Friday, July 20, 2007

The Doctrine of Deification

It is indisputable that Latter-day Saints believe that God was once a human being and that human beings can become gods. The famous couplet of Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the LDS church, states:

As man now is, God once was;

As God now is, man may be.fn

It has been claimed by some that this is an altogether pagan doctrine that blasphemes the majesty of God. Not all Christians have thought so, however. In the second century Saint Irenaeus, the most important Christian theologian of his time, said much the same thing as Lorenzo Snow:

If the Word became a man,

It was so men may become gods.fn

Indeed, Saint Irenaeus had more than this to say on the subject of deification:

Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High."... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.fn

Also in the second century, Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god"fn-almost a paraphrase of Lorenzo Snow's statement. Clement also said that "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 a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, 'Men are gods, and gods are men."fn

Still in the second century, Saint Justin Martyr insisted that 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."fn

In the early fourth century Saint Athanasius-that tireless foe of heresy after whom the orthodox Athanasian Creed is named-also stated his belief in deification in terms very similar to those of Lorenzo Snow: "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."fn On another occasion Athanasius stated, "He became man that we might be made divine"fn-yet another parallel to Lorenzo Snow's expression.

Finally, Saint Augustine himself, the greatest of the 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."fn

Notice that I am citing only unimpeachable Christian authorities here-no pagans, no Gnostics. All five of the above writers were not just Christians, and not just orthodox Christians -they were orthodox Christian saints. Three of the five wrote within a hundred years of the period of the Apostles, and all five believed in the doctrine of deification. This doctrine was a part of historical Christianity until relatively recent times, and it is still an important doctrine in some Eastern Orthodox churches. Those who accuse the Latter-day Saints of making up the doc- trine simply do not know the history of Christian doctrine. In one of the best works on Catholicism, Father Richard P. McBrien states that a fundamental principle of orthodoxy in the patristic period was to see "the history of the universe as the history of divinization and salvation." As a result the Fathers concluded, according to McBrien, that "because the Spirit is truly God, we are truly divinized by the presence of the Spirit."fn

In The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, which is not a Mormon publication, the following additional information can be found in the article titled, "Deification":

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 OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; 2 Pet. 1.4 and it is essentially the teaching both of St Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9-17 Gal. 4.5-7 and the Fourth Gospel (cf. 17.21-23).

The language of II 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 the corollary of the Incarnation: 'Deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfilment 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.fn

Whether the doctrine of deification is correct or incorrect, it was a part of mainstream Christian orthodoxy for centuries, though some modern Christians with a limited historical view may not be aware of it. If this doctrine became "the standard in Greek theology," and if "deification is the goal of every Christian," then the Latter-day Saints can't be banished from the Christian family for having the same theology and the same goal. If Saint Irenaeus, Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Maximus the Confessor, and Saint Symeon the New Theologian all believed that human beings can become gods, and if these good former-day saints are still to be counted as Christians, then the Latter-day Saints cannot be excluded from Christian circles for believing the same thing. In fact this doctrine is not pagan, nor is it foreign to the larger Christian tradition.fn Since it is found among the theologian/saints from Justin Martyr in the second century to Simeon the New Theologian in the eleventh century, Joseph Smith obviously did not make it up.

There is often much more to the history of Christianity and of Christian doctrine than just what seems familiar and comfortable to twentieth-century conservatives. Yet even among conservative Protestants the doctrine of deification is still occasionally found. Paul Crouch of the Trinity Broadcasting Network says: "I am a little god. I have His name. I am one with Him. I'm in covenant relation. I am a little god. Critics begone."fn Robert Tilton, a Texas evangelist, says that man is "a God kind of creature. Originally you were designed to be as a god in this world. Man was designed or created by God to be the god of this world."fn Kenneth Copeland, also of Texas, tells his listeners, "You don't have a god in you. You are one!"fn He writes that "man had total authority to rule as a god over every living creature on earth."fn

Now, in fact, the Latter-day Saints would not agree with the doctrine of deification as understood by most of these evangelists, for in the LDS view we receive the full divine inheritance only through the atonement of Christ and only after a glorious resurrection. Closer to the Latter-day Saint understanding of the doctrine are the views expressed by C. S. Lewis, an individual whose genuine Christianity is virtually undisputed: "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you[sa[w] it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.fn

Elsewhere Lewis writes that the great promise of Christianity is that humans can share Christ's type of life (Greek zoe rather than bios) and thus can become sons and daughters of God. He explains:["[Christ] came to this world and became a man in order to spread to other men the kind of life He has-by what I call 'good infection.' Every Christian is to become a little Christ."fn In words reminiscent of those used by the Christian Fathers as well as Lorenzo Snow, Lewis succinctly states: "The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God."fn

In a fuller statement of his doctrine of deification, Lewis practically states the LDS view:

The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.fn

If C. S. Lewis can think of human beings as "possible gods and goddesses," if he can maintain that "He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess," and if he is still to be considered a Christian-then how can the Latter-day Saints be excluded from the Christian family as rank pagans for believing exactly the same things?fn

Critics of the Latter-day Saints may respond that the early Christian saints, the later Greek theologians, and C. S. Lewis all understand the doctrine of deification differently than the Latter-day Saints do, but this is untrue in the case of the early Christians and C. S. Lewis. Anyway, such a response amounts to a quibble, for it retreats abjectly from the claim that deification is a pagan doctrine wholly foreign to true Christianity. It argues instead that deification is a Christian doctrine misunderstood by the Latter-day Saints (and abandoned by most others, I might add). But if that is true, then the doctrinal exclusion is no longer valid when based on this doctrine, for-whether the Latter-day Saints interpret it "correctly" or not-deification is not a doctrine they made up out of thin air or borrowed from ancient paganism, nor is it totally foreign and repugnant to true Christianity, nor does it violate the broad limits of what has historically been considered Christian.

It should be noted here that the LDS doctrine of deification is often misrepresented. Despite what our critics claim, the Latter-day Saints do not believe that human beings will ever become the equals of God, or be independent of God, or that they will ever cease to be subordinate to God. For Latter-day Saints, to become gods means to overcome the world through the atonement of Christ (1 Jn. 5:4-5; Rev. 2:7, 11). Thus we become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 4:7) and will inherit all things just as Christ inherits all things (1 Cor. 3:21-23; Revelation 21:?). There are no limitations on these scriptural declarations; we shall inherit all things-including the power to create and to beget. In that glorified state we shall look like our Savior (1 Jn. 3:2; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18) we shall receive his glory and be one with him and with the Father (John 17:21-23; Philip. 3:21). Sitting with God upon the throne of God, we shall rule over all things (Luke 12:44; Rev. 3:21 ).

Now, if the Christian scriptures teach that we will look like God, receive the inheritance of God, receive the glory of God, be one with God, sit upon the throne of God, and exercise the power and rule of God, then surely it cannot be un-Christian to conclude with C. S. Lewis and others that such beings as these can be called gods, as long as we remember that this use of the term gods does not in any way reduce or limit the sovereignty of God our Father. That is how the early Christians used the term; it is how C. S. Lewis used the term; and it is how the Latter-day Saints use the term and understand the doctrine.

President Snow often referred to this couplet as having been revealed to him by inspiration during the Nauvoo period of the Church. See, for example, Deseret Weekly 49 (3 November 1894): 610; Deseret Weekly 57 (8 October 1898): 513; Deseret News 52 (15 June 1901): 177; and Journal History of the Church, 20 July 1901, p. 4.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk. 5, pref.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.38. Cp. 4.11 (2): "But man receives progression and increase towards God. For as God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always progress towards God."

Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1.

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1. See also Clement, Stro-mateis, 23.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124.

Athanasius, Against the Arians, 1.39, 3.34.

Athanasius, De Inc., 54.

Augustine, On the Psalms, 50.2. Augustine insists that such individuals are gods by grace rather than by nature, but they are gods nevertheless.

Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 1:146, 156; emphasis in original.

Symeon Lash, "Deification," in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson and John Bowden (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), pp. 147-48.

For a longer treatment of this subject, see Jules Gross, La divinisa-tion du chrétien d'aprè les pères grecs (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1938).

Paul Crouch, "Praise the Lord," Trinity Broadcasting Network, 7 July 1986.

Robert Tilton, God's Laws of Success (Dallas: Word of Faith, 1983), pp. 170-71.

Kenneth Copeland, The Force of Love (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland, n.d.), tape BCC-56.

Kenneth Copeland, The Power of the Tongue (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland, n.d.), p. 6. I am not arguing that these evangelists are mainline evangelicals (though they would insist that they are), only that they are Protestants with large Christian followings.

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), p. 18.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952; Collier Books, 1960), p. 153. Cp. p. 164, where Lewis describes Christ as "finally, if all goes well, turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new little Christ, a being which, in its own small way, has the same kind of life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity." See also C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1982), p. 38, where the tempter Screwtape complains that God intends to fill heaven with "little replicas of Himself."

Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 154.

Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 174-75. For a more recent example of the doctrine of deification in modern, non-LDS Christianity, see M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) pp. 269-70: "For no matter how much we may like to pussyfoot around it, all of us who postulate a loving God and really think about it even- tually come to a single terrifying idea: God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We are growing toward godhood."

Most critics are surprised to know how highly the thinking of C. S. Lewis is respected by Latter-day Saint readers.

See, for example, John Strugnell, The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran -4 Q Serek Sirot 'Olat Hassabat in Supplements to Vetus Testamenturn VII [Congress Volume, Oxford 1959], (Leiden: Brill, 1960), pp. 336-38, or A. S. van der Woude, "Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neuge-fundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI," Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 ( 1965): 354-73.

James S. Ackerman, "The Rabbinic Interpretation of Ps. 82 and the Gospel of John," Harvard Theological Review 59 (April 1966): 186.

J. A. Emerton, "The Interpretation of Ps. 82 in John 10," Journal of Theological Studies 11 (April 1960): 329, 332. This was also the view of Saint Augustine in writing of this passage in On the Psalms, 50.2: "It is evident, then, that he has called men 'gods,' who are deified by his grace" (cf. also 97.12).

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 7.10.


(Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991], 65.)

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi I really enjoyed your article. I am an Evangelical Christian who has been taught that men can not become "like God" because this lie was told to Adam and Eve in the garde, and caused them to be exiled from God. However, when one reads this story, one does not ever come across God himself stating that mankind can not or will not become like God, only that they received this information prematurely and from the wrong source and without proper knowledge, and therefore can not handle the implications of this position.

One problem I see over and over again with LDS explanations of this doctrine of theosis is that LDS authors confuse the word "God" with a capital "G" and the word "god" with a small "g", using them interchangably. When I was in the effort of refuting this doctrine several years ago, I looked up the word "God" in Hebrew in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and found that the word has two entries, not one. The first entry refers to God (capital G), as an uncreated, self-existent being, who is never-changing, was never born, never dies and is constant and non-evolving or progressing. The second entry refers to god (little g) and literally means "rulers, magistrates, governor, priests, kings, angels/messenters", and sometimes it also means "idols". This very seemingly minor difference is actually a very, very big deal: While men and women may become gods and goddesses (rulers, magistrates, governors, priests, kings, messengers) and sometimes make themselves or each other into idols of worship taking away the proper worship of God (the self-Existent, uncreated, non-progressing being who made all things), mankind can never become "God" (the self-existent/uncreated being). You yourself pointed out very accurately that, according to LDS belief, mankind can never be on the same level as or replace God/the self-existent,uncreated, and it is our station to remain beneath him, but "a little higher than the angels", in enjoying all that God wants to give us, which would be everything that He is while remaining "in charge" of us and our head. Therefore the only real problem I have with LDS explanation is the interchange of the capital "G" and small "g", when clearly capital "G" belongs to the self-existent/uncreated being, and small "g" belongs to mankind, who, as the Book of Hebrews teaches will become priests and kings beneath Christ. While this is a very small complaint, it confuses things, and to me who knows this, causes me to wonder if LDS writers and thinkers are aware of this small problem with written language (I am sure that those who have it pointed out will understand and correct such a small error). Once this is explained to Evangelical Christians, they may be more accepting of the very old doctrine of Theosis, as I myself now am. However I have come a very long way in my scholarship in order to consider this truth and would never share this information with anyone in my family or religious circles, because of persecution. Evangelical Traditionalists often see themselves as the "only" group who can properly interpret Biblical Texts and it is very difficult to get into a discussion with them, as they rattle off millions of Biblical scriptures to refute you and you get lost in the argument - many do not listen or think, explore or examine "where did this idea originate, and by what thinking process did another scholar arrive at this conclusion?" Once I asked this question I was able to go along a different route of scholarship and came to the same conclusion that LDS and early Christian fathers have - that Theosis is the Godly design for mankind.

My other "problem" is that you personally do not address the idea that God the Father once lived on a planet as a human being with parents and another God above him. This truely is offensive to Traditional Christians because the very word "God" in Hebrew and Greek refer to an uncreated and self-existent deity. When Moses asks God what his name is in Exodus 3:13+, God, which in Hebrew is EL and literally means "self-existent/uncreated" tells Moses that his name is "I AM THAT I AM" which means YHWH/Jehovah, and is properly translated as "Salvation". The root of the word Jehovah is the basis for the name Joshua, which was and is Jesus' Hebrew name, which has been Anglicized into "Jesus" over the centuries. Therefore Jesus certainly does equate himself with Jehovha, the name of his Father, the uncreated as the same being, not as another God beneath him - both of which are one and indivisible and bring Salvation to all mankind.

This means that, not only is God the Father an unchanging and eternal being who was never created and never evolved from a lower to higher position (from man to God), but that Jesus is, in fact, the very same being as this God, and proves so by using this God's name, which in the ancient world was a very important type of identification of truth.

Therefore, Christianity through the centuries from Jesus Christ and on would continue to refute with you that God 1) had human parents, 2) was "created" by any other divine being who was before him 3) evolved and progressed into the God he is now 4) is a separate and distinct individual from Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit

When Joseph Smith had his "first vision" a beam of brilliant light came down from heaven and settled OVER him, causing him to experience God from the "inside" of the beam of light. This causes me to wonder if he saw all the aspects of God from the "inside", and was surrounded in such a way as to feel like he was surrounded by several "mirrors" all reflecting inward the same thing toward him - one being with many "aspects", but not separate in any way. This theology is what divides Traditional Christians from LDS Christians - that God was created by another God, and that God and his Son Jesus Christ are also ONLY separate. The Biblical Scriptures refer to God as a "seven-fold" spirit, of which mankind has only been introduced to three of these "folds" - the word "fold" indicating one undivided object that has designated "areas" (if you can understand what I am trying to explain): in makind a military sword, it was shown on a movie once that the molten metal must be folded and folded layer upon layer in order to give the metal strength. The film described that the molten metal receives several thousand folds, causing the end resulting sword to be as strong as to withstand several thousand pounds of pressure. Yet, despite all these "folds" we have one unified and indivisible sword. We Traditional Christians do not dispute with LDS that God has displayed himself in 3 separate manifestations as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we just ALSO contend that while God can display himself severally, he is ALSO indivisible and one being. This is VERY important to us expressly because Moses left Egypt to leave behind many gods in favor of ONE God, and this simple theology is the very basis of everything that became the Judaism that Jesus taught and that Christianity is built on. To divide God, to cause God to be "lesser" than his parent and grandparent Gods - this is of great concern for the Biblical Christians. Yes the phrases you quoted about man becoming like God because God was once a man is true only because Jesus, who is God and united as one and indivisible with God his Father and the Holy Spirit did become a man in order to deify or "glorify" us (bring us into exaltation). The phrases you quoted never mean that God the Father had ever been a man, instead referring to the humanity of Jesus Christ ONLY. For us, God the father can NEVER have dwelt on an earth and progressed to where he is now. JEsus Christ, his SON (in hebrew the word "son" means legal representative, not genetic descendent)manifested a portion of the uncreated being's greatness to us in a way tha twe could mentally and spiritually receive God, since we can not withstand all of God at one time - we are to weak for this.

Therein lies the Traditionalist Christians difference with the LDS Christians - not the doctrine of Theosis, but the origin of God and his severe separateness from his own other aspects and manifestations. Is there no way that the LDS can agree that God has no origin and is truely eternal?

Cynthia Krueger
cynthia21918@juno.com

Anonymous said...

I came across your "Docterine of Deification" about a year ago in preparation for a gospel docterine class I was preparing for. I had lost track of it and fortunatley remembered enough about it that I was able to find it agian on the internet tonight. It is excellent! Just one question...has the format of your blog changed? I just want to make sure I have found the document I was looking for.