## 1. What critics *do not* usually accuse Torrance of
– Critics do not normally fault Torrance for saying believers “become God” or for undermining the Creator–creature distinction; interpreters like Habets insist that, for Torrance, humanity is “gathered up into the space of the triune community…without loss of creaturely status, nor blurring of the Creator–creature distinctives.”[1]
– Nor is he criticized for Trinitarian confusion parallel to Lee’s “four‑in‑one” language; Torrance operates self‑consciously within Nicene, anti‑modalist Trinitarian dogma.[3][4]
By contrast, key criticisms of Witness Lee explicitly target the “become God in life and nature” formula and related “four‑in‑one” rhetoric as risking confusion of Creator and creature and of Trinity and church.[5][6][7]
## 2. Main criticisms *of* Torrance’s theosis
– **Compatibility with Reformed justification:** Habets and others question whether Torrance has adequately shown that his ontological, participatory theosis model coheres with a Reformed doctrine of justification by faith, or whether his strong objectivism risks making human faith “redundant.”[8][1]
– **Pneumatological underdevelopment:** Habets argues Torrance underdevelops pneumatology as the bond of union, over‑correcting Irving toward an “Alexandrian” christology and not fully articulating how the Spirit’s work relates to theosis in Christ’s humanity and in believers.[1]
– **Christology and fallen nature:** Some critics worry that Torrance’s insistence that Christ assumes *fallen* human nature (without sinning) goes “too far” and becomes christologically ambiguous or difficult to square with certain Reformed concerns.[9][1]
– **Universalism and election:** Because Torrance strongly affirms the universal scope and ontological range of Christ’s atonement, some fear a slide toward universalism or toward making salvation automatic; defenders respond that he explicitly rejects both universalism and limited atonement as rationalist “twin heresies.”[10][11][12]
These are intra‑Reformed/systematic concerns about coherence and emphasis, not charges that his theosis is ontologically heretical in the way some claim for Lee.
## 3. Why Torrance mostly escapes Lee‑style criticism
– **Language and dogmatic framing:** Torrance avoids saying “we become God” and couches theosis in Calvinian “union with Christ,” patristic participation, and clear Creator–creature language; even critical studies acknowledge he maintains a real ontological distinction.[2][1]
– **Patristic/Nicene anchor:** His theosis is explicitly tied to Athanasius, the homoousion, and classic Western Trinitarian and Christological dogma, which makes it easier for ecumenical and Reformed readers to receive, even if they dispute elements.[13][2][3]
So: Torrance’s theosis *is* controversial, but mainly on questions of Reformed coherence and possible universalist pressure; it is not usually criticized for the same Creator–creature or Trinitarian boundary issues that are raised in critiques of Witness Lee’s deification teaching.[6][5][8][1]
Sources
[1] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance: A Review | https://jasongoroncy.com/2010/
[2] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Forsyth Torrance – By Myk Habets https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
[3] T. F. Torrance and the Latin Heresy – First Things https://firstthings.com/t-f-
[4] [PDF] T. F. Torrance as Missional Theologian – InterVarsity Press https://www.ivpress.com/Media/
[5] ETS 2015: “In Life and Nature but Not in the Godhead” https://an-open-letter.org/en/
[6] Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the … http://www.open-letter.org
[7] [PDF] Becoming God – Affirmation & Critique https://www.affcrit.com/pdfs/
[8] [PDF] T. F. Torrance on theosis and universal salvation https://research-repository.
[9] A Critical Study on T. F. Torrance’s Theology of Incarnation. By Man … https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
[10] Torrance, Universalism and the Limited Atonement https://growrag.wordpress.com/
[11] Universalism vs. participation in Christ – The Surprising God https://thesurprisinggodblog.
[12] Paul D. Molnar: Thomas F. Torrance and the Problem of Universalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?
[13] ‘The danger of vertigo’ : an evaluation and critique of Theosis in the … https://ourarchive.otago.ac.
[14] Thomas F. Torrance, and his views – The Puritan Board https://puritanboard.com/
[15] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance: Special Offer https://growrag.wordpress.com/
[16] Some Critical Reception of Thomas Torrance and Scripture https://growrag.wordpress.com/
[17] Thomas F. Torrance and Evangelical Theology (Studies in Historical … https://books.google.com/
[18] Marty Folsom, I found this article by Darren Sarisky “T.F. Torrance on … https://www.facebook.com/
[19] Myk Habets – Athanasian Reformed https://growrag.wordpress.com/
[20] Thomas F. Torrance and Evangelical Theology:A Critical Analysis https://www.christianbook.com/
