Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Mormon belief in the deification of Man

Jump to details:

• Gospel Topics: "Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense"
• Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will one day 'supplant' God?
• Question: What were the views of early Christians on the deification of man?
• Question: Was the Latter-day Saint concept of deification derived from Greek philosophy?
• Question: What Biblical scriptures discuss the doctrine of the deification of man?
• Question: If a person faithfully practices Mormonism during this life, do they become a god after they die?
• Question: Do Mormon men believe that they will become "gods of their own planets" and rule over others?
• Question: If God was once like us, does that mean that God was once a sinner?
• Question: What do Mormons believe regarding the nature of angels?
• Theosis

Gospel Topics: "Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense"

"Becoming Like God," Gospel Topics on LDS.org:

Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny.” Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father's.—(Click here to continue)

Pre-existent Jesus and divinized humanity

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

Mormons go so far as to insist that God was once a man just like us, which can sound confusing, but it is, in a way, the flipside to the belief that we will become, in the afterlife, just like him. There is a grand and cosmic circularity that connects Jesus with humanity, and it never stops rolling, like a dance with countless changing partners and yet everyone always comes around to dancing with him.

Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will one day 'supplant' God?

A belief in human deification does not mean that the LDS believe that they will worship anyone other than God

Some Christians claim that the doctrine of human deification is unbiblical, false, and arrogant, and that Latter-day Saints believe that they will one day "supplant God".

The first thing we must realize when we study this principle is that

The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

A belief in human deification does not mean that the LDS believe their worship is or will be properly directed at anyone but God the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Said the Church when asked about the doctrine of deification of man:

We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being 'joint heirs with Christ' reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.

In response, it is proper to cite Origen:

Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. ... [However], as, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5-6).

To be sure, some may dislike this doctrine, but it is ancient, Biblical, and true.

The doctrine of deification was present in the early Church

Non-LDS historian of Christianity Ernst Benz insisted that the doctrine of deification was present in the early Church, and pointed out a potential risk for those who do not understand it:

Now this idea of deification could give rise to a misunderstanding—namely, that it leads to a blasphemous self-aggrandizement of man. If that were the case, then mysticism would, in fact, be the sublimist, most spiritualized form of egoism. But the concept of imago dei, in the Christian understanding of the term, precisely does not aspire to awaken in man a consciousness of his own divinity, but attempts to have him recognize the image of God in his neighbor. Here the powerful words of Jesus in Matthew 25:21-26 are appropriate and connected by the church fathers to imago dei...

Hence, the concept of imago dei does not lead toward self-aggrandizement but rather toward charity as the true and actual form of God's love, for the simple reason that in one's neighbor the image of God, the Lord himself, confronts us. The love of God should be fulfilled in the love toward him in whom God himself is mirrored, in one's neighbor. Thus, in the last analysis, the concept of imago dei is the key to the fundamental law of the gospel—"Thou shalt love . . . God . . . and thy neighbor as thyself" (Luke 10:27)—since one should view one's neighbor with an eye to the image that God has engraven upon him and to the promise that he has given regarding him.

Common misrepresentation: Joseph Smith does not teach polytheism or "supplanting God" with his doctrine of human divination

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

Two corrections of common misrepresentations of Smith’s theology need to be made at this point....[The] [s]econd [is that] even though Smith says that believers will become gods, he also says that

they will be kings and priests to God, a phrase that qualifies his alleged polytheism. Clearly, the faithful are meant to share in the divine power and glory, and thus they too will have mastery over life and death, in the sense of being able to creatively participate in the creation, sustenance, and governance of life. Divine power seems to be the universal constant in this teaching, but it is not so diffuse that it has no source. God’s power will be shared, but it will still be God’s.

Question: What were the views of early Christians on the deification of man?

A review of Christian history illustrates that this doctrine was and is a common belief of many Christians

Some Christians insist that the doctrine of theosis is unBiblical and unChristian. However, a review of Christian history illustrates that this doctrine was and is a common belief of many Christians.

Clemenet of Rome (ca. AD 35–99)

• But they who with confidence endured [these things] are now heirs of glory and honour, and have been exalted and made illustrious by God in their memorial forever and ever. Amen.

Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-202)

Saint Irenaeus, who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator. Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis:

While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord.

Like the LDS, Irenaeus did not believe that this belief in any way displaced God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost:

there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.

Yet, Irenaeus—whom it would be perverse to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in theosis in terms which agree with LDS thinking on the matter:

We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.

Also:

How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God.

And:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.”

And:

But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."”

And, Irenaeus considers the doctrine clearly Biblical, just as the LDS do:

For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one, ] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh," to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father's law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father.

Other quotes:

• For the Lord is the good man of the house, who rules the entire house of His Father; and who delivers a law suited both for slaves and those who are as yet undisciplined; and gives fitting precepts to those that are free, and have been justified by faith, as well as throws His own inheritance open to those that are sons.

• ...but man receives advancement and increase towards God. For as God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always go on towards God.

• ...and to whomsoever He shall say, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you for eternity,’ (Mat. 25:34) these do receive the kingdom for ever, and make constant advance in it...

Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:

Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

Clement, an early Christian leader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:

yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.

And:

...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men."

And:

Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior.

Origen (ca. AD 185-251)

And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.

The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God. </ref>Origen in Bettensen, Henry. The Early Christian Fathers, 324.</ref>

Origen also defined what it means to "participate" in something:

Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing.

Justin Martyr (d. ca. AD 163)

Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes

to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest...

Also,

[By Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest.

Hippolytus (AD 170-236)

Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer,) mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son...The Deity (by condescension) does not diminish anything of the dignity of His divine perfection having made you even God unto his glory.

Athanasius

In 347, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and participant in the council of Nicea, said:

the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods....just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through His flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life...[we are] sons and gods by reason of the word in us.

For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man.

He also states that Christ "became man that we might be made divine."

Augustine (AD 354-430)

Augustine, considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said

but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.

Jerome (AD 340-420)

Jerome also described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:

“I said 'you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’" let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. “but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!...[Christ said] "all of you sons of the Most High," it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted.

Jerome goes on to say that we should

give thanks to the God of gods. The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said ‘you are gods’ and again ‘god arises in the divine assembly’ they who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high...

Modern Christian exegesis

The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology describes "deification" thusly:

Deification (Greek Theosis) is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. (Psalms 82: (81) .6; 2 Peter 1:4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (Romans 8:9-17, Galatians 4:5-7) and the fourth gospel (John 17:21-23).

Joseph Fitzmyer wrote:

The language of 2 Peter is taken up by St. Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, ‘if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods; (adv. Haer v, pref.), And becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons ‘by participation’ (Greek methexis). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the confessor, for whom the doctrine is corollary of the incarnation: ‘deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages’,...and St. Symeon the new theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, ‘he who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face...’

Finally, it should be noted that deification does not mean absorption into God, since the deified creature remains itself and distinct. It is the whole human being, body and soul, who is transfigured in the spirit into the likeness of the divine nature, and deification is the goal of every Christian.

According to Christian scholar G.L. Prestige, the ancient Christians “taught that the destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified.”

William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote:

"God became man, that we might become God" was a commonplace of doctrinal theology at least until the time of Augustine, and that "deification holds a very large place in the writings of the fathers...We find it in Irenaeus as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well in Gregory of Nysee. St. Augustine was no more afraid of deificari in Latin than Origen of apotheosis in Greek...To modern ears the word deification sounds not only strange but arrogant and shocking.

Yet, these "arrogant and shocking" doctrines were clearly held by early Christians!

This view of the early Christians' doctrines is not unique to the Latter-day Saints. Many modern Christian writers have recognized the same doctrines. If some modern Christians do not wish to embrace these ancient doctrines, that is their privilege, but they cannot logically claim that such doctrines are not "Christian." One might fairly ask why modern Christians do not believe that which the ancient Christians insisted upon?

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about the Holy Bible

Latter-day Saints and the Bible	The Bible as the word of God The 8th Article of Faith The King James Version The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
Creation	The Creation Age of the Earth Evolution Adam and Eve as historical figures Death before the Fall of Adam and Eve The Flood
Understanding the Bible	Understanding biblical numbers and stories Authorship of New Testament books Pauline teachings Scriptural interpretations Old Testament practices Violence in the scriptures
The Bible and the Book of Mormon	Bible passages in the Book of Mormon The New Testament and the Book of Mormon KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon The Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon Isaiah and the Book of Mormon The documentary hypothesis and the Book of Mormon
Drafts, not complete	Mormonism and science/Did Adam and Eve really exist Mormonism and science/Death before the Fall Plan of salvation/Fall of Adam and Eve

How did the mainstream Christian view that God created the universe out of nothing originate?

The concept of Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century

Mainstream Christianity teaches that God created the universe from nothing (ex nihilo), while Mormons teach that God organized the universe from pre-existing matter. The LDS God is therefore claimed to be "less powerful" than the God of mainstream Christianity, or "unbiblical."

One non-LDS scholar's conclusion is apt:

Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.

The concept of Creatio ex nihilo is not taught in the Old or New Testaments, or by the early Christian Fathers

Creatio ex nihilo is not taught in the Old or New Testaments, or by the early Christian Fathers, unless one assumes it. The doctrine was a novel idea that altered the beliefs and doctrines of the Jews and early Christians.

The problem of a pre-existent 'something'

The reason why most of modern Christianity demands ex-nihilo creation stems from arguments dealing with the sovereignty of God. If something exists apart from God—i.e., pre-exists the first act of creation, it must be co-eternal with God (and by extension, perhaps co-equal, or potentially co-equal). Likewise, LDS scripture teaches that there exists something which is co-eternal with God and potentially co-equal with God in the Book of Abraham. Is God absolutely transcendent over the material with which he works? Is there only one that pre-exists creation (God) or is there more than one?

The Old Testament makes no direct statement of ex-nihilo creation

The Old Testament makes no direct statement of ex-nihilo creation, and so the creation account is scrutinized for clues. Much of the debate over ex-nihilo creation stems from the first few verses of Genesis. And the controversy starts with the very first word: bereshit. The interpretation of Genesis 1:1 faces two questions. 1) Is Genesis 1:1 an independent sentence or a dependent clause, introducing the first sentence? And 2) What is the relationship of verse 1 to verse 2 (and even the remainder of the creation narrative in Genesis chapter 1)?

The Hebrew word roshit occurs some 50 times in the Old Testament. The vowels in the word indicate that is a construct form - that it means "beginning of" and not just "beginning". Of the other 50 occurrences, 49 of them follow this pattern. The exact same construction with the prefix be- occurs in four other places (Jer. 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34), and in each instance is generally translated as "In the beginning of the reign of ..." The other instances of roshit follow this construct pattern except for one in Isaiah 46:10, where we read: "I am God ... declaring the end from the beginning." Here there can be little doubt that the word cannot be read as a construct. And this one occurrence is often used to justify reading bereshit in Genesis 1:1 as an absolute and not a construct. To which we respond, is a grammatical error in one location reason to justify an adoption of a similar reading here? Why should we adopt the reading favored by one example over the dozens of alternatives?

If beroshit is a construct state, then verse 1 and verse 2 are both subordinate clauses describing the state of everything at the moment which God begins to create, and the beginning of verse 3 becomes the main clause for the first sentence of the Bible. Read this way, the beginning of the Bible reads:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth (the earth being without form and void, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the surface of the waters), God said, "Let there be light".

The first act of creation then is the command for light to exist. And all the rest - the earth as a desert and a wasteland (terms that imply an absence of both plant and animal life), the darkness, the deep, and so on, all exist prior to that first act of creation - and by definition are pre-existent.

Apart from this passage, there is often discussion over the meaning of the word bara - "to create". The Hebrew term bara itself is rather indifferent to the question of ex-nihilo creation. Often the claim is made that the word is used exclusively of God, but this clearly isn't the case (see for example Ezekiel 21:19). The meaning of bara here is dependent entirely on how we read the rest of the first line of the Old Testament.

In the absence of any Old Testament expressions of ex-nihilo creation, it seems preferable to follow the view that Israelite religion had not developed this theology. Joseph Smith resolved the interpretive crux in Genesis 1:1 in a rather unique fashion. In the Book of Moses, rather than defining creation in absolute terms (either from nothing or from something), he limits the description of creation in Genesis to a particular place and time. Creation is no longer universal:

And it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 'Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth; write the words which I speak. ... Yea, in the beginning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest. (Moses 2꞉1,3)

The New Testament doesn't provide much additional help in resolving the issue

The New Testament doesn't provide much additional help in resolving the issue. It relies heavily on the language of the Old Testament when discussing creation. And the same sorts of ambiguities arise. As James Hubler's Ph.D. dissertation on this very issue noted:

Several New Testament texts have been educed as evidence of creatio ex nihilo. None makes a clear statement which would have been required to establish such an unprecedented position, or which we would need as evidence of such a break with tradition. None is decisive and each could easily be accepted by a proponent of creatio ex materia...The punctuation of [John 1:3] becomes critical to its meaning. Proponents of creatio ex materia could easily qualify the creatures of the Word to that "which came about," excluding matter. Proponents of creatio ex nihilo could place a period after "not one thing came about" and leave "which came about" to the next sentence. The absence of a determinate tradition of punctuation in New Testament [Greek] texts leaves room for both interpretations. Neither does creation by word imply ex nihilo...as we have seen in Egypt, Philo, and Midrash Rabba, and even in 2 Peter 3:5, where the word functions to organize pre-cosmic matter.

List of Quotations from Scholars that affirm that the Bible does not Explicitly Support Ex-Nihilo

The following quotes from scholars demonstrate the near-consensus view that the Genesis in particular and/or Bible as a whole does not explicitly support Creatio ex Nihilo. The quotations are divided into scholars that are commenting on Genesis alone and those that comment on the Bible as a whole. These lists are meant to be representative and not comprehensive/exhaustive.

Not in Genesis

The following scholars affirm that creatio ex nihilo is not taught in Genesis

• Itzhak Benyamini: "As for the antiquity of the world, it appears that in backward extending eternity, not only did God exist, but so also did the world, although chaotic in structure. Still, it did exist, and the divine creation merely set boundaries and organized the matter in that chaos. This moment of creation, as noted, is none other than the moment of the establishment of God as separate from chaos and as its organizer…Creation is not ex nihilo, but from confusion, from chaos. It is the differentiation of being from confusion, which is not nothingness but a distortion of being, and, retrospectively, it understands this. Language alone is what creates this substance and is capable of making it non-chaotic."

"The first primordial material is apparently water, which entails the danger of liquidity. At first, the abyss was water, and water is tohu vavohu, and perhaps the abyss (tehom) is close to vohu.

Water, which is most definitely primordial, is now divided in two: order was created within it, meaning that the beginning of differentiation was within water, between water of one kind and water of another kind. This is an extension of the division between light and darkness. Differentiation is from a single thing to a pair of things: water above and water below, like male and female, like light and darkness, in a binary relation.

This can also be viewed from a slightly different angle: the firmament is a tool of separation, like the essence of light and its function. A tool was created, which enters something in order to divide it in half, and then to commingle with one of the halves. Thus, light separates darkness and becomes half of what was created out of the darkness. The firmament separates water from water and then combines with one half of the water.

This shows that the tools were created ex nihilo (but matter was not created ex nihilo), by bootstrapping, produced by the act of separation that they effectuate. The moment before their creation, they did not exist, but at the moment of their creation, they, in turn, create something else, which is separate from its Other but also from within it. Thus, though slightly differently, creation takes place on the following day as well, when the water within the lower water recedes, and the dry land is revealed. In retrospect, it may be said that the water is a tool of separation not just as material but also because of its liquidity, its flow, which reveals the dry land …. It was stated that the earth already existed, but now we hear that it was created. This is because earth was no longer the confused reality that it was at first. Now it is the name erets (land), which was given to yabasha (dry land), in that it is distinct from water. [. . .]

The rivers were not created by God. They existed before creation. They surround the earth and irrigate it. Like God and Adam, they are partners in the work of creation (which is fertilizing and irrigating, and not creation ex nihilo)."

• Marc Zvi Brettler: "The opposite of structure is chaos, and it is thus appropriate that 1:1-2 describe primeval chaos — a world that is "unformed and void," containing darkness and a mysterious wind. This story does not describe creation out of nothing (Latin: creatio ex nihilo). Primeval stuff already exists in verses 1-2, and the text shows no concern for how it originated. Rather, it is a myth about how God alone structured primordial matter into a highly organized world. Only upon its completion is this structure 'very good.'"
• Thomas L. Brodie: "Genesis apparently is not describing creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing (Sacks, 4; Scullion, 16; however, Jacob, 1, does hold for creation from nothing; and Wenham, 14, is circumspect: 'The phraseology leaves the author’s precise meaning uncertain'). The primary transition is not from nothingness to being but from chaos to order. The creation process begins with something like a formless waste: tōhû . . .bōhû. The first word, tōhû, suggests something shapeless, formless, uninhabitable; and it may also be related etymologically to tĕhôm, 'the deep' (Clifford, 2:4). Bōhû, in rhyming with tōhû—forming an assonant hendiadys—simply reinforces its effect. The text may also be read as referring primarily to emptiness: the earth is 'an empty place. . . unproductive. . . uninhabited' (Tsumura, 1994a, 328)."
• Walter Brueggemann: "It is widely agreed that Genesis 1:1-2 constitutes a remarkable premise for creation, namely, that disordered chaos (expressed in Hebrew onomatopoetically as tohu wabohu) was already "there" as God began to create. That is, God did not create 'from nothing,' but God’s act of creation consists in the imposition of a particular order upon that mass of undifferentiated chaos. For much of the Bible, the energy of chaos (antiform) continues to operate destructively against the will of the Creator, and sometimes breaks out destructively beyond the bounds set by the decree of the Creator. It is an interesting example of 'imaginative remembering' that much later, in 2 Maccabees 7:28, the tradition finally asserts 'creation out of nothing,' a view that since then has predominated in later church traditions of theological interpretation."
• Umberto Cassuto: "Just as the potter, when he wishes to fashion a beautiful vessel, takes first of all a lump of clay, and places it upon his wheel in order to mould it according to his wish, so the Creator first prepared for Himself the raw material of the universe with a view to giving it afterwards order and life. In this chaos of unformed matter, the heaviest materials were naturally at the bottom, and the waters, which were the lightest, floated on top. This apart, the whole material was an undifferentiated, unorganized, confused and lifeless agglomeration. It is this terrestrial state that is called תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ tohu and bohu."
• Paul K. Cho: "There is not an initial conflict and combat between the creator God and the watery forces of chaos….Nevertheless, the primordial sea, תהום, which alludes to Tiamat, and over whose waters the spirit of God purposefully hovers, is there before creation begins (Gen 1:2). And after the creation of light on the first day, which makes the counting off of the seven days of creation possible, God’s first act of creation is to divide the primordial sea in half and to place a firmament in between to keep the halves separate (Gen 1:6–7). The primordial sea, in Genesis as in Enuma Elish, preexists creation, and the initial stages of creation consist of the creator dividing the primordial waters to create a tripartite world, with the celestial waters above, the infernal waters below, and the earth in between."
• John J. Collins: "Whatever the origin of the Adam and Eve story, it stands in sharp contrast to the Priestly account of creation that now forms the opening chapter of the Bible. The opening verse (Gen 1:1) is majestic in its simplicity: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' Originally, the Hebrew was written without vowels. The vowels were added later as points above and below the consonants. The consonantal text can also be translated as: 'In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth. . . .' The Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish, similarly begins with a temporal clause. (There is another possible reflection of the Babylonian myth in Gen 1:2. The Hebrew word for 'the deep' [tehom] is a cognate of the name of the Babylonian monster Tiamat in Enuma Elish.) If the opening words are translated as a temporal clause, it is clear that we are not speaking of creation out of nothing. Already when God set about creating the heavens and the earth, there was a formless void (tohu wabohu), and the wind or spirit of God was hovering over the waters. God proceeds to bring order out of chaos simply by uttering commands."
• Robert Crotty: "The story in Gen. 1.1–2.3 is a priestly document. It does not relate a creatio ex nihilo but describes the ordering of a chaotic cosmos. The narrative distinguishes between works of separation (days 1–3) and works of furnishment (days 4–6)."
• Edwin M. Good: "...It seems clear that the storytellers were not thinking of what later philosophical and theological traditions, speaking Latin as they often did, called creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing,' namely, that the creator was not working with preexisting stuff. But in this story, something was there—the empty, shapeless 'earth,' darkness, the 'abyss,' the wind across waters.
• Ronald Hendel: "On the first three days God creates the major domains of the cosmos by creating new things and using them to separate the primeval materials of chaos…. "In the beginning when God created," or "When God began to create." The grammar of this temporal clause was clarified by the medieval Jewish commentator Rashi, who noted that the Hebrew word for "beginning" (reshot) required a dependent relation—it is the "beginning of" something–and can be followed by a verb. The traditional rendering, "In the beginning, God created," dates to the Hellenistic period (as in the Septuagint), when the details of classical Hebrew grammar had been forgotten. The idea of creatio ex nihlo is dependent on the later rendering. The original grammar, creation is a process of ordering and separation that begins with preexisting chaotic matter. This distinctive clause portrays the primordial state as a dark, watery chaos, an image similar to the primordial state in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Greek traditions. Unlike those other traditions, the chaos here is not a god or gods, but mere matter. The wind from God (verse 2) is the only divine substance and seems to indicate the incipient ordering of this chaos."

"Corresponding to תהו ובהו, the [Septuagint] translator wrote ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος ‘unseen and unorganized." Scholars have noted that ἀόρατος is a distinctive philosophical term in Greek, used by Plato to denote the "unseen" preexisting world of ideas (Sophist 246a״ c; Theaetatus 155e; Timaeus 51a; see Hanhart 1992: 367; Harl 1986: 87; Rosel 1994: 31). This choice of a Greek equivalent expresses something of Platonic cosmology in biblical guise, perhaps joining the cosmologies of Plato and Moses, as was a commonplace in Hellenistic Jewish thought, particularly in Alexandria. Hence, we may have a glimpse of the Hellenistic conceptual world of the [Septuagint] translator via the translation of this obscure Hebrew phrase. Note that the phrase is rendered in two words joined with a conjunction, exactly like the Hebrew Vorlage. But within the constraints of a literal translation, something of contemporary Platonic cosmology may shine through."

• Menahem Kister: "At this point we must address another difficulty posed by Genesis 1:1-3, perhaps a more profound one: does Genesis 1:2 describe primordial elements, such as darkness and abyss, which existed before creation? How are these elements related to God, i. e., are they eternal, coexistent with God, or were these elements created by God? The wording of the biblical verses does not give us a reason for choosing the latter. To be sure, the belief in primordial elements from which the Cosmos has emerged, or was created, is shared by many cultures. Yet, the idea that primordial elements coexisted with God (from which it follows that God was not the only eternal entity before Creation) may be potentially more problematic for a monotheistic religion. The author of Genesis, however, does not give us a clue about the way in which he coped with this subtle theological question, if he recognized it at all."
• J.R. Porter: "The biblical accounts of the creation of the world have their background in ancient Near Eastern mythology, in which creation is often depicted as the deity’s victory over the forces of chaos, represented by threatening waters, as a result of which the god is established as a supreme king. A large number of references show that this concept was well-known in Israel also. … Although the watery chaos is still there [in Genesis 1], there is no conflict between it and God, as in the ancient myth. God creates in unfettered freedom by his word or command, and creation is brought about by the separation of the elements of the universe, which produces an ordered and habitable world. Hence creation is not so much dealing with absolute beginning, creation from nothing — though this idea appears later, as in 2 Maccabees 7:28 — as with the world order as perceived by human beings."
• Gary Rendsburg: "A close reading of vv. 1-3 (especially v. 2) reveals that water was preexistent matter, in the form of the deep (Hebrew תְהוֹם tɘhom)—which is to say, water is never created in Genesis 1, but rather is the dominant presence on the earth, comprised of תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ tohu wa-bohu ‘wild and waste’ (v. 2). This water, in turn, represents the cosmic sea or abyss, which in other ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies (most famously, the Babylonian story Enuma Elish) is symbolized by an evil deity (for example, the goddess Tiamat in said story [note that Babylonian Tiamat is cognate with to Hebrew תְהוֹםtɘhom ‘deep, abyss’, which, notwithstanding the lack of a feminine ending, is a feminine noun in Hebrew)"
• Thomas Romer: "This text does not narrate a creatio ex nihilo, as it can later be found in Judaism and Christianity. Quite the contrary, it emphasizes the fact that God did not create the darkness, symbol of evil, nor the tehom, i.e., the waters symbolizing chaos and darkness (that may allude to the sea serpent Tiamat who Marduk, according to the epic Enuma Elish, has to kill before creating the world and humankind). In Genesis 1, Elohim integrates these things in his creation by transforming them (pushing back the waters and brightening up the darkness), but darkness and chaos are not "good" (on the first day of creation, only the light is characterized as 'good'; Gen 1:4)"
• Howard Schwartz: ""The very existence of pre-existing elements, such as light, darkness, chaos, void, water, wind, and the deep, raise doubts about the singularity of God’s accomplishment. Yet there is no explicit mention of the creation of these elements in the account of Creation."
• Hermann Spieckermann: "God’s creation as described at the beginning of the Bible is not a creative act out of nothing. The conception of creatio ex nihilo first came to the fore in Hellenistic Judaism (2 Macc. 7:28). After the heading of Gen. 1:1 comes a description of the world before God’s first deed, the generation of light. Three elements characterize the world at this time: tōhû wābōhû (formless and void), ḥōšek (darkness), and tĕhôm (the deep). Present in Mesopotamian myths and even Old Testament texts, this triad alludes to Chaos. The term tĕhôm betrays an inherent conception of Chaos."
• Marvin A. Sweeney: "Interpreters are accustomed to read the first statement of the creation account in Gen 1:1 as a statement of creatio ex nihilo, or 'creation out of nothing,' which presupposes that nothing existed prior to G-d’s creation of the world. In English, Gen 1:1–2 would then read, 'in the beginning, G-d created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void …' But such a statement conflicts with other depictions of creation in the Bible, e.g., Job 38; Ps 74; and Isa 51, which indicate that G-d overcame a chaos monster as part of the process of creation in which a pre-existing world of chaos was brought into order. Close analysis by the medieval biblical commentator Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, 1040–1105) of the initial words of Gen 1:1, beˇre ̄"sˇît ba ̄ra ̄" "lhym, indicate that they cannot be read as 'in the beginning G-d created,' because the term beˇre ̄"sˇît is a construct form that lacks a definite article. The verb, ba ̄ra ̄", cannot be read as a perfect verb, but it must be rendered as an infinitive that forms a construct chain with the terms that precede and follow. Consequently, the verse must be read as, 'in (the) beginning of G-d’s creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void …' The result is a statement in which the earth pre-existed creation in a state of chaos that was put into order by G-d. G-d’s act of creation then becomes a model for human action in the world, viz., the task of human beings modeled on G-d becomes one of overcoming chaos in the world and placing the world into order."
• William A. VanGemeren: "The root בָּרָא, Genesis 1, or creation by the word (contra Foerster) cannot explicitly communicate a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo."
• John H. Walton: "It has long been observed that in the contexts of bara no materials for the creative act are ever mentioned, and an investigation of all the passages mentioned above [which use the Hebrew word bara] substantiate this claim. How interesting it is that these scholars then draw the conclusion that bara implies creation out of nothing (ex nihilo). One can see with a moment of thought that such a conclusion assumes that 'create' is a material activity. To expand their reasoning for clarity’s sake here: Since 'create' is a material activity (assumed on their part), and since the contexts never mention the materials used (as demonstrated by the evidence), then the material object must have been brought into existence without using other materials (i.e., out of nothing). But one can see that the whole line of reasoning only works if one can assume that bara is a material activity. In contrast, if, as the analysis of objects presented above suggests, bara is a functional activity, it would be ludicrous to expect that materials are being used in the activity. In other words, the absence of reference to materials, rather than suggesting material creation out of nothing, is better explained by indication that bara is not a material activity but a functional one."
• Claus Westermann: "If this is correct—and there is no other convincing attempt to trace the derivation of ברא—then the Priestly ברא is based on a concrete idea, something like יצר. We do not know if the word was used of creation by God in this concrete sense before Deutero-Isaiah and P. One must be cautious about attributing too much to the word as if it could of itself say something about the uniqueness of the creative act of God. It is clear that it was P’s intention to use a special theological word for creation by God. But it is not correct to regard this word as the only one and to neglect such words as עשׂה or יצר. Nor is it correct to read creatio ex nihilo out of the word as such as, for example, does P. Heinisch: "If not always, then for the most part, the word indicates creatio ex nihilo." On the other hand A. Heidel is correct: "This concept (creatio ex nihilo), however, cannot be deduced from the Hebrew verb bārāʾ, to create, as it has been done.… There is no conclusive evidence in the entire Old Testament that the verb itself ever expresses the idea of a creation out of nothing."
• R.N. Whybray: [Genesis] 1:2 refers to the situation before God’s creative action began. There is no question here of a creatio ex nihilo, a ‘creation out of nothing’. The earth (h ̄aʾ ̄ares) already existed, but it was a ‘formless void’ (t ̄ohˆu w ̄ab ̄ohˆu)—not a kind of non-existence but something empty and formless, without light and covered by the water of the deep (t ̆ehˆom). There are echoes here of the Near-Eastern cosmologies. The word rˆuah, rendered by ‘wind’ in NRSV, can also mean ‘spirit’ (see NRSV marg.). Whichever is the correct interpretation, NRSV’s ‘swept’ is a participle, denoting a continuous action; it should perhaps be rendered ‘was hovering’."
• Ziony Zevit: "'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'On the basis of this well-known rendering, it can be argued that the ancient Israelites believed in creation ex nihilo, that is, creation out of nothing. This happens not to be the case. . . . A stricter, non-interpretive translation of the same verse is 'In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth,' which indicates that this verse is not a sentence but a circumstantial clause in a long, complicated sentence spread out over three biblical verses. It describes the state of matter in the cosmos before God set about ordering the chaotic mix of darkness, earth, wind, and water to create the heavens and the earth."

Not Found in the Bible

• James K. Aitken: "Galen (129–c.211) was the first to indicate that the view of creation had to be altered to take into account Christian views of God, leading to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo."
• William P. Brown: "Overall, however, the Priestly cosmogony does not exemplify a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, "creation out of nothing." Syntactically, the first verse of Genesis is a dependent clause ("When God began to create the heavens and the earth . . .") rather than a complete sentence (i.e., 'God created the heavens and the earth.') Indeed, the notion of creatio ex nihilo did not clearly emerge as a doctrine until the second century CE (G. May, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of "Creation out of Nothing" in Early Christian Thought [tr. A.S. Worrall; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994], 35-38, 62-84). The vigor and intensity with which both modern and ancient commentators have argued opposing positions betrays the fact that more than simply syntactical precision is at stake; deeply conflicting theological convictions underlie the various ways in which God is viewed in relation to the cosmos. For the Priestly author, however, the preexistence of chaos in no way intrudes on or limits God’s transcendent character, but rather underlines the divine role as the creative orderer of the cosmos. Whereas God is comfortable with preexistent 'chaos' in the Priestly cosmogony, many modern interpreters are not."
• James N. Hubler: "Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition."
• Helge S. Krach: "What little was known about the universe in the early Middle Ages included the idea that it was created in toto in a supernatural act rather than shaped out of some pre-existing state of matter. It was a true creatio ex nihilo. Given that this is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and in view of the overwhelming impact of Christian thought on cosmology through a large part of history, it is not irrelevant to repeat that creatio ex nihilo is nowhere explicitly stated in the Bible, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament. It is a doctrine not to be found in the earliest form of Christianity, when the form of creation was rarely a matter of discussion. Only in the second half of the second century can the doctrine be found in its strict sense, as an ontological and theological statement that expresses the contingence of the creation and the omnipotence and absolute freedom of God."
• Andrew Louth: ""It is, indeed, in the context of the struggle against Gnosticism that many scholars locate the emergence of the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Certainly, the way Theophilus interprets Genesis would have served him well in his struggle against Gnosticism, and it may well be that struggle that led him to see the significance of creation ex nihilo. For the critical role of creation ex nihilo in the thought of Theophilus (and Tertullian) needs some explanation: the older apologist Justin seems much close to traditional Platonism with his assertion that God created the cosmos out of 'unformed matter' (1 Apol. 10, cf. 59)."
• Gerhard May: "The concept of creatio ex nihilo began to be adumbrated in Christian circles shortly before Galen’s time. The first Christian thinker to articulate the rudiments of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was the Gnostic theologian Basilides, who flourished in the second quarter of the second century. Basilides worked out an elaborate cosmogony as he sought to think through the implications of Christian teaching in light of the platonic cosmogony. He rejected the analogy of the human maker, the craftsman who carves a piece of wood, as an anthropomorphism that severely limited the power of God. God, unlike mortals, created the world out of ‘non-existing’ matter. He first brought matter into being through the creation of ‘seeds’, and it is this created stuff that is fashioned, according to His will, into the cosmos."

"To rabbinic Judaism the questions raised by Greek ontology were relatively remote. But the chief reason why it did not come to the formation of a specific doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is to be seen in the fact that it was not demanded by the text of the Bible. The mention of chaos in Genesis 1:1 could also support the view that an eternal material existed, which God had merely ordered in creating the world. Jewish thought is in its entire essence undogmatic; in the question of the creation of the world it did not find itself tied down by the statements in the Bible and so possessed wide room for manoeuvre for highly variant speculations on creation. It was left for the Jewish philosophers of the Middle Ages to develop in controversy with Arabic neoplatonism and Aristotelianism a specific doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. But even then this did not achieve sole validity, but the biblical statements about creation continued to be interpreted in various ways."

• Teun Tieleman: "That God created the world out of nothing seems the most natural way of reading the opening chapter of Genesis. However, as May himself rightly stresses, we must exercise caution when we come across the statement that God created the world out of nothing. Early sources in which this statement is found may merely express the idea of God’s omnipotence. In such cases creatio ex nihilo in its technical sense is not in play. This is generally believed to have resulted from the debate between pagans and Christians in the second century CE—which makes Galen an important witness. Indeed, it seems to have been designed in conscious opposition to a fundamental assumption of the Greek philosophical tradition (cf. also Dillon, this volume, §2). From Parmenides (fifth century BCE) onward it had been axiomatic for Greek philosophers that nothing comes into being from not-being. Accordingly, Plato in his extremely influential Timaeus pictures the divine Craftsman (‘Demiurge’) as bringing order to a pre-existing entity called the ‘Receptacle’ or ‘Mother of Becoming’ or ‘the Place’, which was soon identified by Plato’s readers with Aristotle’s material cause (see below, p. 133). This entity prevents God’s best intentions from being completely realized, thereby explaining such imperfections as remain in a cosmos marked by overall purposefulness and beauty. From the Judaeo-Christian point of view, however, the postulate of the Receptacle goes against divine omnipotence. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, then, seems to be intended as the exact counterpart of the Platonic and other Greek accounts of creation that were based on the axiom that being cannot come from not-being."

What were the early Christian beliefs about the creation?

A belief in ex nihilo creation was not shared by the first Christians

Contrary to the critics' claims, their belief in ex nihilo creation was not shared by the first Christians. The concept of creatio ex nihilo

began to be adumbrated in Christian circles shortly before Galen's time. The first Christian thinker to articulate the rudiments of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was the Gnostic theologian Basilides, who flourished in the second quarter of the second century. Basilides worked out an elaborate cosmogony as he sought to think through the implications of Christian teaching in light of the platonic cosmogony. He rejected the analogy of the human maker, the craftsman who carves a piece of wood, as an anthropomorphism that severely limited the power of God. God, unlike mortals, created the world out of ‘non-existing’ matter. He first brought matter into being through the creation of ‘seeds’, and it is this created stuff that is fashioned, according to His will, into the cosmos.

Thus, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was first advanced by a Gnostic (a heretical branch of Christianity), and did not appear until more than a century after the birth of Christ.

The idea of God using pre-existing material in creation was accepted by at least some of the early Church Fathers

The idea of God using pre-existing material in creation was accepted by at least some of the early Church Fathers, suggesting that beliefs about the mechanism of creation altered over time, as Greek philosophical ideas intruded on Christian doctrine. Justin Martyr (A.D. 110—165) said:

And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received-of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering."

Justin continues elsewhere with such examples as:

• "by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses."
• [the earth,] "which God made according to the pre-existent form."
• "And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all thing; through Him..."

Justin was not the only Father to reject ex nihilo creation. Clement said in his "Hymn to the Paedagogus":

Out of a confused heap who didst create This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass Of matter didst the universe adorn....

And, Blake Ostler comments on 1 Clement:

Clement stated: "Thou . . . didst make manifest the everlasting fabric of the world. Thou, Lord, didst create the earth." The terms used here by Clement are significant. He asserts that God did "make manifest" (ἐϕανεροποίησας) the "everlasting fabric of the world" (Σὺ τὴν ἀέναον του κόσμου σύστασιν). He is referring to an eternal substrate that underlies God's creative activity. Clement is important because he is at the very center of the Christian church as it was then developing. His view assumed that God had created from an eternally existing substrate, creating by "making manifest" what already existed in some form. The lack of argumentation or further elucidation indicates that Clement was not attempting to establish a philosophical position; he was merely maintaining a generally accepted one. However, the fact that such a view was assumed is even more significant than if Clement had argued for it. If he had presented an argument for this view, then we could assume that it was either a contested doctrine or a new view. But because he acknowledged it as obvious, it appears to have been a generally accepted belief in the early Christian church.

How was the doctrine of creation altered to "creatio ex nihilo"?

Some Greek philosophical ideas influenced the change to "creatio ex nihilo"

Non-LDS author Edwin Hatch noted the influence of some Greek philosophical ideas in the change to creatio ex nihilo:

With Basilides [a second century Gnostic philosopher], the conception of matter was raised to a higher plane. The distinction of subject and object was preserved, so that the action of the Transcendent God was still that of creation and not of evolution; but it was "out of that which was not" that He made things to be . . . . The basis of the theory was Platonic, though some of the terms were borrowed from both Aristotle and the Stoics. It became itself the basis for the theory which ultimately prevailed in the Church. The transition appears in Tatian [ca. A.D. 170]

Does Colossians 1:16 teach that Jesus created all things out of nothing?

Creedal Christians believe in the post-Biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)

Creedal Christians believe in the post-Biblical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). Because this is how they understand the idea of creation, they read it into this verse.

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with these verses. They emphatically believe that the Father created all things by Jesus Christ

The passage in question reads:

[Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.(Colossians 1:15-17.)

The Greek text does not teach ex nihilo, but creation out of pre-existing raw materials

As one author observed, the Greek text does not teach ex nihilo, but creation out of pre-existing raw materials, since the verb ktidzo "carried an architectural connotation...as in 'to build' or 'establish' a city.... Thus, the verb presupposes the presence of already existing material."

One must not overlook 2 Corinthians 4꞉18, which states that "the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal"—suggesting that aspects of the created "unseen world" are eternal, despite the exercise of God's creative power upon them.

LDS doctrine sees creation as an act of organizing pre-existing, eternal matter and intelligence. (See D&C 93꞉29, D&C 131꞉7.)

Thus, Jesus certainly participated in the creation of all created thing

Thus, Jesus certainly participated in the creation of all created things—but He worked with preexisting chaotic materials. The angelic ranks of "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" were also created by Christ, for these beings did not assume their angelic status or form without divine creative power, even though some aspect of their "intelligence" pre-dated God's creative acts in their behalf.

Each of us, along with Jesus and Lucifer/Satan, are spirit children of our Father in Heaven. Our personality and character were developed during the long pre-mortal existence. During this time the Savior, as the first born of the Father, developed the attributes that allowed God the Father to trust Jesus with the creation of all things that would be created and to assume the divine role of The Son. With that same process Lucifer developed the attributes that led him into sin and rebellion.

The difference between Jesus and Lucifer is so great that we cannot fully understand it. The rest of God's children are somewhere in between these two extremes. Because of Jesus' role in the creation Satan's premortal powers and status were dependent upon the creative power and authority of God, exercised through Jesus Christ.

The difference between those who followed the Father and those who followed Lucifer is in part dependent upon the eternal aspect of each individual. This may help to explain Satan's antipathy toward Jesus, and his desire to usurp the power and authority of God possessed by Christ (see Moses 4꞉1).

The claim, then, that Jesus and Satan were merely peers, misunderstands and misrepresents the LDS doctrine of creation, and Jesus' preeminent role in it.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers Search for the Truth DVD (2007) Resources Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007). 50 Answers

Does what Joseph Smith taught about the creation of spirits contradict the scriptures?

It should be noted specifically that Joseph addresses the word "create" as meaning "to organize" and not to "create out of nothing"

Joseph Smith taught that spirits were not created, and that spirits did not have a beginning because they will not have an end. In scripture, however, there are many verses which stated that God created spirits.

• Did what Joseph taught about the creation of spirits contradict the scriptures?

It should be noted specifically that Joseph addresses the word "create" as meaning "to organize" and not to "create out of nothing." Therefore, God can still at some point "organize" whatever composes spirits just as He organized the "chaotic matter" into the world and all that we see. As long as one properly understands that "to create" is "to organize" rather than "to create out of nothing," there is no problem or conflict between God creating spirits and creating the world. In both instances He used some preexistent material from which He organized both.

The statement upon which this teaching is based is actually an excerpt from Joseph Smith's April 7, 1844 talk known as the "King Follett Discourse"

In the 2008-9 lesson manual Teaching of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, we find the following in Chapter 17 - The Great Plan of Salvation:

In April 1844, the Prophet taught: "I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man. … It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead,—namely, the soul—the mind of man—the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don’t believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. …"

"I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits. … "

The present text of quotes from the "King Follet discourse" as recorded in the lesson manual is from the Grimshaw Amalgamation

The present text of quotes from the "King Follet discourse" as recorded in the lesson manual is from the Grimshaw Amalgamation, which was the work of Jonathan Grimshaw in 1855. Grimshaw was a clerk in the Church Historian's Office assigned to prepare Joseph Smith’s sermons for inclusion in what would eventually become the 7-volume History of the Church.

Grimshaw relied upon the accounts of the four men who made record of the prophet’s words on that day

Since there was no stenographic report of the sermon and no prepared text from which to reconstruct the sermon, Grimshaw relied upon the accounts of the four men who made record of the prophet’s words on that day. Three of these men, Thomas Bullock, Willard Richards and William Clayton, were assigned to do so and the fourth, Wilford Woodruff, made a record for inclusion in his journal.

Thomas Bullock amalgamated together his account and that of William Clayton in 1844, which was then printed in the LDS periodical Times and Seasons. Grimshaw took this amalgamation and amalgamated it with the accounts of Willard Richards and Wilford Woodruff in an attempt to provide the most complete account possible. This version of the sermon has been reprinted more than any other and has been published in the Ensign, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is also the source of the quotations noted above from Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.

Does the teaching contradict scripture?

The following quote appeared in the April and May 1971 Ensign on pages 13-17 of each. Within the sermon, Joseph is reported as having said:

"I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven."

The question is: Are there indications within the scriptures regarding creation contradict such a statement? It should be noted that the scriptures themselves clearly state that,

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (D&C 93꞉29) It would appear that whatever this "intelligence" is, it cannot be "created or made." Precisely what this "intelligence" is and whether it is an individuated spirit being or merely the chaotic precursor to an organized individuated spirit has been the subject of a much of discussion in LDS thought. Suffice to say that we existed as this "intelligence" previous to whatever action the Father took that resulted in our becoming His spirit children. This is the manner in which the matter has been understood and expounded upon within Church publications.

Does the fact that we existed as "intelligence" previous to our organization into spirits preclude "creation"? Not necessarily. It would all depend upon how one views the process of "creation." Did God create the world from nothing as most of our Christian brothers from other faiths infer? Joseph did not think so. In the same sermon he stated:

"You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, "Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end."

Therefore, it is not merely "intelligence" which cannot be "created or made" but "chaotic matter" or "element." Something existed, some form of primordial "matter" or "element" which "had an existence from the time He [God] had" just as "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself."

LDS doctrine rejects Neo-Plantonic accretions, but this does not make them automatically false

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

Mormon arguments deserve to be examined on their own grounds for internal consistency and biblical adequacy. Not being Platonic is not equivalent to not being rational.

Mormons and creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

Thological and philosophical critics of Mormonism often focus on their rejection of the doctrine of creation out of nothing, as if the Mormon relationship to traditional theology is merely negative. What critics miss is the flip side of this rejection, namely, the affirmation of the eternity of matter and how this affirmation functions as the philosophical foundation for a

dramatic revision of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ.

"Smith would have held his own in debating with" Neo-Platonists, Gnostics, and early Christian theologians

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

[I]t would be a mistake to think of Mormonism as simply rejecting the Greek heritage of metaphysics. Paulsen has done more than any Mormon thinker to demonstrate how Smith’s idea of divine embodiment would have been in the theological mainstream prior to Origen and Augustine. In fact, [David] Paulsen, who is also a professor at Brigham Young University, has done more

than any theologian of any denomination to rediscover the metaphysical depths of anthropomorphism in early Christian theology, and his work has been extremely helpful for my own project. Paulsen shows how the Mormon version of the restoration of the Church requires a strong reading of the history of metaphysics. Joseph Smith spoke plainly, but that should not disguise the revolutionary nature of his claims. I have discussed emerging ideas of matter in the context of the Neo-Platonists, the Gnostics, and the early theologians, and Smith would have held his own in debating with all three groups. Smith had the imagination of the Gnostics in his multilayered portrait of the divinities that populate the cosmos. Nonetheless, he would have agreed with the Neo-Platonists and the Christians that the Gnostics erred in identifying matter with evil. He would have liked the Platonic concept of pre-existent souls as well as Plato’s portrait of the Demiurge as being not absolutely different from the world. Indeed, his sense of the rhythmic and cyclical movement of spirits from a refined to an embodied state and back again would have led him to express great interest in the circular framework of Plotinus, but Smith would not have accepted the elitism and intellectualism built into Neo-Platonic thought. He would have sympathized with Christians who struggled to identify nature’s inherent goodness, but he would not have shared their solution in attributing infinity to God. Smith absorbed and revised so many Christian traditions, but negative theology has virtually no room in his thought. In the debates over infinity, Smith, ever the concrete thinker, would have affirmed an actual, as opposed to a potential infinity in order to defend his vision of the afterlife as an eternal progression through space and time. His cosmos was big enough for both the eternity of the divine and the infinity of matter, but his materialism left no room for one entity that is both eternal and infinite. In sum, he would have de-Augustinized theology in order to baptize Greek philosophy anew.

Augustine's views about matter are perhaps less coherent than Joseph Smith's

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

Augustine’s position is actually not as sound as it first appears. If God makes the world out of himself, does it necessarily have all the attributes of the divine? Does it necessarily follow that matter is a substance that equals God’s own power? The problem with Augustine’s position (and the whole of classical theism on this issue) is that he can imagine no middle ground between creating and shaping. From the perspective of classical theism, if God does not create matter out of nothing, then God merely shapes (or adds form to) the matter that is already there, and that means that God is neither infinite nor omnipotent. If matter is too close to God, then God must not have complete mastery over it. Likewise, if matter comes from God, then God must be tainted by it, which means that God shares in its corruptibility. Either way, God would not be God, or at least, God would not be infinite. But what if there is a middle ground? What if matter is one of God’s perfections without the world being divine? If the perfection of matter is already an expression of who God is (indeed, if it is the substance of the Father’s relation to the Son), then matter can come from God without compromising God’s nature. Moreover, God would be neither master nor victim of matter’s nature, since God’s relation to matter would be nothing more than a reiteration of the Father’s relation to the Son.

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb: Creedal Christians can learn from LDS views about Jesus Christ and creation

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

[In LDS doctrine] Matter as we know it has a beginning, an origin, in Christ, but matter as it can be, in its perfected form, is eternally an attribute of the divine. In this way, the eternity of matter can be conceived without falling into the trap of pantheism, and this possibility, I am convinced, is precisely what Joseph Smith saw, even if he did not put it into these words or this theological context.

Th Mormon Church stakes its whole theology on the coherence of the idea that God formed the world from a material substance that is not totally unlike his own divine nature. That makes Mormonism either a religious oddity in Western history or an utterly crucial metaphysical correction to our understanding of the role and value of matter in God’s creation of the world. At the very least, Mormonism presents a prod to theological thought at the precise time when materiality is more central to public awareness than ever before. Our relationship to the material world, whether it goes by the name of environmentalism, ecology, sustainability, or evolution has never been so urgently pressed before us as today. To respond to this urgency, we need not only an ethic but also a metaphysics of matter.

We cannot know how to treat matter unless we know what it is, and the nature of matter has to include but ultimately go beyond the specificities of science. We need to know what matter is for, where it comes from, and to what extent it is identical to what we are. These are the central questions of our time, and creedal Christians can answer them only in a self-critical and mutually beneficial dialogue with Latter-day Saints—and that dialogue has to begin with an assessment of the life and thought of Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith's theology is not pagan—his theology is vast as the multiverse, and eliminates Neo-Platonism and Augustine

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

Far from reverting to paganism or simply falling into sloppy thinking, Smith was carrying his confidence in Christ to its fullest possible expression....All things are possible not only for us but also for God, in that this universe does not exhaust the divine creativity. The universe is not big enough to hold the majesty of God’s ingenuity. Rather than reacting negatively to the apparently infinite expansiveness of the universe, Smith called astronomy’s bluff and multiplied the universe by the same expansive factor. Smith was wiping the theological slate clean of the Neo-Platonic metaphysics that had so influenced Augustine.

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Paul Copan and William Lane Craig. "Craftsman or Creator? An Examination of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation and a Defense of Creatio ex nihilo," in Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, et al., The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, 2002), 95–152 Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004). Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 36. ( Index of claims ) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 2)

Notes

Mormons have "picked up" discarded beliefs of early Christians

Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb wrote:

Perhaps the most complicating factor for creedal dialogue with Latter-day Saints is that Mormons, unlike other restorationists, were not content to flounder in suspicion of the way the early Church absorbed Greek metaphysics. Instead, Mormons put the Platonization of Christianity at the heart of their critique of the ossification and corruption of Christianity. Something went terribly wrong after the age of the Apostles, they argue, and that something has to do with the theological turn toward a metaphysics of immaterialism. Far from ignoring early church history, then, Mormons are committed to an interrogation of the relationship of theology to philosophy that objects to nearly every development that led to the ecumenical creeds. They do not just raise objections, however. It is as if, as they follow the road orthodox theologians took to the creeds, Mormons pause to pick up the detritus that was jettisoned along the way. They recycle these discarded beliefs into a shining, novel creation of their own.

Question: Was the Latter-day Saint concept of deification derived from Greek philosophy?

The question of the nature of divine things or of God was never settled by the Greeks

Evangelical Christians claim that the Latter-day Saint idea of "deification" was derived from pagan Greek philosophy. The simple answer to this question is "No." Why? Greek philosophy was an attempt to discover the First Things. What is it that is behind the multiplicity of things we encounter? Some said water, others argued for fire--building on Ionian notions. Still others argued for numbers. In doing this they began to deal with three issues, or what were called the "parts" of philosophy. The first two parts involved theoria (theory), and included two issues: physis (from which we get the word "physical") and logos (from which we get the word "logic"). Put in question form, the Greeks debated about the nature of reality and how we can know, or not know, the answer to this question. The third part of philosophy—praxis (from which we get the word "practical," meaning for the Greek philosophers the question of how, given the limits on our knowledge and what we can know of the nature of things, how ought we to behave?). The question of the nature of divine things or of God was never settled.

Plato is an especially useful instance of what might be called "theoretical atheism" in his physics, while in his practical or moral philosophy he has a rather large place for God as a kind of "noble lie," since believing in divine punishments is a way of controlling children or childish adults—that is, most humans most of the time. It is also true that in Plato's dialogues there are many instances in which a wise saying by one of the participants will draw forth from one of the others expressions such as "oh divine man" or "worthy of being a God" and so forth. This may merely be a way of indicating that wisdom is the highest attainment of human nature, and not anything like theosis (deification) in the sense that word was used by early Christians.

When Latter-day Saints refer to the Hellenizing of Christianity, they are following the lead of Protestant authors who have used that expression. What that label often means, for the Saints, is that the authors of the great ecumenical creeds borrowed categories, which they only half understood, from pagan sources—that is, from Greek philosophy. In doing this they seem to have corrupted both Greek philosophy and Christian faith. This may not have caused the apostasy, but may have instead been a desperate attempt on the part of really passionate believers to sort of issues that were tearing the church to pieces.

For further information, see: Louis Midgley, "Directions That Diverge (Review of The Ancient State: The Rulers and the Ruled)," FARMS Review of Books 11/1 (1999): 27–87. off-site

Question: What Biblical scriptures discuss the doctrine of the deification of man?

Theosis or deification is discussed in the following biblical scriptures

• Psalm 82:5-6 (cf. John 10:34-36)
• Daniel 12:3
• Matthew 5:48 (cf. Luke 6:40)
• Matthew 24:45-47
• Acts 17:29
• Romans 8:16-17,32
• 2 Corinthians 3:18
• 1 Corinthians 15:49
• 2 Corinthians 8:9
• Galatians 4:7
• Philippians 3:14-15
• Philippians 3:20-21
• Hebrews 12:23
• 1 Jn 3:1-2
• 1 Peter 3:7
• 2 Peter 1:4
• Revelation 3:21
• Revelation 21:7

In regard to the Mormon doctrine, non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz has observed:

One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.

For more quotes about theosis see: Primary sources:Theosis

Question: If a person faithfully practices Mormonism during this life, do they become a god after they die?

Exaltation may be qualified for in mortality but completed in a process that extends far beyond this life

Exaltation may be qualified for in mortality but completed in a process that extends far beyond this life. The notion of progression to the same state as our Father in Heaven may take millenniums of millenniums to complete. We simply do not know or understand the process, but if we look at this life as a model, Heavenly Father adds responsibility upon responsibility for our young priesthood holders wherein they begin with simple tasks of a temporal nature and then progress to even greater responsibility and into a more spiritual nature. If this is a model for how Heavenly Father develops us, then we can expect that there is a process of graduation from where we are when we leave mortality towards what we will eventually become when we achieve complete exaltation. Moroni is undoubtedly somewhere along that path of progression and should be expected to be fully exalted when prepared even though he has qualified in mortality to begin the process.

If you compare it to becoming a doctor, you may qualify in college to enter medical school, but that doesn't make you a doctor the day you enroll.

Acting in a "lesser role" does not in any way diminish one's eternal progress toward exaltation

The prophet has all the priesthood keys available and can therefore act as the head of the church, as well as pass the sacrament as a deacon. If he were to exercise his priesthood authority as a deacon, this activity does not in any way diminishe his priesthood authority as the prophet. For example, when Moroni acted as a messenger when he visited Joseph Smith: We don’t know where Moroni is on his personal progress toward exaltation, but it is entirely reasonable that he could act as an angel without diminishing his personal progression if it has increased beyond that of an angel.

Joseph Smith taught:

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave”

Question: Do Mormon men believe that they will become "gods of their own planets" and rule over others?

Mormons believe in human deification, but what this doctrine means or entails is beyond human comprehension

It is claimed by some that Mormons believe that they can push themselves higher in a type of 'celestial pecking order.' This is often expressed by the claim that Latter-day Saint men wish to become "gods of their own planets." One critic even extends this to our "own universe,"

Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?

Members of the Church—like early Christians—believe in human deification or theosis. They assert that this doctrine is taught in the Bible and by modern revelation. However, what this doctrine means or entails is beyond human comprehension anyway. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," taught Paul (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Most members of the Church realize that they have enough on their plates to do and become through Christian discipleship and keeping their covenants. They do not spend much time concerned about the details of their future state. They are simply confident that they will be happy, in families, and back in the presence of God where they will continue to do His will.

Certainly we can have the end in mind, remembering the relationship of Father to child is crucial. He will always, through all eternity, be our Father and our God. Still, it would be unwise to jump the gun and assume we are practically almost there; we have plenty to do in the meantime, and an eternal and abiding need for the grace of Christ to compensate for our manifest inadequacies.

The critics' accusations along these lines are a caricature of LDS belief, and omit virtually everything of importance in their discussion of this doctrine.

The caricature: Mormons wishing to "get their own planet"

Mormons, along with many other Christian denominations, believe in deification or theosis, based on the teaching that we can become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). Little is known, though much might be speculated, about the specific details of our potential under this doctrine. Reducing it to ruling a planet caricatures a profound and complex belief. The use of the word “planet” makes Mormons seem more like sci-fi enthusiasts than devout Christians.

This isn’t just a quibble about semantics. Claims that Mormons hope for “their own planets” almost always aim to disrespect and marginalize, not to understand or clarify. The reality is that we seek eternal life, which we consider to be a life like that of our Father in Heaven. We consider our immediate task on Earth to learn to understand and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than speculate on what life might be like if we achieve exaltation. Specifics about the creation of worlds and the ability to govern them upon achieving eternal life are not clarified in Latter-day Saint scripture. Attempts to portray these concepts as simply wanting to “get our own planet” are a mockery of Latter-day Saint beliefs.

The reality: Latter-day Saints wishing to become like their Father in Heaven

Much criticism of Joseph Smith and the Church in general stems from a teaching regarding the eternal potential of mankind. The Church believes that men and women are the "offspring" of Heavenly Parents (see Acts 17:28-29) composed of the same eternal substance (see D&C 93꞉33-35) and hence we have divine possibilities through the grace of Christ. Latter-day Saints believe that they can achieve a life like that of our Father in Heaven. This implies that one can eventually participate in similar works, among which would be the creation of worlds. In 2001, Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles noted,

The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things “so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them” (Henry B. Eyring, quoting Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, October 2002.)

Elder's Eyring and Kimball are not the only ones to make such references. Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Joseph Fielding Smith all associated becoming like our Heavenly Father with the creation of worlds, and the populating of these worlds with spirit children.

However, there are many names for (and many interpretations of) this belief in and out of the Church. There are various schools of thought on what it might mean for a person to become a "god" after this life. On this view, Brigham Young didn't teach of countless gods doing their own thing in countless universes, each out for their own concerns. According to Brigham, there will be no such separate kingdoms of personal power

...to yourself, by yourself, and for yourself, regardless of every other creature.

But the truth is, you are not going to have a separate kingdom; I am not going to have a separate kingdom; it is not our prerogative to have it on this earth. If you have a kingdom and a dominion here, it must be concentrated in the head; if we are ever prepared for an eternal exaltation, we must be concentrated in the head of the eternal Godhead...If we fancy that we have an independent interest here and in the world to come, we shall fail in getting any of it.

Your interest must be concentrated in the head on the earth, and all of our interest must center in the Godhead in eternity, and there is no durable interest in any other channel.

Along these lines, consider the interesting sermon by Heber C. Kimball from 1856. In this discourse, President Kimball tangentially referred to deification, not as a glorious declaration that we will become gods or godlike, but to remind his listeners not to put the cart before the horse. We ought to consider becoming true "Saints" before focusing too much on being gods.

Heber said:

Many think that they are going right into the celestial kingdom of God, in their present ignorance, to at once receive glories and powers; that they are going to be Gods, while many of them are so ignorant, that they can see or know scarcely anything. Such people talk of becoming Gods, when they do not know anything of God, or of His works; such persons have to learn repentance, and obedience to the law of God; they have got to learn to understand angels, and to comprehend and stick to the principles of this Church.

…I bear testimony of this, and I wish you would listen to counsel and lay aside every sin that doth so easily beset you, and turn to the Lord with full purpose of heart.</ref>

Similarly, during the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith is said to have taught:

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.

The need for divine grace

Christ said "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect" (see Matthew 5:48) and members of the Church tend to take that charge literally. The trouble is, some Saints might feel they can or even must achieve this impossible goal through their own efforts. In conversations about grace and works Mormons are quick to quote: "faith without works is dead," (see James 2:20), often in reaction to extreme conservative Protestantism's claims that one can be saved by faith alone without a concurrent change in behavior and life wrought by that faith. In this respect, the Latter-day Saints share far more with the early Christians than they do with modern conservative Protestantism.

Members must also remember, however, that works without faith is also dead, and Heber seems to be trying to express that message.

Here we see an early example of a Church leader discussing "grace," though he still maintains a perspective in which works are essential. It is for us, today, to focus on today, and retain a remission of sins relying on Christ, as the light grows brighter and brighter until the perfect day, when the rest of this doctrine can be figured out more clearly. In the meantime, our probation continues, and Heber had a few pieces of advice to impart:

We cannot become perfect, without we are assisted by our heavenly Father. We must be faithful and of one heart, and one mind, and let every man and woman take course to build up and not pull down. See that you save your grain, that you may save yourselves from the wicked of the world. Try to take care of every thing that is good to eat, for this is the work of the Lord God Almighty, and we shall have times that will test the integrity of this people, that will test who is honest and who is not.

Omitting prayer is calculated to lead the mind away from those duties which are incumbent upon us; then let us attend to our prayers and all our duties, and you will know that brother Brigham and his brethren have told you of these things...

There are trying times ahead of you, do you not begin to feel and see them? If you do not, I say you are asleep. I wish that the spirit which rests upon a few individuals could be upon you, everyone of you, it would be one of the most joyful times that brother Brigham and I ever saw with the Saints of God upon this earth.

Question: If God was once like us, does that mean that God was once a sinner?

The idea that God may once have been a sinner is speculation

The idea that God may once have been a sinner is speculation. Many Latter-day Saints find the idea impossible, while others consider it a possibility. Latter-day Saints do not generally speculate on events that happened prior to the war in heaven.

The details of God's mortality and existence before the war in heaven are largely unknown and have not been revealed. We do not have an exact answer to this question. For some, however, the idea that God may have once been a sinner like us gives added hope and faith in the atonement, and its ability to ultimately make us without sin regardless of what we may have done.

But the question to ask is: "Does it really matter all that much?" Whether it is true or it is not, does anything change? Knowing details of God's previous mortality doesn't change the fact that our Heavenly Father is still our Heavenly Father, who loves us very much. He has perfect knowledge, flawless character, and all power, and we can therefore have perfect faith in his ability to save and exalt his children. He sent His first born son, Jesus Christ, to sacrifice Himself for us. He wants us to be "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."

Question: What do Mormons believe regarding the nature of angels?

Both the Greek angelos and its Hebrew counterpart, malak, simply mean "messenger"

Critics of Mormonism reject the LDS concept that angels were once mortal, claiming that angels are a special creation of God and that humans can never become angels. They quote Psalm 148:2 and 5:

"Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts...Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created."

It's all too easy to be tempted to look up Psalms 148꞉2 and Psalms 148꞉5 and see what's in the intervening verses. And in fact when one actually opens up one's Bible, rather than just throwing it upon the rostrum and thumping it for emphasis, one learns that verses 3 and 4 include the exhortation to praise God to the sun and the moon and the stars of light, the heavens of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens. God created everything, including us, and including angels and including the physical universe. There is no one-to-one relationship here that suggests that angels are not human species, merely humans at a different stage of development or playing a different role. That many today believe angels to be a different species of some kind is not an original Christian doctrine, nor is it an original Jewish doctrine.

Dahood explains that in the OT, "'his ministers' [is] another expression for the angels, described as ministerial servants ready to execute the sovereign will." Angels were messengers sent with a divine mission, and the parallelistic pair-structures of Psalms 148:2 indicate that in this case the angels in question were soldiers. McKeever and Johnson, as is typical of much of the modern North American Biblicist tradition that has arisen in the past century, anti-intellectual, anti-scholarly and deliberately cut off from exposure to centuries of European biblical scholarship, are confusing a general term with a specific, a title with the titleholder, so to speak.

Both the Greek angelos and its Hebrew counterpart, malak, simply mean "messenger." Ancient Jewish custom did borrow some rather bizarre imagery from Assyrian sources for some of its demi-divine beings such as cherubim, but cherubim-which are artistic conventions common to temple worship throughout the ages, and therefore symbolic and abstract-aren't angels, who are "real" beings. In any case, it is difficult to see how a scripture such as Psalms 148:2 would somehow limit God's capability to create angels at will, and however He will. But Biblicists have never let their belief in a naive omnipotence stop them from contradicting themselves when simple common sense would lead them to obviously inconsistent interpretations (because their interpretations are based on inconsistent assumptions).

Hickenbotham demonstrates how the LDS concept of angelology is more Biblical, ironically, than is the Biblicist view:

The scriptures often identify angels with ministering spirits. Psalms 104:4 rhetorically asks, "Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire...?" (see also Heb. 1:7) and Hebrews 1:13-14 reads, "But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits; sent forth to minister for them who shall be the heirs of salvation?" As has already been shown previously, we all existed as spirits before birth (see Matt. 18:10; note angels in this verse should be spirits). And men like angels often act as messengers of God (Hag. 1:13; Mal. 2:7; 3:1; Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27). That angels are in appearance as men and were actually called men by inspired writers is also attested to in scripture (Gen. 18:1-2; 19:1, 15; Ezek. 40:1-4; Matt. 28:2-6; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:3-4; John 20:1-12; Acts 1:10; Heb. 13:2; Rev. 21:17). We are likewise instructed that we are not to worship angels (Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9; see also Jud. 13:15-16). It is only when we read the account of an angel's appearance to John the Revelator that this injunction is explained. John records, "And when... I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel... Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets..." (Rev. 22:8-9). The angel thus identifies himself as a righteous man who had returned as an angelic messenger even as Moses, Elias, and others have done (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:4; Lk. 9:30). He was not just man's equal but a spirit brother (Rev. 19:10) and a son of God as man is (Num. 16:22; 27:16; Acts 17:22-24; Eph. 4:6; Heb. 12:9). Some Christians mistakenly conclude that angels are "sexless" because Matthew 22:30 seems to support this belief. This scripture implies nothing about the ability of angels to procreate but only states that they are unmarried (single). Since marriage and procreation are only part of mortal life and exaltation, it seems clear that unexalted angels, whether pre-existent spirits or resurrected beings will necessarily be single (See D&C 132:15-17).

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Quotations about deification/theosis from non-LDS Christians.

Contrary to many Church critics—who often come out of a late-19th, Latin-based Christianity that is unaware of some of the ancient currents in Christian thought—theosis has a long history in Christian thought.

Clement

• But they who with confidence endured [these things] are now heirs of glory and honour, and have been exalted and made illustrious by God in their memorial forever and ever. Amen.
• Clement says regarding those who become deified that “’they will be enthroned along with the other gods, who are set first in order under the Savior.’” Note that the “other gods” are clearly subordinate to the Savior, but yet are still entitled to be designated “gods.” [George W. Butterworth, “The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69, at page 161, quoting Stromateis 3.41.23-5.]

Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

• For the Lord is the good man of the house, who rules the entire house of His Father; and who delivers a law suited both for slaves and those who are as yet undisciplined; and gives fitting precepts to those that are free, and have been justified by faith, as well as throws His own inheritance open to those that are sons.

• ...but man receives advancement and increase towards God. For as God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always go on towards God.

• ...and to whomsoever He shall say, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you for eternity,’ (Mat. 25:34) these do receive the kingdom for ever, and make constant advance in it...

• our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of His boundless love, became what we are that He might make us what He Himself is...

Unsorted

• Melvin Lawrenz writes that a primary image of salvation for John Chrysostom is “that of human nature itself seated on the royal throne of Christ: ‘It is a great and wonderful thing, and full of amazement that our flesh should sit on high, and be adored by angels and archangels.’” Notice that worship by the angels is offered to those deified mortals on their thrones.

• Christoph Cardinal Schonborn quotes from another Homily of John Chrysostom: “’God gave us a share in his throne. The sitting at the right hand is the greatest honor, with nothing to equal it. This statement holds true of us also: we too are to sit with him on thrones…. Think of where Christ sits on his throne! ‘Above all principalities and powers! And with whom are you to sit on the throne? With him!’” Once again, notice that the ‘principalities and powers’ are subject to these deified mortals.

• Origen said that God could, if He chose, create other worlds after this one.

• Theodore Askidas, Bishop of Caesarea (ca. 540 AD) went so far as to suggest that those who are deified will join in creating other worlds.

• Dionysius the Areopagite suggested long ago that nothing could be more divine than to become ‘a fellow worker with God.’ Some are purified, he wrote, some purify others; some are being perfected, while others complete the perfecting initiation for others.

• The idea that the redeemed may help to save others is common in the patristic writings. Fortino quotes John of Damascus who says that the oil used during baptism makes us “anointed” [christous], transforming us into Christs.

• Ronald Heine, in his study of Gregory of Nyssa, states that such a one “becomes able to help others to salvation.”

• Turner quotes Methodius: “’Those who are deified become not merely Christians, but Christs.’”

• James T. O’Connor quotes the same from Augustine: “Not only do we become Christians, we become Christ.”

• Thomas Hopko quotes Basil: “’Spirit-bearing souls, illumined by Him, finally become spiritual themselves, and their grace is sent forth to others. From this comes knowledge of the future, understanding of mysteries, apprehension of hidden things, distribution of wonderful gifts, heavenly citizenship, a place in the choir of angels, endless joy in the presence of God, becoming like God, and, the highest of all desires, becoming God [theon genesthai].’” Notice that this illumination, though beginning in this life, continues into the next, where the redeemed are eventually deified.

• Cipriano Vagaggini quotes Cyril of Jerusalem: “’Baptized and clothed in Christ, you are engrafted on the Son of God…. Since you have become sharers with Christ, you may rightly be called christs.’”

• Walter Burckhardt quotes Cyril of Alexandria as having written that one who is redeemed “’shall come close to God and be of His family, and prove capable of saving others in time to come.’”

• Over one hundred years ago J. D. Davis wrote an intriguing article on the possibilities of sanctification after death. He concluded by writing: “who shall say that God may not safely go on creating new beings whom the host of those who are already perfected by trial and experience shall teach and train, thus filling up the great universe of God, whose limits no human eye has ever yet discovered? Nay, more, may he not go on forever enlarging and forever peopling this universe with happy beings?”

• Martin Luther defined the Christian as ’a Christ to the other,’ that is, to his neighbor.

• Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis (June 29 1943) wrote, in paragraph 46, that we are to “look to our Divine Savior as the most exalted and the most perfect exemplar of all virtues… [and to] bear witness by their conduct to His teaching and life;” he then cites I John 3.2. Paragraph 59 states that “it is for us to cooperate with Christ in this work of salvation, ‘from one and through one saved and saviors.’”
• In 1967 Pope Paul VI stated that the saved in heaven may “cooperate in saving their brothers.”

• Jesus taught that “he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do” (John 14.12). Thomas Oden remarks that this is “one of the most astonishing statements reported of Jesus.”

• Justin Martyr wrote that the Father teaches us “by the word to do the same things as Himself.”

• May we not ask: If the redeemed are to be enthroned with Christ, and do greater works than even Christ Himself did, is it not possible to conclude that they will at least also do the works of Christ—create additional worlds as He had done, and is still doing? May they not people those new worlds, and teach their inhabitants, and ultimately redeem those who are willing to keep the commandments, and live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God? Maximus the Confessor wrote that “all that God is, except for an identity in ousia [substance], one becomes when one is deified by grace.”

• Philip A. Khairallah presents some interesting thoughts on the above ideas. He is a priest of the Melkite Rite, of the Holy Orthodox Church of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, in communion with the Church of Rome. He cites II Peter 1.4, and Athanasius, and then writes that “the one and only aim of human life on earth is union with God and deification.” “Marriage is eternal…. [and] is another channel God has given to us for our deification.” He writes that “parents have a responsibility to their children in aiding them to grow in faith and wisdom, to achieve responsible adulthood, so that they too may seek their deification.”

• Cardinal Danielou wrote that one of the two purposes of creation is the “divinization of man.”

• Marta Ryk wrote that “Orthodoxy believes that God out of love created man for deification and theosis is the goal of every Christian without exception.”

• Lumen Gentium, a document from Vatican II stated that “the eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe, and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life.”

• In 1987 a group of Eastern Orthodox theologians wrote: “The value of the creation is seen not only in the fact that it is intrinsically good, but also in the fact that it is appointed by God to be the home for living beings. The value of the natural creation is revealed in the fact that it was made for God (something which is beautifully expressed in Orthodox iconography), i.e., to be the context for God’s Incarnation and humankind’s deification, and as such, the beginning of the actualization of the Kingdom of God. We may say that the cosmos provides the stage upon which humankind moves from creation to deification.”

⍗

Learn more about theosis or humans becoming like God

Key sources	Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link
FAIR links	Roger Cook, "'Christ, the Firstfruits of Theosis'," Proceedings of the 2002 FAIR Conference (August 2002). link D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, ‘Ye are Gods’'," Proceedings of the 1999 FAIR Conference (August 1999). link
Online	Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007)off-site Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002).off-site Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000).off-site Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 179. PDF link Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 209. PDF link David Bokovoy, "'Ye Really Are Gods: A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, by Michael S. Heiser'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [267–313] link Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000),471–594. direct off-site Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982), 38.off-site Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989), 27–33. off-site Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370.off-site Michael S. Heiser, "'Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [315–323] link Michael S. Heiser, "'You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82'," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [221–266] link John C. Hancock, "A Compelling Case for Theosis," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/3 (14 September 2018). [43–48] link Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18 no. 2 (1978), 193. PDF link Daniel O. McClellan, "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/8 (8 May 2015). [79–96] link Neal Rappleye, "'With the Tongue of Angels': Angelic Speech as a Form of Deification," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/11 (2 September 2016). [303–324] link Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review 8/2 (1996). [99–146] link David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review 11/2 (2000). [221–264] link Tom Rosson, "'Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A Review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [195–218] link Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone no. (Issue #1) (Winter 1975), 14–19. off-siteoff-site Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
Video	Christ, The Firstfruits of Theosis: Early Christian Theosis, Roger Cook, 2002 FAIR Conference Part 1:Early Christian Theosis Part 2:Early Christian Theosis Part 3:Early Christian Theosis Part 4:Early Christian Theosis
Print	Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20. David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109. Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here. K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55. Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170. Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94. Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37. Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
Bibliography on human deification	Aden, Ross, “Justification and Divinization,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 102-7. Aden, Ross, “Justification and Sanctification. A Conversation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 87-109. Allchin, A.M., Participation in God. A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Connecticut 1988). Andia, Ysabel de, Homo vivens. Incorruptibilite et divinisation de l’homme selon Irenee de Lyon (Paris 1986). Andia, Ysabel de, “Mysteres, unification et divinisation de l’homme selon Denys l’areopagite,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) 63 (1997): 273-332. Arroniz, J., “La immortalidad como deificacion en S. Ireneo,” Scriptorium Victoriense (Vitoria, Spain) 8 (1961): 262-87. Asendorf, Ulrich, “The Embeddedment of Theosis in the Theology of Martin Luther,” in Luther Digest 3 (1996): 159-61; English abridgment from Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990). Aubineau, M., “Incorruptibilite et divinisation selon saint Irenee,” Recherches de science religieuse 44 (1956): 25-52. Bakken, Kenneth L., “Holy Spirit and Theosis. Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 409-423. Balas, David L., Metousia Theou. Man’s participation in God’s Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Studia Anselmiana, volume 55 (Rome 1966). Bardy, Gustave, “Divinisation: According to the Latin Fathers,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite, ascetique et mystique doctrine et histoire (Paris 1957): 3, Columns 1389-1398. Baur, L., “Untersuchungen uber die Vergottlichungslehre in der Theologie der grieschischen Vater,” Theologische Quartalschrift 98 (1916): 467-91; 99 (1917): 225-252; 100 (1919): 426-444; 101 (1920): 28-64, 155-186. Bielfeldt, Dennis, “Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super psalterium,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997): 401-420. Bilaniuk, Petro B.T., “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. David Nieman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta, volume 195 (Rome 1973): 337-359. Blowers, Paul M., “Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Concept of ‘Perpetual Progress,’” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 151-71. Bonner, Gerald, “Augustine’s Conception of Deification,” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 369-85. Bonner, Gerald, “Deification, Divinization,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (W.B. Eerdmans 1999): 265-6. Bonner, Gerald, “’Deificare,’” in Augustinus-Lexikon 2 (1996): columns 265-7. Bornhauser, K., Die Vergottungslehre des Athanasius und Johannes Damascenus (Gutersloh 1903). Braaten, Carl E., ”The Finnish Breakthrough in Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 141-3. Bratsiotis, P., “Die Lehre der orthodoxen Kirche uber die Theosis des Menschen,” Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie. Klasse der Letteren XXIII/1 (Brussels 1961): 1-13. Brecht, Martin, “Neue Ansatze der Lutherforshung in Finnland,” Luther (1990): 36-40. Breck, John, “Divine Initiative. Salvation in Orthodox Theology,” in Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 105-120. Butterworth, George W., ”The Deification of Man in Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 157-69. Capanaga, Victorino, “La deificacion en la soteriologia agostiniana,” in Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 745-754. Carabine, Deirdre, “Five Wise Virgins. Theosis and Return in Periphyseon V,” in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. G. van Riel, J.C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven 1996): 195-207. Cavanagh, William T., “A Joint Declaration?” Justification as theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” Heythrop Journal 41 (London 2000): 265-280. Christensen, Michael J., “Theosis and Sanctification. John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 31 (1996): 71-94. Congar, Yves M.-J. (later Cardinal), Dialogue Between Christians. Catholic Contributions to Ecumenism (Newman Press 1966; 1st Paris 1964). Chapter 8 is entitled: “Deification in the Spiritual Tradition of the East’: 217-231; first published in La Vie Spirituelle 43 (1935): 91-107. Congar, Yves M.-J., The Mystery of the Temple (Newman Press 1962; Paris 1958); Appendix III: “God’s presence and his dwelling among men under the old and under the new and definitive dispensation,” 262-99. Corneanu, Nicolae, “The Jesus Prayer and Deification,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39 (1995): 3-24. Daley, Brian E., S.J., The Hope of the Early Church. A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press 1991). Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Divinisation,” in Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris 1957) 3: columns 1376-1389. Dalmais, Irenee-H., “Mystere liturgique et divinisation dans la Mystagogie de saint Maxime le Confesseur,’ in Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris 1972): 55-62. Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford 1992). Chapter 13 entitled “How to be Holy,” 250-273. Deseille, P., “L’eucharistie et la divinisation des chretiens selon les Peres de l’Eglise,” Le Messager orthodoxe 87 (1981): 40-56. Drewery, Benjamin, “Deification,” in Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honor of Gordon Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London 1975): 35-62. Edwards, Henry, “Justification, Sanctification, and the Eastern Concept of Theosis,” Consensus. A Canadian Lutheran Journal of Theology 14 (1988): 65-88. Ermoni, V., “La deification de l’homme chez les Peres de l’Eglise,” Revue du clerge francais 11 (1897): 509-519. Fairbairn, Don, “Salvation as Theosis. The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy,” Themelios 23 (1998): 42-54. Faller, O., “Grieschischen Vergottung und christliche Vergottlichung,” Gregorianum 6 (1925): 405-35. Ferguson, Everett, “God’s Infinity and Man’s Mutability. Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 59-78. Ferguson, Everett, “Progress in Perfection. Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita Moysis,” Studia Patristica 14 (1976): 307-14. Festugiere, A.-J., “Divinisation du Chretien,” La Vie Spirituelle 59 (1939): 90-99. Finger, Thomas, “Anabaptism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Unexpected Similarities,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 67-91. Finger, Thomas, “Post-Chalcedonian Christology. Some Reflections on Oriental Orthodox Christology from a Mennonite Perspective,” in Christ in East and West, ed. Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (Mercer University Press 1987): 155-69. Flew, Robert Newton, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology. An Historical Study of the Christian Ideal for the Present Life (Oxford 1968; 1st 1934). Flogaus, R., Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen 1997). Flogaus, R., “Agreement on the Issues of Deification and Synergy?,” Luther Digest. An Annual Abridgement of Luther Studies 7 (1999): 99-105; English abridgement of “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?,” Kerygma und Dogma 42 (1996): 225-243. Folliet, Georges, “’Deificari in otio,’ Augustin, Epistula 10.2,” Recherches Augustiniennes 2 (1962): 225-236. Ford, David C., “Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley. Variations on the Theme of Sanctification,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33 (1988): 288. Fortino, Eleuterio F., “Sanctification and Deification,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 192-200. Franks, R.S., “The Idea of Salvation in the Theology of the Eastern Church,” in Mansfield College Essays. Presented to Rev. Andrew Martin Fairbairn (London 1909): 249-264. Frary, Joseph, “Deification and Human Freedom,” Sobornost (London) 7 (1975): 117-126. Gross, Jules, La divinisation du Chretien d’apres les peres Grecs (Paris 1938). Recently translated. Gross, Jules, “Die Vergottlichung des Christen nach den grieschischen Vatern,” Zeitschrift fur Askese und Mystik 14 (1939): 79-94. Hartin, Patrick J., “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1.2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblica (Rome) 77 (1996): 477-492. Hartnett, Joanne J., Doctrina S. Bonaventurae de deiformitate (Mundelein 1936). Heine, Ronald E., Perfection in the Virtuous Life A Study in the Relationship between Edification and Polemical Theology in Gregory of Nyssa’s De Vita Moysis (Philadelphia 1975). Heintjes, J., “De opgang van den manschelijken Geest tot God volgens sint Maximus Confessor,” Bijdragen van de Philosophische en Theologische Faculteiten der Nederlandsche Jezuieten 5 (1942): 260-302; 6 (1943): 64-123. Hess, Hamilton, “The Place of Divinization in Athanasian Soteriology,” Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 369-374. Hinlicky, Paul R., “Theological Anthropology. Toward integrating theosis and Justification by Faith,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34 (1997): 38-73. Janssens, L., “Notre filiation divine d’apres S. Cyrille d’ Alexandrie,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensae 15 (1938): 233-78. Jenson, Robert W., Triune Identity (Philadelphia 1982): 103-148. Jenson, Robert W., “Theosis,” Dialog. A Journal of Theology (St. Paul, Minn.) 32 (1993): 108-112. Kamppuri, Hannu T., editor, Dialogue between Neighbors. The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church 1970-1986 (Helsinki 1986), passim. Kamppuri, Hannu T., “Theosis in the Theology of Gregory Palamas,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 153-6. Kantorowicz, Ernst H., “Deus per naturam, Deus per gratiam. A Note on Mediaeval Political Theology,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 253-77. Khairallah, Philip A., “The Sanctification of Life,” Emmanuel 96 (1990): 323-333; 394-397; 403-406. Kinghorn, Kenneth C., “Holiness: The Central Plan of God,” Evangelical Journal 15 (1997): 57-70. Kolp, A. L., “Partakers of the Divine Nature. The Use of II Peter 1.4 by Athanasius,” Studia Patristica 17 (1979): 1018-1023. Kretschmar, Georg, “The Reception of the Orthodox Teaching of Divinization in Protestant Theology,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 61-80; English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 156-9. Ladner, Gerhard T., “St. Augustine’s Conception of the Reformation of Man to the Image of God,” Augustinus Magister 2 (Paris 1954): 867-888. Ladner, Gerhart B., The Idea of Reform. Its impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers (Harvard 1959). Larchet, Jean-Claude, La Divinisation de l’homme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur (Paris 1996). Lattey, Cuthbert, “The Deification of man in Clement of Alexandria. Some further notes,” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1916): 257-62. Lawrenz, Melvin E., The Christology of John Chrysostom (Mellen Press 1996). Section entitled: “The Way of Salvation—Moral Accomplishment and Divinization:” 146-54. Linforth, Ivan M., “’oi athanatizontes:’ (Herodotus 4.93-96),” Classical Philology 13 (1918): 23-33. Lossky, Vladimir, “Redemption and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of God (London 1975; New York 1974; from the French of 1967): 97-110; article first published as “Redemption et deification,” in Messager de l’Exarchat du Patrarche russe en Europe occidental 15 (1953): 161-70. Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, La Deification de l’homme selon la doctrine des Peres grecs (Paris 1970), edited and introduced by Jean Danielou. These three articles were first published as “La Doctrine de la Deification dans l’Eglise Grecque jusqu’au xie Siecle,” Revue d’Histoire des Religions 105 (1932): 5-43; 106 (1932): 525-74; 107 (1933): 8-55; “La Doctrine de la Grace et de la Liberte dans l’Orthodoxie Greco-orientale,” Oecumenica 6 (1939); “La Beatitude dans l’Orient Chretien,” Dieu Vivant 15 (1950). Lot-Borodine, Myrrha, “La grace deifiante des sacraments d’apres Nicolas Cabasilas,” Revue des sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques 25 (1936): 299-330; 26 (1937): 693-717. Maddox, Randy L., “John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy. Influences, convergences and Differences,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 29-53. Mahe, J., S.J., “La sanctification d’apres saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie,” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 10 (1909): 30-40; 469-492. Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Theosis as a subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995): 37-48; first published in Luther und Theosis: Vergottlichung als Thema der abendlandischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990): 11-26; an English abridgment appeared in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 145-9. Mantzaridis, Georgios, The Deification of Man. St. Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition, translated by Liadain Sherrard (New York 1984). Marquart, Kurt E., “Luther and Theosis,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (Fort Wayne, Indiana 2000): 182-205. Marshall, Bruce D., “Ex Occidente Lux? Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Modern Theology 20.1 (January 2004): 23-50. Marshall, Bruce D., “Justification as Declaration and Deification,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 4.1 (March 2002): 3-28. Martikainen, Jouko, “Man’s Salvation. Deification or Justification?,” Sobornost 7 (London: 1976): 180-192. Mayo, Harold, John Wesley and the Christian East: on the subject of Christian Perfection, Masters Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, New York 1980. McCormick, K. Steve, “Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: an Eastern paradigm on faith and love,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26 (1991): 38-103. McCoy, J. D., “Philosophical influences on the doctrine of the Incarnation in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria,” Encounter 38 (Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis: 1977): 362-91. McDaniel, Michael C.D., “Salvation as Justification and Theosis,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992): 67-83; abridged in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 142-4. McDonald, Peter, “To become Gods: a saintly teaching,” Faith Magazine 30 (1998): 13-17. McDonnell, Kilian, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 1996). Chapter 9: “Taking the Robe of Glory from the Jordan--Divinization”; Chapter 10: “The Cosmic Jordan and the Robe of Glory—Divinization and Eschatology,” 128-55; and passim. McGuckin, John A., St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts (E.J. Brill 1994). Chapter Three: “The Christology of Cyril: 1. Redemptive Deification: Cyril’s presuppositions and major concerns”: 175-226. Merritt, John G., “’Dialogue’ within a Tradition: John Wesley and Gregory of Nyssa discuss Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 22 (1987): 92-116. Messner, R., “Rechtfertigung und Vergottlichung—und die Kirche. Zur okumenischen Bedeutung neuerer Tendenzen in der Lutherforschung,” Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie 118 (1996): 23-35. Meyendorff, John, “Remarks on Eastern Patristic Thought in John Scottus Eriugena,” in Eriugena: East and West, edited by Bernard McGinn and Willemien Otten (University of Notre Dame 1994): 51-68. Meyendorff, John, “Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition,” in Christian Spirituality III: Post Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupre and Don Saliers (New York 1989): 470-6. Moore, D. Marselle, “Development in Wesley’s thought on Sanctification and Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 20 (1985): 29-53. Morse, Jonathan, “Fruits of the Eucharist: Henosis and Theosis,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 17 (1982): 127-42. Mosser, Carl, “The Greatest possible blessing: Calvin and deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 55.1 (2002): 36-57. Musurillo, Herbert, From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings, with Introduction by Jean Danielou (New York 1979). Nellas, Panayiotis, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, translated by Norman Russell (New York 1987). Newman, John Henry Cardinal, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians (1895; 1st 1841 ff.). Chapter on Deification. Nispel, Mark D., “Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 289-304. Based on Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska. Nock, Arthur Darby, review article, in Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6. Norman, Keith E., Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University 1980. Norris, Frederick W., “Deification: Consensual and Cogent,” Scottish Journal of Theology 49 (1996): 411-428. Oroz Reta, Jose, “De l’illumination a la deification de l’ame selon saint Augustin,” Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 364-82. O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology. A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus (Oxford University Press 1995). Passim O’Keefe, Mark, “Theosis and the Christian Life. Toward Integrating Roman Catholic Ethics and Spirituality,” Eglise et Theologie (Ottawa, Canada) 25 (1994): 47-63. O’Shea, Kevin F., “Divinization: a Study in Theological Analogy,” The Thomist 29 (1965): 1-45. Perkins, Harold William, The Doctrine of Christian or Evangelical Perfection (London 1927). Peura, Simo, “Participation in Christ according to Luther,” in Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 164-8. Peura, Simo, “The Deification of Man as Being in God,” Luther Digest 5 (1997): 168-72; English abridgment of “Die Vergottlichung des Menschen als Sein in God,” Lutherjahrbuch 60 (1993): 39-71. Phan, Peter C., Grace and the Human Condition (Michael Glazier 1988): 132-138; 171-176. Piolanti, A., “La Grazia come participazione della Natura Divina,” Euntes Docete 10 (1957): 34-50. Places, Eduard des, “Divinization,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 3 (Paris 1957): columns 1370-1375. Plass, Paul, “Transcendent Time in Maximus the Confessor,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 259-77. Plass, Paul, “’Moving Rest’ in Maximus the Confessor,” Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984): 177-90. Popov, I.V., “Ideja obozenija v drevne-vostocnoi cerkvi” (‘The idea of divinization in the Ancient Eastern Church’), in Voprosi filosofij i psixogij 97 (1909): 165-213. Posset, Franz, “’Deification’ in the German Spirituality of the Late Middle Ages and in Luther: An Ecumenical Historical Perspective,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 84 (1993): 103-25. Preuss, K.F.A., Ad Maximi Confessoris de Deo hominisque deificatione doctrinam abnotationum pars I (Schneeberg 1894). Rakestraw, Robert V., “Becoming like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 257-69. Randenborg, G. van, Vergottung und Erlosung (Berlin). Rechtfertigung und Verherrlichung (Theosis) des Menschen durch Jesus Christus (‘Justification and Glorification (Theosis) of the Human Person through Jesus Christ’) (Germany, 1995). Ritschl, Dietrich, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 12 (1959): 388-99. Rius-Camps, J., El dinamismo trinitario en la divinizacion de los seres racionales segun Origenes (Rome 1970). Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Newman Press 1967; Paris 1948). Chapter Five: “The Greek Fathers: The Divinization of the Christian”: 65-88; and passim. Rondet, Henri, S.J., “La divinization du Chretien,” Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 71 (1949): 449-476; 561-588; reprinted and expanded in Rondet, Essais sur la Theologie de la Grace (Paris 1964): 107-200. Rufner, V., “Homo secundus Deus,” Philosophisches Jahrbuch 63 (1955): 248-91. Rusch, William G., “How the Eastern Fathers understood what the Western Church meant by Justification,” Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, ed. H.G. Andersen, T. A. Murphy, J. A. Burgess (Augsburg Press 1985): 131-142, notes 347-8. Russell, Norman, “’Partakers of the Divine Nature’ (II Peter 1.4) in the Byzantine Tradition,” in J. Hussey Festschrift (1998). off-site Ryk, Marta, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in the Deification of Man according to Contemporary Orthodox Theology,” Diakonia (Fordham University) 10 (1975): 24-39; 109-130. Saarinen, Risto, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogues 1959-1994 (Gottingen 1997). Saarinen, Risto, “Salvation in the Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. A Comparative Perspective,” Pro Ecclesia 5 (1996): 202-213. Saarinen, Risto, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 8 (1994): 3-13. Salvation in Christ. A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias (Minneapolis 1992) Sartorius, B., La doctrine de la deification de l’homme d’apres les Peres grecs en general et Gregoire Palamas en particulier, (Doctoral Thesis, Geneva 1965). Schmitz-Perrin, Rudolf, “’Theosis hoc est deification’. Depassement et paradoxe de l’apophase chez Jean Scot Erigene,” Revue des sciences religieuses 72 (1998): 420-445. Schonborn, Christoph, From Death to Life. The Christian Journey (Ignatius Press 1995; 1st German 1988). Chapter Two: “Is Man to become God? On the meaning of the Christian Doctrine of Deification”: 41-63, and passim. Schonborn, Christoph, God’s Human Face: The Christ-Icon (Ignatius Press 1994; 1st French 1976, 1978; 2nd German 1984). Passim. Schonborn, Christoph, “L’homme est-il fait pour devenir Dieu? Notes sur le sense chretien de la ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’ de l’homme,’ Omnis Terra 22 (1983): 53-64. Schonborn, Christoph, “Uber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergottlichung des Menschen,” Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und Spekulative Theologie (Freiburg) 34 (1987): 3-47. Schurr, George M., “On the Logic of Ante-Nicene affirmations of the ‘Deification’ of the Christian,” Anglican Theological Review 51 (1969): 97-105. Schwarzwaller, Klaus, “Verantwortung des Glaubens,” in Freiheit als Liebe bei Martin Luther, ed. Dennis Bielfeldt and Klaus Schwarzwaller (Frankfurt, 1995): 133-158. Sheldon-Williams, I. P., review article of M. Lot-Borodine, La Deification de l’Homme, in Downside Review 89 (1971): 90-93. Slenczka, Reinhard, “Communion with God as Foundation and object of theology--deification as an ontological problem,” Luther und Theosis, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio (Helsinki 1990); English abridgment in Luther Digest 3 (1995): 149-53. Snyder, Howard A., ”John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian,” The Asbury Theological Journal (Wilmore, Kentucky) 45 (1990): 55-60. Staniloae, Dumitru, “Image, Likeness, and Deification in the Human Person,” Communio 13 (1986): 64-83. Steely, John E., Gnosis: The Doctrine of Christian Perfection in the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Th. D. Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 1954). Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),60–65. off-site FAIR link Stolz, Anselm, The Doctrine of Spiritual Perfection (St. Louis 1946; 1st German). Stoop, Jan A. A., Die Deification Hominis in Die Sermones en Epistolae van Augustinus (Leiden 1952). Strange, C. Roderick, “Athanasius on Divinization,” Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 342-346. Stuckwisch, Richard, “Justification and Deification in the Dialogue between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremias II,” Logia. A Journal of Lutheran Theology 9 (2000): 17-28. off-site Telepneff, Gregory, and James Thornton, “Arian Transcendence and the Notion of Theosis in Saint Athanasios,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987): 271-77. Theodorou, A., “Die Lehre von der Vergottung des Menschen bei den grieschischen Kirchenvater,” Kerygma und Dogma (Zeitschrift fur theologische Forschung und Kirchliche lehre) 7 (1961): 283-310. Thunberg, Lars, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Open Court 1995; 1st Sweden 1965): especially 427-32. Thuren, Jukka, “Justification and participation in the Divine Nature,” Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Theological Journal of Finland: 1977): 483-99. Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., Greek Patristic Theology, Volume I: Basic Doctrine in Eastern Church Fathers (New York 1979); Chapter entitled: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”: 25-40. Turcescu, Lucian, “Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: an Orthodox Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 64-72. Turner, H.E.W., The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption. A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five Centuries (London 1952). Union with Christ. The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Eerdmans 1998). Several papers, by Mannermaa, Peura, Raunio, Juntunen, Jenson, Braaten, Bielfeldt, all dealing with Theosis. Vandervelde, George, “Justification and Deification—Problematic Synthesis: A Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38.1 (2001): 73-78. Volz, Carl A., Faith and Practice in the Early Church. Foundations for Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis 1983). Volz has a section entitled “Christ, the Giver of Deification”: 76-9. Wakefield, Gordon S., “Perfection,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 297-9. Walland, F., La grazia divinizzante (Asti 1949). Watson, Nicholas, “Melting into God the English Way: Deification in the Middle English Version of Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des simples ames anienties,” in Prophets Abroad. The Reception of Continental Holy Women in late Medieval England, ed. Rosalynn Voader (Cambridge 1996): 19-49. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis,” Theology Today (Princeton, NJ) 56 (1999): 29-43. Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “The Union of God and man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28 (1982): 83-98. Weser, H., S. Maximi Confessoris praecepta de incarnatione Dei et deificatione hominis exponuntur et examinantur (Dissertation, Berlin 1869). Wild, P. T., Divinization of Man according to St. Hilary of Poitiers (Mundelein 1950). Williams, A.N., “Deification in the Summa Theologiae. A Structural Interpretation of the Prima Pars,” The Thomist 61 (1997): 219-255. Williams, A.N., “Light from Byzantium: The Significance of Palamas’ Doctrine of Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 483-496. Williams, Anna Ngaire, The Ground of Union. Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford University Press 1999). Williams, Rowan, “Deification,” in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Gordon S. Wakefield (Philadelphia 1983): 106-8. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “A Note on the Iconoclastic Controversy: Greek and Latin disagreements about Matter and Deification,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18 (1980): 139-48. Wilson-Kastner, Patricia, “Grace as participation in the Divine Life in the Theology of Augustine of Hippo,” Augustinian Studies 7 (1976): 135-52. Winslow, Donald F., Dynamics of Salvation: A Study of Gregory of Nazianzus (1979); Passim. Wolters, Al, “’Partners of the Deity:’ A Covenantal Reading of II Peter 1.4,” Calvin Theological Journal 25 (1990): 28-44; with postscript 26 (1991): 418-420 Zwanepol, Klaas, “Luther en Theosis,” Luther-Bulletin. Tijdschrift voor interconfessioneel Lutheronderzoek 2 (1993): 48-73; English abridgment in Luther Digest 5 (1995): 177-81.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young

Notes

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 130; Chapter 8. ( Index of claims ) Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 219-220. ( Index of claims ) Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapters 3, 5. ( Index of claims ) Ed Decker, The God Makers Ed Decker, The God Makers II Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 226 and elsewhere. ( Index of claims ) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 1)

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 130; Chapter 8. ( Index of claims ) Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 219-220. ( Index of claims ) Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101. Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), Chapters 3, 5. ( Index of claims ) Ed Decker, The God Makers Ed Decker, The God Makers II Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised) (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 226 and elsewhere. ( Index of claims ) Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 1)

Notes