Here are seminar‑level prompts that assume students can work directly with primary and secondary literature.
### Seminar-level discussion questions
1. **Participatory ontology and divine simplicity**
Evaluate whether Torrance’s and Evangelical Calvinism’s “ontological atonement” and theotic union with Christ can be squared with a robust doctrine of divine simplicity, in the absence of an essence–energies distinction. Do Barth and Bavinck offer more metaphysically stable accounts of deification precisely because they handle participation more cautiously, or do they simply push the same tensions elsewhere (e.g., into election or *ordo salutis*)?[1][2][3][4]
2. **Deification as the deep structure of Reformed soteriology?**
Using key texts (Barth’s *CD II/2, IV/1–3*; Bavinck’s *RD*; Torrance/Habets on theosis and ontological atonement), argue for or against the claim that “theosis is the deep structure of Reformed soteriology when read from the standpoint of union with Christ.” Where do you see genuine structural convergence with Eastern theosis, and where do the trajectories irreducibly diverge (e.g., synergism, sacramental economy, anthropology)?[3][4][5][1]
3. **Election, reprobation, and the scope of theosis**
In Barth and Evangelical Calvinism, election in Christ has a pronounced universalizing thrust, which some critics read as sliding toward universal salvation when combined with an ontological theosis model. Analyze whether a theotic, ontological account of union with Christ can consistently maintain particularism in salvation without either softening the participatory claims or re‑introducing a de facto two‑track anthropology. How might Bavinck’s more classical dual outcome of election/reprobation function as a counter‑proposal here?[4][6][7][1][3]
4. **Normative retrieval or constructive revisionism?**
Evangelical Calvinism presents its theotic soteriology as a retrieval of Athanasius/Cyril “against” Latin heresy and federal Calvinism. Critically assess this historiographical claim: to what extent is Torrance (and those following him) offering a genuinely Athanasian/Cyrilline Reformed synthesis, and to what extent is this a modern, Barthian‑inflected reconstruction that selectively privileges certain patristic motifs? Propose methodological criteria for distinguishing faithful retrieval from constructive revision in this debate.[5][8][9][10][4]
Sources
[1] Karl Barth’s Reformed Doctrine of Theosis in Contradistinction to the … https://growrag.wordpress.com/
[2] Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Theosis in Convergence with the Eastern … https://growrag.wordpress.com/
[3] Dennis Greeson: Herman Bavinck, Theosis & T.F. Torrance https://thelaymenslounge.com/
[4] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance | Myk Habets https://www.taylorfrancis.com/
[5] Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance: A Review | https://jasongoroncy.com/2010/
[6] The Doctrine of Election in Evangelical Calvinism: T. F. Torrance as … https://journals.sagepub.com/
[7] [PDF] T. F. Torrance on theosis and universal salvation https://research-repository.
[8] T. F. Torrance and the Latin Heresy – First Things https://firstthings.com/t-f-
[9] TF Torrance and Reformed-Orthodox Dialogue https://orthodoxbridge.com/
[10] [PDF] Theōsis: A Comparative Study of TF Torrance and Rāmānuja https://digitalcommons.butler.
