Review of Tollefsen: "Activity and participation in late antique and early Christian thought"

[FireDragon76]

Christianity is always in some sense Platonic. The difference lies in the understanding of participation. In Luther, there is no progress towards deification as if the Christian is already partially righteous, thanks to the restorative action of Christ, so that there are only residual sins left in him. This would be a Neoplatonic understanding, consonant with Orthodox and Catholic theology. Luther rejects this. Rather, participation in Christ means to cling to the invisible Christ present in faith. The new state of the Christian depends on an extraneous existence (extra nos), which means that the God relation remains the center point.

Flogaus says that "[t]his concept of deification as found in Luther is clearly different from the Orthodox understanding of deification and even more from the Hesychast concept of theosis through participation in the uncreated divine light (p. 204). That's why Luther says that the Christian is simultaneously saint and sinner. He has already achieved sainthood in Christ, although this is a reality that remains concealed under the cross.

Other theologians never really gave up Neoplatonism and gnosis, and this is true also of certain Lutheran theologians. Wolfhart Pannenberg has a "theology of completion" (rather than a traditional "theology of restoration"), which means that creation was broken already from the start, as in Gnosticism. Redemption consists in the completion of a deficient creation in the eschaton, in which the conditions of finitude are overcome and we are lifted above the natural world and its temporality. Thus, mankind is summoned to be gods. As I see it, this is as far from Luther's theology that you can get.

It is true that Luther is somewhat pessimistic about human ability to participate meaningfully in sanctification, at least in this life, however, you cannot abandon the notion altogether and have anything but a juridical/nominalist view of salvation.

 

[Teofrastus]

It is true that Luther is somewhat pessimistic about human ability to participate meaningfully in sanctification, at least in this life, however, you cannot abandon the notion altogether and have anything but a juridical/nominalist view of salvation.

True, and this is a tragic development in Protestant theology, i.e., that the mystical side of Luther was forgotten and the theologians adopted a one-sided forensic view. In his books Luther and the Mystics (1976) and Theology of the Heart: The Role of Mysticism in the Theology of Martin Luther (1998) Bengt R. Hoffman explains that theology has focussed on imputed faith and justification and neglected the experiential side of faith. The rationalistic interpretation of Luther has been over-emphasized. The truth is that the inner faith of the heart was central to Luther. After all, Luther had a very literal view of, and experience of, God, angels and devils. His is a theology of the heart.

Indeed, Luther discusses justification as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, but he also speaks of the union of the soul with Christ and likens it to the bride's wedding with the bridegroom. He got this image from the mystics, which he studied intently. If Hoffman is correct, then important parts of Luther's enunciation were lost immediately after his death. Theology instead followed a rationalistic and externalistic path. Flogaus says:

In his soteriology, Luther seems to be influenced not so much by juridical concepts, but by ideas borrowed from mystical writings, such as the union of the soul with Christ, the indwelling of Christ and the Spirit, and the deification of the human person. All these concepts show clearly that justification and sanctification, which are certainly distinct but temporally not separated, are both ontological realities, but in a somewhat paradoxical way, since they occur within us and yet at the same time remain extra nos. Therefore, according to Luther's view, forensic justification and deification or sanctification are not alternatives, they are not opposed to one other, but rather they are consistent with one another, since they both have their substantive basis in the work and in the person of Jesus Christ. (p. 208)​

 

[FireDragon76]

True, and this is a tragic development in Protestant theology, i.e., that the mystical side of Luther was forgotten and the theologians adopted a one-sided forensic view. In his books Luther and the Mystics (1976) and Theology of the Heart: The Role of Mysticism in the Theology of Martin Luther (1998) Bengt R. Hoffman explains that theology has focussed on imputed faith and justification and neglected the experiential side of faith. The rationalistic interpretation of Luther has been over-emphasized. The truth is that the inner faith of the heart was central to Luther. After all, Luther had a very literal view of, and experience of, God, angels and devils. His is a theology of the heart.

Indeed, Luther discusses justification as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, but he also speaks of the union of the soul with Christ and likens it to the bride's wedding with the bridegroom. He got this image from the mystics, which he studied intently. If Hoffman is correct, then important parts of Luther's enunciation were lost immediately after his death. Theology instead followed a rationalistic and externalistic path. Flogaus says:

In his soteriology, Luther seems to be influenced not so much by juridical concepts, but by ideas borrowed from mystical writings, such as the union of the soul with Christ, the indwelling of Christ and the Spirit, and the deification of the human person. All these concepts show clearly that justification and sanctification, which are certainly distinct but temporally not separated, are both ontological realities, but in a somewhat paradoxical way, since they occur within us and yet at the same time remain extra nos. Therefore, according to Luther's view, forensic justification and deification or sanctification are not alternatives, they are not opposed to one other, but rather they are consistent with one another, since they both have their substantive basis in the work and in the person of Jesus Christ. (p. 208)​

Yeah... Luther is essentially popularizing that type of mysticism, which in turn you can find going all the way back to the Gospel of John (John 14:2-6).

How apophatic theology relates to this kind of mysticism is a good question. I personally believe they contain two different emphases that aren't easily reconciled. You can even find that tension in modern Protestant theology in mainline churches, between nearly universal religious sentiments rooted in liberalism and romanticism (Friedrich Schleiermacher himself drew heavily on Plato), and a more "Evangelical" kind of religion, similar to Luther.