Chapter 1
ANOTHER Look AT THE GoD MAKERS
At the dawn of the third millennium, Mor-
monism (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints) enjoys a level of growth and recognition
unparalleled in its 168-year history. By the end of
1997 the LDS Church! had over 10 million mem-
bers worldwide, over half of whom (51.1%) lived
outside the United States” Although still small in
terms of absolute numbers (Mormons currently
make up only .17 of 1% of the world’s popula~
tion of 5.9 billion’), what this current membership
statistic does not adequately convey is the phe-
nomenal rate of growth which undergirds it. Es-
tablished with six members on April 6, 1830, it
took the LDS Church over a century to reach the
one million mark. In 1950 it had 1.1 million mem-
bers; by 1970, a span of just 20 years, it had more
than doubled its membership to 2.4 million. In
1980, with 4.6 million members, it had nearly
doubled once again. The current level of 10 million
members once more represents a doubling in
membership which has taken place in a litte less
than 20 years (1980-1997) As University of Wash-
ington sociologist Rodney Stark remarked in 1980,
Mormonism’s rate of growth represents nothing
less than “the rise of a new world religion
[with] a worldwide following comparable to that
of Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and
other dominant world faiths.”*
In his opening address at the 167th Semian.
nual General Conference (October 4-5, 1997),
President Gordon B. Hinckley, the presiding officer
of the LDS Church, in reflecting back upon the
events of the preceding year, which had included
the 150th anniversary of the Mormon pioneer
1, Strictly speaking, Mormon and Mormonism are nicknames. As in common speech, they will be used as
synonyms for LDS (Latter-day Saint) or the LDS Church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Church News (Salt Lake City), 1 November 1997.
Rodney Stark, “The Rise of a New World Faith,” Review of Religious Research 26 (September 1984): 18.2 + “Partakers of the Divine Nature”
trek into the Salt Lake Valley, noted: “The media
have been kind and generous to us. This past year
of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very exten-
sive, very favorable press coverage." One aspect of
that press coverage has involved probing ques
tions into the Mormon beliefs surrounding sal
vation and demonstrates the abiding interest of
non-Mormons in the Mormon doctrine of exal-
tation: the belief that the fullness of salvation in-
volves the divinization of the human person, ie.,
humans becoming gods’ Two examples, taken
from nationally recognized publications, will serve
to illustrate this interest in Mormon doctrine.
President Hinckley, in an interview with the
San Francisco Chronicle, which was printed in its
Sunday edition on April 13, 1997, was asked to
elaborate on the LDS view of God and salvation,
Qe There are some significant differences
in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons
believe that God was once a man?
‘A: I wouldn't say that. There was a cou-
plet coined, “As man is, God once was. As
God is, man may become.” Now that’s more
ofa couplet than anything else. That gets into
some pretty deep theology that we don't
know very much about.
Q So you're saying the church is still
struggling to understand this?
‘A: Well, as God is, man may become. We
believe in eternal progression. Very strongly:
Even more pointed was Time magazine's cover
story of the LDS Church in its August 4, 1997 is-
sue. The issue of human divinization was again
raised with President Hinckley in his interview
by Time.
Hinckley, “Drawing Nearer to the Lord,” 4.
Ibid,
Gordon B. Hinckley, “Drawing Nearer to the Lord.” Ensi
Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1992), 9, 297, 302.
“Musings of the Main Mormon,” San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, 13 April 1997.
David Van Biema, “The Empire of the Mormons: Kingdom Come,” Time Magazine, 4 August 1997, 56
At firs, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea
that men could become gods, suggesting that
“it's of course an ideal. It's a hope fora wishful
thing,” but later affirmed that “yes, of course
they can.” (He added that women could too,
“as companions to their husbands. They can't
conceivea king without a queen”) On whether
his church still holds that God the Father was
once a man, he sounded uncertain, “I don't
know that we teach it. I don't know that we
‘emphasize it... .T understand the philosophi-
cal background behind it, but I don’t know
alot about it, and I don't think others know a
lot about it?”
Arguably, it was because of such interviews with
the press as described above that impelled Presi-
dent Hinckley to add to his comments that “I per-
sonally have been much quoted, and in a few in-
stances misquoted and misunderstood. I think
that’s to be expected. ... You need not worry that
1 do not understand some matters of doctrine. I
think I understand them thoroughly, and it’s un-
fortunate that the reporting may not make this
clear.”
In his opening general conference talk Presi
dent Hinckley also pointed out that “We meet to-
day under very favorable circumstances... , Never
before has the Church had a better reputation
than it has now." Yet, as in its earliest years, the
LDS Church continues to be attacked for its doc-
trines and history. Perhaps no critique is better
known, or more notorious, than the film and its,
companion book, The God Makers. The book,
first published in 1984, was rereleased in an ex-
panded version in 1997
, November 1997, 4.
12, Ed Decker and Dave Hunt, The God Makers, updated and expanded (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House,
1994).Whatever else may or may not have been ac-
complished through its publication, The God Mak-
ers, a5 well as its sequel, The God Makers I have
served to highlight the full meaning of salvation
as defined by the LDS Church: exaltation, that is,
humans becoming gods, the very same doctrine
which had attracted the clear interest of the press
in their reporting on Mormon events and leaders
in 1997. Obviously the title chosen for these books
‘was no accident; it was used as something of a
summary statement. Through reference to the
doctrine of the LDS Church considered most ob-
jectionable, human divinization, the title epito-
mized the view of the authors that the LDS Church
“is not Christian at all but a revival of primitive
paganism in modified form?“ What is truly in-
triguing, however, is the nature of the Mormon
apologetic response.
In the years since the release of The God Mak-
ers in 1984, a body of literature has developed
which seeks to respond to the numerous charges
and accusations made against the LDS Church in
this and other similar critiques of the Mormon
faith. A key aspect of these LDS rebuttals has
been the explanation and defense of the LDS
doctrine of salvation; one common strategy for
doing so has been the use and citation of patris-
Another Look at The God Makers + 3
tic sources to demonstrate an ancient Christian
belief in a doctrine of human divinization." What
is at issue then is LDS soteriology (that is, the
LDS doctrine of salvation) and the extent to which
it can legitimately lay claim to being a variation
of an ancient theme. A survey of the literature
dealing with LDS soteriology during the past 25
years, a literature which now encompasses both
LDS and non-LDS responses, reveals that there are
at least four distinct yet interrelated ways of ap-
proaching the LDS belief that the fullness of hu:
‘man salvation involves the attainment of godhood.
‘The first way of analyzing the apparent
uniqueness of LDS soteriology can be called the
“patristic parallel” model." This approach, utilized
by LDS authors, seeks to show the basic continuity
between current LDS belief and teaching and the
beliefs and teachings of the ancient Christian
church, In other words, the essential point being
made is that LDS soteriology is neither a nine-
teenth-century novelty nor an un-Christian
understanding of the salvation made possible
through Jesus Christ. The work of the authors in
this category actually antedates the 1984 release
of The God Makers; and so, for the sake of preci
sion, their position will be referred to as the “pre-
1984 patristic parallel” model.
13. Ed Decker and Caryl Matrisciana, God Makers IT (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House, 1993).
14, Decker and Hunt, God Makers, 16
15. Since the term patristic will appear repeatedly throughout the course of this thesis, the following is offered
by way of definition. Broadly speaking, patristic refers to the Fathers ofthe Church, tha is, the great teach
ers and leaders of Christian history who are noted for their writings in defense and explanation of the
faith they believed had been handed down to them from the Apostles. The Fathers of the Church are cus-
tomarily designated as being either Latin or Greek and this reflects the fact that Church members who
lived in what came to be known as the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire spoke and wrote in Greek
while those who lived in what came to be known as the Western Roman Empire spoke and wrote in Latin.
While the word patristic, strictly speaking, can be used with ref
of the Church, for the sake of economy, within this thesis it will be used as a kind of shorthand to refer to
the Greek Fathers of the Church unless otherwise state.
16, Philip Barlow, “Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of Deification in Christian History,” Sunstone 8
(Sept/Oct 1983): 13-18; Keith Norman, “Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity.”
Sunstone 1 (winter 1975): 15-19.
rice to either the Greek or Latin Fathers4 + “Partakers ofthe Divine Nature”
‘The next category of writers to deal with the
claims of LDS soteriology can be described as
utilizing an “incompatibility” model. In this ap-
proach non-LDS authors seek to show that the
LDS doctrine of human divinization is funda-
‘mentally incompatible with Christian faith. This
view would maintain, at least implicitly, that the
Christian heritage of faith and doctrine is rooted
in the classic confessions of faith contained in the
conciliar creeds of first millennium Christianity,
that is, the undivided Catholic Church, composed
of two halves: one roughly corresponding to the
western half of the Roman Empire (whose spo-
ken language was Latin) and the other roughly
corresponding to the eastern half of the Roman
Empire (whose spoken language was Greek). For
the sake of accuracy two strains should be distin-
guished within this model: a “hard incompatibil-
ity” approach” and a “soft incompatibility” ap-
proach."* The former regards LDS soteriology, as
well as the LDS Church in general, to be pagan
and even Satanic, whereas the latter is content to
simply conclude that LDS belief is sui generis."
Another way of approaching LDS soteriology
can be described as the “post-1984 patristic par-
allel” model. As was the case with the “pre-1984
patristic parallel” methodology, this body of LDS
literature also seeks to draw upon patristic texts
to establish the legitimacy for the LDS conception
of human salvation. What distinguishes it from
the earlier “patristic parallel” model is its specific
awareness of and reaction to the “incompatibility”
model, which was most notoriously worked out
in The God Makers.
Additionally, some authors in this category
have begun to explicitly differentiate or contrast
LDS and patristic descriptions of human salvation,
‘Thus, for the sake of precision, one can distinguish
a “hard post-1984 patristic parallel” approach”
from a “soft post-1984 patristic parallel” model.”
The former, like the “pre-1984 patristic parallel”
model, ses a genuine similarity between LDS and
patristic teachings while the latter finds, to a
greater of lesser degree, only a nominal similarity
Writers who adopt a “soft post-1984 patristic par:
allel” methodology ground the differences found
17. Decker and Hunt, God Makers; Decker and Matrisciana, God Makers II
18. William Taylor, A Tale of Two Cities: A Comparison between the Mormon and the Catholic Religious Expe-
riences, 2nd ed. (Pocatello, idaho: privately printed, 1980).
19. As will be seen, it is of no little significance that this category only represents Latin Christians, that is,
Christians whose heritage stems from that portion of the ancient Catholic Church that existed in the west
crn, Latin-speaking part of the Roman Empite.
). Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Con-
versation (Downers Grove, IIL: InterVarsity, 1997), 80-81, 83, 208-9 n, 9; Darrick T. Evenson, “Man Can
Attain Godhood: Ancient Evidence for Modern Mormon Doctrine," in The Gainsayers: A Converted Anti-
Mormon Responds to Critics of the LDS Church (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1989); Stephen E. Robinson,
‘Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 60-70; idem, “LDS Doctrine Compared with
Other Christian Doctrines” in Jesus Christ and His Gospel: Selections from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
ed, Daniel H. Ludlow (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 132-37; Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth About
“The God Makers” (Salt Lake City: Publishers, 1986), 77-79
Robert L. Mille, The Mormon Faith: A New Look At Christianity (Salt Lake City: Shadow Mountain, 1998),
175-77, 192-94; idem, “What We Believe,” delivered at the weekly Brigham Young University devotional in
the Marriott Center on February 3, 1998; Daniel C, Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How
‘Anti-Mormons Play Word Gams to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Aspen Books, 1992), 75-92.in patristic doctrine, relative to LDS doctrine, in
an apostasy of the ancient Christian Church
A final, non-LDS stance towards LDS soteri-
ology can be characterized as the “patristic in
compatibility” model. While this approach is
similar to the “incompatibility” model insofar as
it too maintains that Christian doctrine cannot be
reconciled with the LDS understanding of salva
tion, what distinguishes it is an awareness of and
reaction to the “post-1984 patristic parallel”
model. Moreover, as was the case with the “
compatibility” model, there are two kinds of “pa
tristic incompatibility”: one “hard” and one “soft”
The “hard patristic incompatibility” mode!*
is simply dismissive of any patristic evidence that
humans can become gods because it would (ap-
parently) involve these patristic authors in a poly-
theism which is manifestly contrary to their un-
ambiguous professions of monotheism. There is
also the subtle inference that any “patristic parallel”
‘model involves an attempt to usurp or escape from
the normative role of the sacred scriptures which,
within the context of this model, are understood
to be opposed to any sense of salvation which in-
volves a divinization of the human person.
The “soft patristic incompatibility” model,
while approaching LDS soteriology with a much
more nuanced view, still finds it incompatible
with a Christian understanding of salvation.
Specifically, this “soft” version of the “patristic
compatibility” model maintains that while there
are apparent similarities between LDS and pa-
tristic writings, there are no genuine similarities.
Attempts at using patristic texts to demonstrate
such a similarity with LDS doctrine involve a dis-
tortion of such texts. Similarly, while not rejecting
Another Look at The God Makers + 5
outright the belief that humans can share in the
divine nature, this mode! holds a highly attenu-
ated view of what such a sharing would entail.
While humans can share in the divine nature by
possessing the moral attributes of God, e.., good-
ness and holiness, the metaphysical gap or divide
between Creator and creature is never bridged.
Humans can become “like” God, but in no real
sense do humans “become” gods."
‘As can be seen from these four general ways
of evaluating LDS soteriological claims, an accu-
rate and comprehensive understanding of patris
tic soteriology will be indispensable if any useful
comparison is to be drawn between it and LDS
belief. While one can easily (or pethaps simplis-
tically) summarize the patristic understanding of
salvation with the term theosis or human di-
vinization, the challenge comes in “unpacking”
this doctrine of theosis—in determining its mean-
ing and in understanding the process by which it
is attained. Moreover, in exploring this patristic
understanding of human salvation, one rapidly
realizes that patristic soteriology cannot be
meaningfully described apart from Christology
(which deals with the doctrines regarding the
person of Christ), anthropology (which deals
with the doctrines regarding the nature of the
human person), or sacramentology (which deals
with the doctrines regarding the sacraments). In-
sofar as these other, related areas of theology im-
pinge on the question of human salvation, they
too will need to be incorporated into this project.
Similarly, a clear description of LDS soteriol-
ogy, shorn of all half-truths and sensationalism,
will prove essential if there is to be any hope of a
useful comparative analysis. And while the LDS
22, Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, “Do You Really Believe You Can Become a God?” in Questions to Ask Your
Mormon Friend: Effective Ways to Challenge a Mormon’s Arguments Without Being Offensive (Minneapo-
lis, Minn. Bethany House, 1994).
23, Blomberg and Robinson, How Wide the Divide?, 106-7, 110.
24, See note 19 in this chapter.“Partakers of the Divine Nature”
doctrine of salvation can be succinctly summa
tized with the term “exaltation,” the task at hand
is to understand the meaning of this possible fu
ture human state and the way in which it can be-
come an existential reality. As was noted above
with regards to patristic theology, other areas of
LDS doctrine which are linked to soteriology will
necessarily require inclusion so as to achieve a clear
and balanced presentation.
‘The purpose of this thesis, therefore, will be
‘twofold: first, to engage in a sustained investiga-
tion into the content of both patristic (chapter 2)
and LDS (chapter 3) soteriology and second, to
systematically compare these soteriologies to de
termine not only their commonalities but the sig-
nificance of their differences as well (chapter 4).
The corollary to this second purpose will be to
examine the ramifications of soteriology for one’s
doctrines of deity and the nature of the human
person, But since chapter 4, with its comparative
analysis of two distinct systems, comprises the real
heart of the thesis, a word of explanation needs
to be given regarding the two essentially exposi-
tory chapters that precede it (chapters 2 and 3).
Tt will be important to keep in mind that the
presentations of patristic and LDS doctrines of.
feted in chapters 2 and 3 do not pretend to be the
last word on the subject. These chapters do not
offer a history of the development of the doctrines
of theosis or exaltation; nor are they apologetic at-
tempts to prove or justify these doctrines through
appeal to scripture, tradition, or reason. Such his-
torical or apologetic approaches fall outside the
limited scope of this thesis. Instead, what will be
provided is a concise yet accurate present-day un-
Norman, “Divinization’ 15,
derstanding of the doctrines under investigation
which can then be analyzed for the sake of com-
parison. The primary heirs of the patristic un-
derstanding of salvation as theosis are members
of the Orthodox Church; hence, the majority of
the secondary source material for that section of
the thesis explaining theasis comes from twentieth
century Orthodox historians, theologians, and
church leaders. Similarly, the presentation of the
doctrine of exaltation will be based upon both
the official statements and scriptures of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well
as the explanations of this doctrine penned by
reputable Mormon scholars who remain in good
standing with their Church.
‘That there is need for a full-length study such
as this was clearly recognized by the LDS authors
who adopted a “pre-1984 patristic parallel” model
for discussing LDS soteriology. In his 1975 article
juxtaposing Mormon and patristic teachings on
salvation, Keith Norman described Christian his:
torians as unwilling to explore the topic of hu-
man divinization; in fact, “they tend to dismiss
such talk of the deification of man as a curious
aberration, not worthy of serious consideration,
or at least to tone it down enough so that it es-
capes notice.”* While noting that Jaroslav Pelikan’s
discussion of theosis in The Emergence of the
Catholic Traditiore* was a “notable exception”” to
the dismissive attitude he perceived, Norman
sounded a call for others to “probe and elucidate
this heretofore sadly ignored aspect of the history
of Christian thought.” His 1980 doctoral disser-
tation, “Deification: The Content of Athanasian
Soteriology.”® while significant for patristic studies,
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A
History ofthe Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971).
Norman, “Divinization,” 1,
Ibid, 19.
Keith Norman, “Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1980;
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies Occasional Papers 1 (2000).was not able to return to the connection between
Mormon and patristic soteriologies, which he
had begun to raise in 1975." When Philip Barlow
in 1983 again made the connection between Mor-
mon and patristic conceptions of human salva-
tion he, like Norman, was not able to provide an
in-depth study given the limitations inherent in
an article about six pages long, a fact which he
frankly admitted: “Space limitations prevent a
thorough study."
Another significant reason for the present
study arises from the work of both the “pre-” and
“post-1984” patristic parallel authors. In a num-
ber of places they stress the idea that the patristic
doctrine of theosis has either evaporated from the
content of current Christian belief or has under-
gone significant changes which in some way have
altered the purity and force of earlier formulations.
Norman, representative of the former viewpoint,
states that “the doctrine of Divinization could not
survive in the church's theology proper . .. today
defenders of orthodoxy cringe at the full implica-
tions of Paul's hope for the saints to come ‘unto
the measure of the fullness of Christ’ (Eph. 4:13)”
Likewise the following from Peterson and Ricks:
“Indeed, if the Latter-day Saints were inclined to
do so, they could point out that they alone, among
contemporary followers of Jesus, seem to possess
the ancient Christian doctrine of theosis.”” Peter-
son and Ricks are also representative of the latter,
(alteration) viewpoint, and they maintain that “It
is certain that the ancient doctrine had under-
30, Norman, “Divinization,” 15-19.
31. Barlow, “Unorthodox Orthodoxy”
32. Norman, “Divinization,” 18
33. Peterson and Ricks, Offenders for a Word, 92
34, Ibid., 76-77.
35. Barlow, “Unorthodox Orthodoxy,” 15.
Another Look at The God Makers + 7
gone massive dislocations by the time it reached
the sixteenth century. ... We suspect, in fact, that
even relatively late statements on theosis represent
the Hellenization of an earlier doctrine—one that
‘was pethaps much closer to Mormon belief”™ In a
similar vein it is postulated that the Trinitarian and
Christological formulations of the early church
in some way redefined the essential content of the
patristic doctrine of theosis.” Although none of
these comments are developed or substantiated,
the fact that they are not is understandable given
the space or length constraints of the authors
who at least raised these issues. Nevertheless, this
illustrates once again the need for a more exten-
sive study that could examine and test these
provocative ideas. If even before the release of
The God Makers in 1984 scholars felt a need for
something along the lines of this current project,
the need and the questions have only intensified
in the intervening years.
‘That something is to be gained in undertak
ing a study such as this flows from a belief that
despite the ecclesiological and theological divisions
that separate the followers of Jesus Christ, those
very divisions can be a source of meaning and
light. In his Foundations of Christian Faith’ the
‘twentieth century Catholic theologian Karl Rahner
(1904-1984) cogently presents this argument for
the good which can be derived from the evil of
Christian disunity.” One way in which rival the:
ologies can be of service to one another is through
their ability to exercise a “corrective influence?*
36. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1978).
37. Although Rahner originally wrote in the context of Catholic/Protestant dialogue, his comments are of
fered as being equally applicable to any dialogue seeking to engage theologies flowing from ecclesia bod
ies which understand themselves to be Christian,
38, Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 3678 + “Partakers ofthe Divine Nature”
A faith community that experiences no external
challenge or opposition can overemphasize one
doctrine at the expense of another. Likewise, nu-
ances that are needed to accurately grasp the
content ofa particular doctrine can fade from the
consciousness of a faith community over time if
there is no pressing reason or need to make them
explicit. Therefore a rival theology, insofar as it
offers unacceptable answers to the same doctri-
nal questions, can serve as a catalyst for the accu-
rate and balanced reexpression of those doctrines
which are held to be true. This corrective influ-
ence inherent in comparative studies of alterna-
tive belief systems has also been highlighted by
Roger R. Keller, a professor of LDS-operated
Brigham Young University, in Religions of the
World: A Latter-day Saint View: “By learning
about other people's faith we also learn about our
own. The important elements in other religions
enrich the tapestry of ours as we are reminded of
truths of which we may have lost sight, even
though they are present in our own tradition.”
Moreover, Rahner points out that rival theologies
can also serve to bring about greater clarity as
each side seeks to “perceive and experience
more clearly” what is distinctive and unique
within its own tradition as opposed to alternative
possibilities.”
Given this understanding of what can be ac-
complished through theological dialogue and in-
teraction, itis hoped that this exploration of the
doctrines of theosis and exaltation, and then the
consequent comparative analysis, will be of par-
ticular interest to at least three distinct groups of
people: members of the LDS Church, members
of churches that are descended from the ancient
western or Latin Catholic Church (Latin Catholics
and Protestants), and members of churches that
are descended from the ancient eastern or Greek
Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox and Eastern
Catholics). Members of the LDS Church will dis-
cover unmistakable evidence that their funda-
mental belief about human salvation and potential
is not unique nor a Mormon invention." Latin
Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine
of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their
ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the
undivided Catholic Church of the first millen.
nium, Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern
Catholic Churches will discover on the American
continent an amazing parallel to their own belief
that salvation in Christ involves our becoming
“partakers of the divine nature.
‘The responsibility that participants in theo-
logical dialogue have for one another was aptly
expressed by Rahner when he wrote, “we have to
force each other mutually to be and to become as
Christian as possible, and to understand what is
really radical about the Christian message a little
better”® To the extent that the following chapters
fulfill this responsibility, the effort involved in
their production will have been justified
. Roger R. Keller, “Restoration Fulness,” in Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View, ed. Spencer J
Palmer etal, 2nd ed. (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1997), 273,
Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 369.
Significantly, in Palmer et al, Religions of the World, no reference is made to the doctrine of theosis in its
survey of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
2 Peter 1:4, King James Version (hereafter referred to as KJV).
Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 369.