old discussions from some mormons argue that even assuming mainstream christianity's definition of god's omnipotence and omniscience not only can god exalt mortal man but god must do so i don't understand this sentence i don't know what the issue is supposed to be to which mormons are contributing their argument i don't know what it means that god must exalt mortal man nov utc agreed it is not clear what the writer meant i have no idea who wrote it but i'll change it sorry for that very brief and very confusing statement where it reads omniscience it should have read omnibenevolence the idea is that the mormon meaning of deification is supported even by mainstream christianity's definition of god's omnipotence and omnibenevolence in contrast to mormonism's less literal definition of god's omnipotence namely if god really is omnipotent then god can deify mortal man and if god really is also omnibenevolent then not only can god deify man but god's goodness compels god to deify man nov utc much more clear thanks nov utc this does raise a question for me and since i argued with my wife today and lost concerning who should have the car this morning i am in the mood to ask it should omnipotence and omnibenevolence imply as your argument holds that making gods out of created beings is something that god must do then why do you not expect that every person would be exalted for that matter is god too small to exalt animals vegetables rocks or sand perhaps the argument assumes the same shallow and useless understanding of omnipotence and omnibenevolence as atheists do argumentatively yourse dec utc i am curious being orthodox we believe that god's benevolence includes allowing mankind to have free will to choose holy ways or not to work toward theosis or not if it is mandantory that god exalt mortal man what does that say for what mormons believe about free will and why it does or doesn't exist i changed the nature of god is to become the nature of man to the nature of god is to become united with the nature of man this is an important distinction this union of the two natures first took place in the incarnation of jesus christ when the two natures were joined in christ's one person god's divine nature is unfathomable and will never be understood by us much less become completely ours theosis is rather our participation in god's divine energies as described defined by gregory palamas and union with his nature we will still never be divine in quite the same way that god is divine we will still always possess a human nature only it's just that that human nature will be thoroughly healed and cleansed and united with the divine nature at least that's my current understanding references available and corrections remain most welcome dec utc excellent dec utc entire sanctification i'm pretty sure that it is tolerable to teach entire sanctification in the eoc although i'm sure that it isn't a doctrine in the sense of being something necessarily believed therefore i would like to remove the disclaimer sentence in the opening paragraph which says but this is not a doctrine of orthodoxy dec utc the eoc abbreviation threw me for a minute my first assumption was evangelical orthodox church which my local parish used to be part of until not that long ago then i realized you probably meant eastern orthodox church right gotta love these tla's especially with regard to denominations anyway entire sanctification is probably one of those teachings that isn't officially affirmed or denied by eastern orthodoxy in large part because the doctrine of entire sanctification was formed in a different context and in response to different questions and answers than anything eastern orthodoxy has really needed to directly confront in a similar vein i haven't been able to get a straight answer from anyone as to what orthodoxy thinks of semi pelagianism closest i've come is orthodoxy deals with different questions or orthdoxy would pose the question differently and then answer that other question like this coming back to entire sanctification the closest thing to an official position i can think of is just a story of a monk telling his abbot that he had finally arrived and was no longer experiencing