, in this sense, glory describes both God’s inner life as well as the communication of himself. Last, glory consists in the effect of glory in rational creatures.Footnote ⁴⁵ In other words, as God’s fullness is communicated to creatures created by God to receive his glory, they receive and rebound that glory back to their Creator. Edwards is clear that this rebounding, which he calls “remanation,” is considered by the biblical text to be an aspect of God’s own glory.

Unpacking these each in turn, I expound the idea of God’s fullness. Edwards explains, “The fullness of the Godhead is the fullness of his understanding, consisting in his knowledge, and the fullness of his will, consisting in his virtue and happiness. And therefore the external glory of God consists in the communication of these.”Footnote ⁴⁶ God’s fullness is God’s pure act, God’s eternal and infinite self-knowing and self-loving. This depiction of God’s fullness summarizes Edwards’s development of the Triune nature of God, where the Son is the divine understanding and the Spirit is the divine willing. Important for Edwards’s understanding of theosis is his movement beyond the classical notion of appropriation to what might be deemed a “radical” notion of appropriation.Footnote ⁴⁷ Instead of asserting a simple appropriation in which the understanding of the Godhead is appropriated by the Son, Edwards takes the Son to be the Father’s understanding itself. Likewise, the Father and the Son have a will only insofar as they partake in the Holy Spirit—the divine willing of God. Personhood, in light of this, is developed through the perichoretic union of the Father, his understanding, and his willing—a point I will return to shortly.

Second, building on his notion of fullness, Edwards includes in his definition of glory the communication of that fullness to creation. Edwards provides a twofold explanation. First, “The communication of his knowledge is chiefly in giving the knowledge of himself: for this is the knowledge in which the fullness of God’s understanding chiefly consists.”Footnote ⁴⁸ The communication of God’s knowledge is an “emanation” of God’s self-knowing. Second, “The communication of God’s virtue or holiness is principally in communicating the love of himself.”Footnote ⁴⁹ As was seen in Edwards’s development of fullness, God’s self-knowing and self-loving are the Son and the Spirit respectively. This second “tier” of glory, therefore, is God’s own self ad extra.

Edwards’s third tier of glory consists in a participation of the creature in God’s self-glorification. As creatures come to know God through this self-knowledge, revealed in the economic endeavor of his Son, and come to receive God’s love, will, and holiness through the economic indwelling of the Spirit, they “remanate” the glory that was emanated to them. Edwards’s favorite image of this represents God as the sun and humankind as objects that take on the light of God. In his own words,

It is important to pause for some preliminary reflection on Edwards’s terminology. First, it is noteworthy that the purpose of this example is to provide an illustration of his points. Therefore, far from undermining human personhood through impersonal imagery, Edwards’s development of glory attempts to outline the perfection of persons as they participate in God’s self-communication. Creatures are “bright” as they receive God’s knowledge through his Son and his will through his Spirit. Rather than suggesting that creatures are non-personal reflectors of light, Edwards’s depiction of God’s glory is relational “all the way down.” The glory that is known in God’s eternal life, or fullness, is the procession of the Son and Spirit and their perichoretic harmony as three persons in one essence. The emanation of this fullness is by the Son and the Son’s giving over of his Spirit. The remanation of this fullness of light is what we might call “creatures fully alive,” since Edwards’s understanding of personhood is simply a being with understanding and will; to partake in God’s glory is to have one’s understanding and will fully actualized.Footnote ⁵¹

The second point about Edwards’s terminology that is in need of clarification is his use of the term “participation.” Edwards is clear that God’s ad extra communication is the communication of God’s very self. Edwards explains that God’s emanation “has relation to God as its fountain, as it is an emanation from God; and as the communication itself, or thing communicated, is something divine, something of God, something of his internal fullness; as the water in the stream is something of the fountain; and as the beams are of the sun.”Footnote ⁵² Edwards, early on in End of Creation, explains that because knowledge of God consists in his self-knowledge, and love consists in his self-love, the creature is caught up in God’s movement of self-glorification through a participation in that same knowledge and love.Footnote ⁵³ God’s delight in the creature’s knowledge and holiness is an aspect of God’s self-delight. Edwards explains, “As God delights in his own beauty, he must necessarily delight in the creature’s holiness; which is a conformity to, and participation of it, as truly as the brightness of a jewel, held in the sun’s beams, is a participation, or derivation of the sun’s brightness.”Footnote ⁵⁴ This is in line with Gannon Murphy’s claim that a Reformed doctrine of theosis must center the concept of glory theologically, or, in other words, the glory reflected by creatures is always “a finite reflection and enjoyment of infinite glory.”Footnote ⁵⁵

Third, based upon our description of theosis above (p. 262) as “participation through Christ in God’s Trinitarian life which causes human nature to take on attributes of the divine nature,” it should be clear that Edwards does hold to a doctrine of theosis. Theosis, for Edwards, is a partaking in the divine nature through God’s economic activity to glorify himself. Furthermore, while it is not the purpose of this article to focus on the similarities between Edwards and patristic or Orthodox sources, it would be difficult to propound a doctrine of theosis without significant overlap. That said, two specific examples come to mind. First, Basil writes:

In a discussion of Palamas, George Mantzaridis states, “Man’s deification is not realized through participation in God’s essence, but through communion in his divine energy. Man may share in God’s glory and brightness, but the divine essence remains inaccessible and nonparticipable.”Footnote ⁵⁷ Many have pointed out the similarities between Edwards and the Orthodox, with specific reference to the Cappadocians and Palamas, so this parallel is not new.Footnote ⁵⁸ What is surprising is how each of these statements, with a slight adaption of the latter, could be said of Edwards. Edwards almost quotes Basil verbatim, and yet it is doubtful that Edwards ever read him. Likewise, Mantzaridis’s summary of Palamas resembles Edwards’s usage precisely, with one slight exception. Edwards does not use the term “energies,” as many Orthodox theologians would, but focuses instead on the idea of nature. It is to this issue that I now turn.

God’s Essence and Nature

In order to address Edwards’s essence/nature distinction, I must backtrack to Edwards’s doctrine of God, attending to his development of the divine persons, perichoresis (interpenetration in the divine life), and the divine attributes. In doing so I will highlight how his idiosyncratic doctrine of the Trinity provides the raw material for him to rework the classic language of theosis. In other words, Edwards’s distinctive terminology finds its bearings through his Trinitarian grammar. To round off my development of Edwards’s doctrine, for the purpose of clarity, I hold Edwards’s account alongside the essence/energies distinction utilized by many Orthodox theologians.

Edwards provides his most decisive explanation of his demarcation between nature and essence in a response to a correspondent with concerns about his work on religious affection. Importantly, Edwards’s unnamed correspondent shares anxieties that Edwards is positing a radical form of divinization that collapses humankind into the essence of God.Footnote ⁵⁹ As already shown, this worry stems from known heretical movements from which Edwards is careful to distance himself. To be “Godded” or “Christed” is to share in the divine essence. Edwards’s point is that Christians have to have a grammar that allows for true participation with God that is not participation in his essence. Following 2 Pet 1:4, Edwards chooses the term “nature.” In this letter, far more than in Religious Affections itself, Edwards details the specifics of his distinction. Edwards’s response to the missive is intriguing. His correspondent links the idea of nature and essence, assuming that Edwards’s claim that the Spirit communicates his “own proper nature” to the soul of the believer must be synonymous with communicating the essence of the Spirit (just as Nicolas argued). In reply, Edwards starts by noting how easy equivocation is with the term “nature” and then turns to specifying his usage. He states:

Edwards continues this explanation by invoking his image of the sun. Light and heat are communicated from the sun, and yet the essence of the sun is not communicated when someone receives a tan from it. From this description, several things become clear. It is noteworthy that Edwards addresses the Spirit’s “beauty” and “glory,” linking them with his idea of nature. These attributes are the distinctive attributes of the Spirit in the Godhead. Edwards first grounds the nature of the Spirit in the immanent life of God, and then, in his second point, highlights that this nature is communicable. Just as the Spirit is the holiness, will, love, and beauty in the inner life of God, by which the Father and Son have a will and know love, holiness, and beauty, so in the economy does the Spirit provide true union and communion with God through a partaking of his nature.

To better grasp Edwards’s distinction, it is important to note his idiosyncratic usage of the “real” and “relational” attributes of the divine persons. Edwards draws this distinction in order to fuel his depiction of divine personhood through perichoresis. He begins with an overview of the three “distinctions” in God: God the Father, his understanding as the Son, and his will as the Spirit. He continues by delineating the divine attributes according to the processions, stating, “There are but these three distinct real things in God; whatsoever else can be mentioned in God are nothing but mere modes or relations of existence. There are his attributes of infinity, eternity and immutability: they are mere modes of existence.”Footnote ⁶¹ In short, Edwards delineates the divine attributes according to the persons and not the essence of God. Better yet, the only real attributes of the divine essence are the divine persons.Footnote ⁶² This is a radical move that feeds directly into Edwards’s ability to posit such a robust account of theosis. First, by positing a “real” and “relational” distinction in this manner, Edwards utilizes psychological categories: the Son is distinguished from the Father by being the understanding and image of the Father, while the Spirit is the will, love, and holiness of the Father and the Son (the “radical” appropriation noted above). The distinguishing attributes of the persons are communicable attributes known in the economy through participation—not in the essence of God—but in the nature of the persons. All other attributes, such as infinity, eternity, and immutability, are “relative” in that they depend on relating God to something else (i.e., immutability is how God relates to change, eternity is how God relates to time, etc.). Furthermore, these attributes are not “real” because they are negations.

Second, in the economy the Son and the Spirit carry with them real communicable properties that define them in the Godhead. The focus of Edwards’s discussion of the Spirit’s nature in his Religious Affections occurs in the midst of his development of the Spirit’s work in soteriology. The Spirit’s nature, according to Edwards, is not the essence of God but is a communicable attribute—namely, holiness—which is Edwardsian shorthand for the love, beauty, and will of God. Therefore, God’s call to “be holy as I am holy” (Lev 11:44) is really a call to “partake of my holiness, for my Spirit is holiness itself.”Footnote ⁶³ Similarly, Jesus’s teaching that if one has truly seen him one has seen the Father (John 14:9)Footnote ⁶⁴ is now grounded in his communicable attribute of understanding and imaging. The Father’s image was sent forth in the economy. In this sense, the grammar of nature and essence serves Edwards’s monergistic soteriology by redirecting each soteriological question back to the action of God. Knowing this about Edwards’s doctrine of the Trinity helps unveil his intentions with his sun/crystal image. Just as the sun sends forth its rays of light and heat, so God sends forth the Son and the Spirit, or, his own self-knowledge and self-love, available to creatures through participation.Footnote ⁶⁵ Persons (or crystals) become “bright” as they take on the nature of the communicator. In this case, a person becomes holy by receiving this communication from God and having his or her own understanding and will actualized through participation. Or, to use more Edwards-appropriate language, a person becomes holy as he or she understands (sees) and therefore partakes of God’s beauty.

Third, building upon this last point, because Edwards defines a person as a being with understanding and will, the Triune three are persons only as they exist in perichoretic union. This is an important point when discussing theosis because it ultimately undermines any attempt to claim that the creature will somehow be overwhelmed by the Creator. Personhood, in its greatest presentation, entails communion to truly know individuation. It is along these lines that Edwards states:

In eternity, glorified creatures eternally increase in union and communion with God. Edwards compares this reality with two asymptotic lines, infinitely nearing but never collapsing into identity with one another. Because God’s knowledge is properly infinite, and humankind always finite, there is never comprehensive knowledge, although knowledge is “perfect” according to creaturely capacity. Furthermore, God’s self-regard and regard for the glorified creature (now fully accepted and redeemed) collapse into one. Edwards explains:

Glory, holiness, and fullness function in the register of persons and not essences. The criticism that his view somehow involves the communication of God’s essence is a misunderstanding of Edwards’s terminology. For Edwards, this would be nothing short of a category fallacy. God’s essence, by definition, is exactly what cannot be communicated ad extra.

In light of our brief exposition of Edwards’s understanding of natures and essences, it proves instructive to hold it in comparison with the Orthodox delineation of God’s essence and energies. This exercise is not intended to be expansive; it simply sets Edwards’s grammar of theosis alongside similar concerns of the Orthodox. Doing so should help to highlight specific contours of Edwards’s own account. While describing the issues that led to positing the energies of God’s essence, Vladimir Lossky notes that the Fathers emphasize both the inaccessible character of the divine nature as well as God’s ability to communicate himself.Footnote ⁶⁸ Invoking 2 Pet 1:4, where believers are “partakers of the divine nature,” Lossky explains the reason for utilizing the terminology of “energies” as distinct from essence:

Positing the energies of God was in direct response to the dogmatic assertions of union with God and the inaccessibility of the divine essence.Footnote ⁷⁰ God is, at the same time, inaccessible and yet clearly accessible. The divine energies are a way to maintain that tension and allow God to communicate himself without communicating his essence. Furthermore, God’s energies are not created but are eternally a part of God. Lossky, like Edwards, turns to the image of the sun, noting that even if God did not create, he would still shine forth in his energies.Footnote ⁷¹

Edwards draws the same kinds of distinctions for the same reasons. For Edwards, God’s essence is inaccessible, but Edwards, with Calvin, allows for a distinction between God’s nature and his essence.Footnote ⁷² Lossky, contrary to Edwards, is unwilling to attribute a specific energy to one of the divine hypostases.Footnote ⁷³ Furthermore, Lossky draws a distinction between personal processions of the Son and Spirit and natural processions of the energies. Edwards, I believe, would avoid this terminology in favor of natural/personal processions of the Son and Spirit and the willed “procession” (or mission) of the Son and Spirit to creation. In spite of their differences, Lossky and Edwards seem to be navigating the same questions with the same dogmatic machinery.Footnote ⁷⁴ While the language would be foreign to Edwards, he would certainly agree with Lossky’s summary:

Edwards’s exegesis and theological development allow him to utilize the biblical language of partaking in the divine nature without having to posit the extra-biblical term “energies.” For the Orthodox, energies are postulated to explain the same reality—that God, in his unity, is unknowable and knowable. If a distinction like this is not secured, the worry goes, one will either lose the idea of participation in God or else usher in a radical form of divinization (similar to Caldwell’s concern).