Commenting on the doctrine of theosis (AKA: apotheosis; divinization; deification), Latter-day Saint scholar Blake Ostler wrote the following about the possible views available to a theology of deification:
1. Absolute Deification. We can be identical to God.
2. Robust Deification: We become the same kind of being as God.
3. Moderate Deification: We become like God in the sense that, although there are ontological differences that cannot be bridged, these differences can nevertheless be blurred by sharing the divine energies.
4. Weak deification: We become something remotely like God in an analogical sense, but there is a vast difference that can never be bridged.
5. Adeification: We cannot be anything like God at all.[1]
In 2 Pet 1:4, we read the following (emphasis added):
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Commenting on this text from the perspective of Robust Deification, Ostler writes:
Just what does it mean to say that we partake or share in the divine nature? First, it must be noted that the term for “nature” (φύσεως phuseos), is used throughout the New Testament and has a semantic range that largely coincides with the English meaning of “nature.” It refers to the nature of things as fixed by law or natural order established by God. It refers to the order of things established by the Logos or reason. Thus, it is in the scope of the semantic range to interpret it to refer to participating in the very nature of God in the sense that we can partake of the same order of things which includes God. For example, Galatians 4:8 states, “Ye knew not God, ye did service to them which by nature (φυσει, phusei) are not gods.” Here, “nature” quite clearly means “to [not] be the same kind” as God. When Paul speaks of women “acting against their nature” (φυσιν, phusin) in Romans 1:26 he obviously means that they act against the kind of being that they are and contrary to the natural order that defines their kind. In Galatians 2:15, Paul speaks of those who “are Jews by nature” (φυσει, phusei) meaning that they are Jews by birth. Thus, it is quite appropriate to interpret this statement to mean that humans are the same natural kind as God in the sense that they are the same kind of being. They both belong to the kind “divine.” Such a reading supports the robust deification view.
However, it is not unusual to participate in or share a nature in the sense of κοινωνοι (koinonoi) because it means to be a partner in sharing or to share fellowship. Quite clearly, the sense of the passage is that the divine nature if something we share that has been imparted or given from God to humans. We share the divine nature in the sense that a gift is shared as a matter of grace from God. The sense most likely is that God shares what he is with us and that we participate in his nature because it dwells in us and changes our nature to be what he is . . . The believer in robust deification will most likely take “divine nature” in its stronger sense to mean that God shares his life with us; and in so doing, we become the same kind that God is in a familial sense. If the Stoic meaning of “nature” is the correct context to interpret this scripture, then such a reading is further supported. In other words, the proponent of robust theism will take “nature” to mean that we have all the essential properties to be the same kind of being that god is when actualized in a relationship of loving, living, vibrant, indwelling unity. This divine nature is by its very nature a “participated likeness,” as Aquinas calls it, because it is not possible to possess it alone or as a matter of merely intrinsic properties. The divine life grows and flourishes only in the context of loving and growing relationships with others. It cannot be possessed alone or merely by virtue of whatever “nature” one has as an individual. The divine nature is necessarily relational.[2]
Notes for the Above:
[1] Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books,) 360. Ostler correctly argues that LDS theology teaches Robust Deification.
[2] Ibid., 392-93, 395