I first became cognizant of Dr. Keating with the publication of his book, Deification and Grace in 2007 (link). This contribution is one the best introductions to the doctrine of deification I have read. It is one of those rare books that is both concise and comprehensive. [An excellent review is available via THIS LINK - LINK2.]
Dr. Keating’s bibliography referenced an earlier book of his—The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria, 2004—that is another must read on the topic of deification (link).
It had been over a decade since I last read anything from Dr. Keating, but that changed when I finally obtained a copy of a book that was on my wish list for months—The Oxford Handbook of Deification, 2024 (link). This work contains 44 essays, and a good number of them provide quotes from Dr. Keating’s two books referenced above, as well as some of his articles that I was not aware of.
This led to some online research during which I discovered a website I had never seen before—Encyclopedia of Catholic Theology (link). On March 12, 2025, an article on Deification by Dr. Keating was published on the site that can be read online and downloaded as a PDF (link). As much as I appreciated and enjoyed his book on deification, I must say that this article is probably a better introduction to the doctrine of deification for those folk who have not read much on the topic—it is also a great refresher for those have.
Looking to learn what other folk think about Dr. Keating’s new contribution.
Grace and peace,
David
1 comment:
I was recalling yesterday how the 4th Century Church reacted against the ideas of Arius. If I understand correctly, the Son, Christ Jesus was not lacking in deified attributes according to Arian thought. The objection seemed to be that the Son, according to Arius' implied teaching, was a mere creature. What creature like ourselves, could give a mere creature the adoration and praise one would give to the Uncreated?
So hi Tom. I thought that was a fair and excellent review of the book our blog host linked to on Keating's older book about deification in this thread. I see your point about Keating apparently failing to allow the same exchange for the redeemed man becoming God, as Catholics insist upon for God becoming man.
I tend to think Keating is following most theologians and Fathers of the Church in doing so. I have the same tendency to go in the direction of what we may call "imperfect deification". One reason is that I immediately begin to think that "full deification", making the redeemed omniscient, omnipotent, etc. would potentially make man ontologically equal with the Three members of the Trinity. Would not that make the redeemed be worthy of "full adoration" from whoever or whatever in creation is not divine? That is where the musing about the Arian heresy plays a part. Creatures should always object to any "full worship" of other creatures. So, perhaps a danger is averted if we remember the instinctive Catholic concern about Arianism. It makes me wonder if that the concern about worship is at the bottom of many objections to "full deification" in Catholic theology.
Further, this doctrine has never been addressed by the Church to my knowledge. I think it was St. Gregory of Nyssa who held to "full deification". From that time to now, it seems permissible for a faithful Catholic to believe in "full deification", although it would be a currently minority view among Catholic theologians, but perhaps because of the concern I mentioned above.
Until a defined word comes from the Church against "full deification", I would propose that it is a permissible speculation for any Catholic to believe. Your argument pointing out the inconsistency of Keating's "exchange" compels me to consider it more seriously than I previously have. I would suggest to Latter-day Saints that neither of our Churches have defined an explanation for what "full deification" implies. Does it mean that history is erased and that what was once "created" can become in every sense "Uncreated"? I think "full deification" could probably allow for a distinction between created and uncreated "Gods". In fact, it could still be a distinction strong enough to say that the Father is the God of gods, instead of God of Gods.
I have one objection that may have gone unnoticed by those who would advocate for "full deification", ontological equality with our different views of the Deity. It is that we seem to be in agreement that there will be eternally different degrees of glory for the redeemed. They have been said to be like the stars, differing in brightness. I have wondered how it could be that the redeemed in either of our different faiths could enjoy "full deification" while differing from one another in glory.
Again, Tom, a great review. I encourage any other observers to read it. Ten minutes or fifteen at the most, will be well spent. Do not feel overwhelmed because we expect a quick reply in this space. The old man just wanted to get down his brilliant (relative to him) insights before he forgets them. Carry on at your leisure with the bishops and apostles first.
Post a Comment