Habets’s pneumatological critique is that Torrance’s theosis is formally Trinitarian but functionally underdeveloped on the Spirit, especially as the bond of union and agent of deification.[1]
## 1. “Least examined aspect” and bond of union
– Habets calls pneumatology “perhaps the least examined aspect of Torrance’s theology,” noting that this is a “considerable oversight” where theosis is concerned because “it is here that the reality of the believer’s participation in the divine nature emerges.”[1]
– He argues Torrance never isolates pneumatology from christology (a strength) but under‑develops “the bond of union in Christ’s theandric nature,” so the Spirit’s role in joining believers to Christ’s perfected humanity is not spelled out with sufficient clarity.[2][1]
## 2. Objective–subjective imbalance
– Habets observes that Torrance’s robust “objective” emphasis (Christ’s vicarious humanity, ontological reconciliation) is “not matched by corresponding subjective aspects,” particularly at those points where pneumatology must explain how believers come to share personally in what is objectively true in Christ.[1]
– This leads him to say Torrance leaves under‑explored what theosis “looks like in everyday life,” i.e., how the Spirit concretely actualizes deification in the believer’s responses—faith, conversion, worship, sanctification.[3][1]
## 3. Christology–pneumatology balance
– Habets thinks Torrance’s effort to correct Irving drives him “too far in the direction of Alexandrian christology,” so that the atoning work of the Spirit in Christ’s own life is under‑emphasized.[1]
– In his view, this christological tilt means the Spirit’s deifying agency—in Christ’s humanity and then in ours—is more assumed than carefully articulated, leaving Torrance’s *unio mystica* “pneumatologically insufficient in those areas where the concern presses beyond epistemology.”[1]
## 4. Constructive supplement
– In his most constructive chapter, Habets sketches how a fuller pneumatology would look: the Spirit “creates the bond between the believer and Christ and takes what is ours to Christ and what is Christ’s to us,” so that theosis is “worship from beginning to end…an active participation in Jesus Christ made possible by the Spirit.”[3]
– He thus doesn’t reject Torrance’s framework but argues that a doctrine of theosis demands a more explicit, thick account of the Spirit’s role in joining believers to Christ and progressively transforming them “from glory to glory into Christlikeness.”[3]
Sources
[1] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance: A Review | https://jasongoroncy.com/2010/
[2] [PDF] THE TRINITARIAN SOTERIOLOGY OF THOMAS F. TORRANCE A … https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/
[3] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance – Flip eBook Pages … https://anyflip.com/juvzb/
[4] Myk Habets – Athanasian Reformed https://growrag.wordpress.com/
[5] Defining Theosis | Theology Forum – WordPress.com https://theologyforum.
[6] Myk Habets – Laidlaw College – Academia.edu https://laidlaw.academia.edu/
[7] [PDF] Thomas Torrance: Participation, imitation and agency in the … https://repository.nwu.ac.za/
[8] [PDF] Chiarot, Kevin – Sign in https://pureadmin.uhi.ac.uk/
[9] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance: Special Offer https://growrag.wordpress.com/
[10] [PDF] Salvation and Sanctification in the Theology of TF and JB Torrance https://research-repository.
[11] TF Torrance | – Jason Goroncy https://jasongoroncy.com/
[12] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance – Google Books https://books.google.com/
[13] [PDF] Jeremy Begbie, Douglas A. Campbell, Cathy Deddo, Gordon Fee https://www.gci.org/wp-
[14] Torrance on theosis – The Surprising God https://thesurprisinggodblog.
[15] Religious Studies Titles 2010 | PDF | Anglicanism | Mysticism – Scribd https://www.scribd.com/
