Can Men Become Gods?

Host Martin Tanner We have three hours to spend together this evening until 10 o 'clock to discuss

Something that I think will be a value to you. The topic tonight is deification

We're going to be talking a little bit about That because several months ago

I received from Reverend James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona a

Proposal that we have a show on this topic Reverend White has put together a

Series of pamphlets and tracts if you will one of which is Entitled one

God a response to Mormon Mormon apologists and in it He says modern

LDS apologists like to cite passages from early patristic sources Asserting that the early fathers taught that men could become gods.

Is this true? This Then is is the topic for our discussion tonight

I think that first of all before we jump right into it. We ought to welcome to our studios

Reverend White from Phoenix, Arizona. Thanks for joining us tonight. Good to be back with you Thank you, and we also have in studio tonight van

Hale. Welcome to our studios man Thank You Martin, it's good to be back again.

All right, and Why don't we do it this way if we could why don't we start off with what was sort of an opening statement if you will and Sort of formulate the basic issues here.

And then if we could I'd like to Sort of narrow them a little bit, you know maybe

Maybe Reverend White can get some concessions out of out of van and I and we can get a few out of him and we

Can narrow the issues a little bit and see where we're gonna see where we're gonna go from here since the the real issue

It seems to me here is Is whether or not? Latter -day

Saint views are Are accurate that men can become what like God's why don't we start off with you van and and have you give a statement?

about The LDS position or your beliefs as a member of the LDS Church and then

Reverend White. Why don't you? Give give your opening remarks. If that'd be all right Go ahead van.

Okay the actually I was I wasn't thinking so much in making a statement of the

LDS position on that as I was Making a statement in reference to the letters and material that have passed back to you and then on to me from from James White and Also in I I thought

I would make a comment regarding the doctrines of early Christianity as as I see it and so it's not so that I can perhaps be in a position of Discussing with James tonight

My position rather than maybe the positions that some other Latter -day Saints have taken

But as I have looked at the doctrine of early Christianity In fact the doctrine of all the early

Christians of whom I believe we have any knowledge that their doctrines was to their doctrine was diverse and And in fact their doctrine was diverse on such basic doctrines as the nature and identity of God the deity of Jesus salvation

The Canon and authority of Scripture Ritual and ceremony and also the church and as I have looked at the beliefs doctrines of those in the earliest centuries of the

Christian era I would have to concede that None of the dark that the doctrine is not identical with the doctrine of the

LDS Church as I have experienced it I would also have to concede that if I were to pick

Any any of the any Christian of the first several centuries? I?

Couldn't pick one that I believe would be That I would agree with totally doctrinally in fact there would be some substantial difference

Differences me coming from my LDS point of view and in him coming from his early

Christian point of view But as I am familiar also to the extent at least to which

I am familiar with particularly Protestant Christianity and The born -again movement and those the doctrine of those who typically are critics of the

LDS Church I would also have to say the same thing about their doctrine. I Don't see the doctrine of the

Christians of the earliest centuries being identical with modern Christianity either

And in fact to take this just a little step further I Would use a common.

I'm going to use the common anti -mormon construct And in doing so I would say that when the doctrine of such modern

Christians is James White and Walter Martin Ed Decker Dick and Dick Bearer Is compared with that of such early

Christians as Ignatius here in a Irenaeus Clement Tertullian Origin and Augustine They have a different God a different Jesus different plan of salvation a different church and a different Bible By the standard which they use to condemn

LDS doctrine every Christian. We have record of In at least the first five centuries also stands condemned

When comparing this modern Christianity early Christianity and LDS Christianity none are identical

James White can demonstrate That some views of some early Christians harmonizes with his position

He can also show that some views of some early Christians are not in harmony with LDS doctrine

But if you were to look further with an open mind I believe that he would find that most of the

LDS doctrines that he objects to do have significant and substantial parallels among Christians of the early centuries and I think that he would also find that The four or five of the doctrines that he presents as being essential major doctrines of Christianity Were not widely accepted in the first several centuries of Christianity That's my statement and making the concessions that I I wanted to make in that regard

And and I would assume that those concessions would would apply to this area of deification

Which is our special area of interest tonight? Absolutely Reverend white well the reason that I wrote to you initially

Martin was because a year ago We were here in this situation and in that a conversation you may recall that this issue was brought up and You for example were had this book in your in your possession that time

Martin And you're reading a number of the quotations from Stephen Robinson's are Mormons Christians again with reference to the concept of men becoming gods and so Since that day

I had all of a book that I have written called letters to a Mormon elder and my Bible with me and nothing else

When I put this information together I wanted to send it to you and since we were up here for the conference weekend and Outside the gates yesterday passing out tracts and witnessing the people

I felt that Maybe you'd be interested in going into more depth on the information that you had to presented last year during this time

And so what I sent to you Included a little pamphlet that I developed that you mentioned one got a response to Mormon apologists.

It's interesting Initially I began work on this in response to a book you may have seen called the gainsayers

By a man by the name of Derek Evenson or Troy Lawrence depending on which direction you want to go on Identifying the gentleman after I had begun work

On a section from Derek Evenson's book Which a number of LDS still have in fact just yesterday outside the gates of the temple a

LDS couple Attempted to hand me a photocopy of the section out of Robinson's book a staple together with a section out of Derek Evenson's book

I'm sure that mr. Robinson would not be happy about the conjugation of his materials with mr.

Evenson's materials, but be that as it may I began working on this in response to mr

Evenson's materials because he showed up out the Mormon Easter pageant in Mesa, Arizona and was making his presence known out there

And so I wanted to begin working on this and that's why I sent this to you

And then I also forwarded a letter to you that I had written to two BYU professors in regards to a 1988 ensign article

Occurred in the March 1988 ensign magazine It was entitled

Comparing LDS beliefs with first -century Christianity by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D.

Ricks and I forwarded that to you as well and because it dealt with the the same topic

The first the first LDS person who ever brought up the subject of theosis or deification

In regards the LDS faith to me Was van Hale and van may recall we were in a radio studio together at that time and It was on a secular station in Phoenix, Arizona And we were on for about three hours that day and I recall van reading a couple of quotations used to have a

Card box with you van. I almost didn't recognize you without it today And you had read some quotations with regards that that topic and I recall that my initial

Reaction and question to you was do you find any early church fathers who taught that God the father?

Himself was once a man who progressed to godhood And at that time you had indicated to me that you did not know of any early church fathers

Who taught that God the father was once a man who lived on another planet and progressed to godhood and That was the first time

I heard of that First time they've been presented to me since then since Robinson's book has come out since Derek Evenson's book came out since this article and the end sign was pointed out to me just recently

I had I had received that end sign, but some reason had not noticed the article in it Since all these things have been produced

I feel that there is a real need to clarify the issues in regards to what is the doctrine of deification and what did the early church fathers believe about the nature of God and In the materials that I've forwarded to you van

Could have come to you through through Martin. I believe that I make it very very clear

That in looking at the doctrine of theosis of deification we must remember as a

Foundational thing and this is what I find to be missing in Robinson's book I certainly found it to be missing in the end sign article is that the early church fathers as van said?

We're very diverse in their beliefs But as I have lectured on the early fathers in in teaching church history,

I have made the following statement If you want to find pretty much the one thing

That the early church fathers were agreed upon in regards to doctrine if you if you can find any one thing

It is in reference to the fact that God has eternally been

God that God is as they put it ah guinea toss without beginning without generation that God has eternally been

God and Mono theism in that sense that God has eternally been

God that there has never been God's before him that he did not derive his Power from any other source is something that not only can be found throughout the fathers

But interestingly enough the sources that for example Peterson and Rick's used in their ensign article make those points very very clearly and I hope that we'll have some opportunity of looking into some of those things as we proceed in an examination of this and What I'd like to do is to Is to ask van he he specifically said

I'm not going to attempt to Defend another Latter -day Saints view of this topic and that's that's fine

But in reference to the things that came up the last time that we were together and I don't know

I wasn't as far along as 86 That probably probably about 1986 that we had that initial conversation down Phoenix When you bring up the doctrine of theosis

What do you feel its relationship to the Latter -day Saint faith is if you could define that?

that would help me in differentiating between Possibly your perspective on it and the perspective that I find in in LDS materials that are being being produced today

That also bring up the issue. I don't know that there would be any that I would be at odds for example with Peterson and Ricks or or Any of the others that have written on the subject?

I just it's just you know I I don't really I would really rather defend my own position than to and to try and defend their position but To just to make a brief statement on that.

I what I see in the writings of the early church fathers Is an idea which has has pretty much disappeared from Western Christianity And this has been all the historians

Historians of doctrine are saying that it was it was there in the early centuries

It fell out of favor. It did it. There was a problem that that it faced because of the homoous doctrine and it survived

And has survived down to the present in the Orthodox Eastern Orthodox faith much more substantially

Because of a difference in their point of view on the Relationship between the father and the son a kind of a fine point

I didn't really want to bring out only that the only that it has it's something that was in Western Christianity In the early centuries and it and it just simply is not around.

I mean there there are people I've seen collections things from CS Lewis and other authors

Who who are still acknowledging the idea today, but basically The idea that I'm seeing in these in the early

Christian writers is that man has an absolutely incredible potential And that the ultimate of salvation is to become like God and to become gods now in saying that The early

Christian fathers as far as I can see we're not We're not suggesting in any way that That they believed in in polytheism

Which of course is the same the same point can be made within the

LDS faith. I've never heard of a single LDS theologian or a single

LDS authority talking on our our doctrine our belief in in deification and eternal progression

I've never heard one of them suggest that we are polytheists. That's not It comes down to a fine distinction in what we're talking about So what

I see the early Christian fathers saying is that men have an incredible potential. They're not

That they have the potential of inheriting all that Christ has inherited and there are differences

I mean some of them some of them are Suggesting some of the position of some of the early fathers was that this is something which comes about by grace.

It's a gift Others are our teaching that no, it's not it's not just a gift

It's something that you acquire something that's given to an individual as he progresses and it's something that comes about through a progression of Obedience to God and living the commandments and so forth

Which would which that I idea would certainly be more more parallel to the LDS point of view than the idea that it's

It's simply given by grace Let's get a response here from Reverend white and then

I will be obligated to take a few phone calls since this is talk radio Okay. Well, first of all,

I just want to make it very clear I as time will will permit would like to address some of the things that van said in his opening statement about The doctrine of God and Ignatius I think

I could challenge van that's that my doctrine of God is as identical to Ignatius in the doctrine of God In fact, it just finished a paper in response to the

Watchtower Society's gross misrepresentations of Ignatius's view of God Jesus Christ on so forth, but in regards to this particular issue

I I need to make an emphasis upon the fact that When I read the Peterson and Rick's article, for example

It seems very clear to me that There is a parallel being drawn here that there is some attempt to say well if early church fathers believed in deification then upon what basis can you complain that Latter -day

Saints believe in deification and the point that I think needs to be presented is the fact that the viewpoint presented by those early fathers who believed in a doctrine of deification and theosis is radically different than the perspective that is presented by the

LDS Church and what I mean by that is that Foundational to their to their entire beliefs and this can be found in in for example, you have

J and D Kelly's book there near you in GL prestigious book and in regards to God and the fathers

Absolutely foundational to to all of Christian thought Is the fact that God alone is omnipotent.

He is one who's created all things He is invisible they they decried any type of polytheism and I'd like to go into what you believe polytheism is

Because I think that the phrase plurality of gods and polytheism are in fact interchangeable They are they're absolute monotheists.

They believe that God has always been God. He's never been anything but God and in fact the very sources that Pearson Rick's site

Tell us that the idea that men can become God by nature was an absurd blasphemy to the

Christian people that the Christian people felt that polytheism a belief in a plurality of gods as I would see it is foolishness and hence the whole concept of deification as They would state it would not in any way shape or form be parallel to or even semi

Supportive of what we find for example in Joseph Smith's King Follett funeral discourse where he says you have got to learn to become gods yourselves the idea that God himself was once a man lived on another planet was and has progressed and become exalted the status of godhood and what the early fathers said about men becoming gods are two completely and totally different things and to not bring out the fact that the early church fathers believe that there is only one true and almighty

God and that this foundationally alters what they meant by deification when talking about deification

I find to be Dishonest to the early fathers and what they believed well,

I It's a serious thing. Yeah, but but the fact is James is that I think you what what you need to be willing to do is you need to be willing to allow

Latter -day Saints to to state and itemize their own doctrine, okay

For for example when you talk about When when you talk when you look at the writings of the early church fathers

You're obviously interested in trying to draw a contrast between those and and the

LDS points of point of view One thing that you that you do as you're summarizing.

This is your summarizing I would not accept your summarization. You're bringing too many too many people into Together into a common point of view

The idea of absolute monotheism was certainly was not The position of all of the early church fathers are you talking about could you name some that were polytheists at all?

Well, say there's no sense bringing up polytheism because I've already indicated I don't believe any of them suggested a belief in polytheism nor do

Latter -day Saints. What do you how many polytheists? Okay, then then could you show me any who believe in a plurality of God's and I'm using that in for example

Bruce R. McConkie Mormon doctrine page 270 as pertained this universe There are three gods the

Father Son and Holy Ghost all the supposed deities are false gods Poplar's and Pratt's are there more gods than are particles of matter

On and on I mean there there are so many passages I could pull out Bruce R. McConkie's promised

Messiah here where he talks about the fact there There are gods plural with the within it with an F in your own scriptures.

You have a plurality of God's now obviously in There's there's a God's plural in your own scriptures, too

I don't think I'm talking about your point specifically about the book of in in your Pearl of Great Price the book of Abraham Where the

Bible says God did this God did that throughout the book of Abraham? It says the gods did this and the gods did that a clear change there that the point being that Yes in in the

Bible for example the gods of the peoples are idols Psalm 96 5 But that doesn't mean that that's polytheism now

I'm trying I'm using the term simply in the sense of an if you have more than one true

God you're a polytheist if you have two true gods You're a polytheist because obviously poly many theism

God you're aware of where that comes from well That's that's not that certainly is not a

Justifiable Application though James because polytheism has reference more than just to something like that.

That's like monotheism Monotheism in its in its absolute form is referring to one being

Without any equals without any divisions, and there is simply no way possible of applying the term monotheism to trip to Trinitarianism If you ask in if you ask any

Jew whether or not the Protestant Trinitarian concept is polytheistic

They will say yes, of course you just demonstrated I think possibly misunderstanding the doctrine of Trinity van because if you're familiar with any systematic theologies

You know that is strongly asserted for example anyone go out and pick up burkhoff's one -volume systematic theology the

Christian faith and in his doctrine The Trinity it is strongly asserted there is only one being of God And there is no division in the being of God whatsoever and so Monotheism has always been applied by Christians to their belief in the fact that there is only one being of God who has eternally been

God the point being that the concept of theosis in the early fathers in no way shape or form

Contradicts that statement because the individuals did not believe that God and man are of the same species well that that's applying your terminology and your your construct to it, but Going back to the your comment about my understanding of the

Trinity what what I'm saying is this Is that when you say that there are? Three persons the father the son and the whole and the

Holy Spirit who are numerically distinct They're not ontological, they're not they're not three names

For it for one person they're not three different modes of operation or authority or or whatever

You're talking about three numerically distinct persons each of whom is God you cannot

Within the Within the parameters of the definition of monotheism call that monotheism otherwise, that's totally otherwise, okay?

Well, then people who set up a parameter can even agree with that. Okay. Well, let me ask you this then How would you define me?

What term would you use then to define? the belief in one lone person

Unitarianism one lone person Who alone is God Unitarianism?

And and that's different from monotheism. No No, both a unitarianism is a monotheistic belief as is

Islam as is Judaism and as is biblical Christianity But the point is again if I I don't believe that you're denying that LDS people believe in the plurality of gods

Are you well, it depends. It just depends. It depends on how you define the charge And we're trying to get to the bottom here of how you define your terms because if you use monotheism as Defined by the

Jewish faith Then you would be a polytheist if you define it a little bit differently You would not if you define it a little bit differently still

Latter -day Saints would not it depends on how you define the terms there is there is one true God and since we're talking about the early

Church Fathers we will why don't we use their definitions the definition they had is there is one

God who has eternally been God He is our guinea toss. He is without beginnings without origin He's the fountain of all things all things depend upon him

He is dependent upon none other you can find this in Tatian. You can find this in Irenaeus You can find this in numerous of the of the fathers

Foundational to that belief is the fact that they asserted that man is a creature Man is created by God man is dependent and derivative and man differs at a foundational level level from the nature of God Now let me ask you van.

Do you believe that man and God differ ontologically in other words? Is are we of the same species as God I believe that we are however,

I'm not I'm not prepared to allow you to Simply speak for all of the early

Christianity because we're not well If you'd like to point out where they disagree with what I was saying

I would very much be willing to do so right, but I will point that out right now. Okay. I'd be glad to hear it

Yeah, as you look at the As you look at the well -known

Discussions and debates that went on for centuries within early in early Christianity in regard to the question of the

Trinitarian kinds of questions you have a number of different views that are being advocated and in fact in the earliest views and J and D Kelly brings us out in his book and discusses it and you quote from him.

I'm assuming that you're familiar with his Presentation one of the earliest points of views was that Yes, indeed.

There is one God monotheism, but the one God did not include Jesus this

For example was Kelly brings out in his book early

Christian doctrines the one of the earliest points of view held by a number of Christians was that Jesus was the pre -existent wisdom spoken of in Proverbs and That the pre -existent wisdom

Was it is clearly in Proverbs presented as a creation of God and that idea went by the way?

So I fairly clearly, but I well, I think it's very clearly. I just we can open up and read it I mean, that's what it says maybe

But it does say that you you can read you understand that the term translate created means a number of different things

You're probably with the linguistic. Well, well the point is the point is is that this idea? Disappeared before too long and the reason that disappeared the idea

The presentation of Jesus's as being the pre -existent word the logos that sort of idea that idea

Persisted whereas the idea of Jesus being the pre -exist being the pre -existent wisdom through which

God created has that disappeared it was displaced because of the problem of The the idea there in Proverbs of Wisdom being a creation of God and not being you know, not being co -eternal

So well, in other words, the logos idea is clearly presented in John 1 and in Colossians 1 and so in other words people

Are you saying people recognize that? Attempting to identify Jesus's wisdom and making him a creation So that's contradictory with John is not a wise thing to do.

Now. What I'm saying is that as as the debate Went on as the controversy proceeded

Certain ideas fell by the wayside that's one of the ideas one of the early ideas, of course was the idea that that Jesus was a man who was adopted the the adoptionist point of view that Jesus through at the time of his baptism or at the time of his resurrection one of those two points depending upon the

I Agree that certain ideas fell by the wayside because as you studied the Bible more and learn more of it

You do you discover that? Well, I can't hold that position because it's it's contradictory with what's over here I think church history is a whole picture of that.

That's not what Kelly's saying though In fact, let me just read to you a statement that he makes

What what he's suggesting is that the Okay I'm looking at page 87 in his book early

Christian doctrines and he's what he's pointing out is that the the standard formula that was ratified at the

Council of Constantinople and the idea the ideas in the fourth century starting at the

Council of Nicaea and And then And then ratified at Council of Constantinople, he's saying that these ideas were not necessarily the best

Let me read this starting page 87 on page 88. He says the church had to wait for more than 300 years for final synthesis

For not until the Council of Constantinople was the formula of one God existing in three persons formally ratified

Tentative theories, however Some more and some less satisfactory work were propounded in the preceding centuries

It will be the business of this chapter in the next to survey the movement of thought down to the

Council of Nicaea so what he's suggesting here is that the synthesis that came about and has persisted as the

These the Orthodox concept of the Trinity Ratified and the

Council of Constantinople in 381 was not the most satisfactory It was not the least satisfactory

But it was not the most satisfactory If I if I might point out first of all that earlier and I see

Martin's fingers on the buttons Which means were but I hope I have at least an equal amount of time to point out the context of what?

Kelly is saying and and first of all point out that I don't think this is relevant to what I said in regards to the fact that the early church

Believed that there is only one true and eternal God That is foundational to the entire concept of theosis and that's the whole point of the discussion

But right before what van read Kelly said the doctrine of one God the father and creator formed the background and indisputable premise of the church

Is faith that right there in regards to many statements by LDS leaders?

Causes causes a problem. You may notice however van that my quotation in the materials that were provided Was from a few pages earlier and this is

I'll make this very quickly I'll read it my best radio voice for you Martin the classical creeds of Christendom open with a declaration of belief in one

God maker of heaven and earth the Monotheistic idea ground in the religion of Israel loomed large in the minds the earliest fathers though not reflective theologians

They were fully conscious that it marked the dividing line between the church and paganism

Okay, and when you go through here, and of course you you mentioned early fathers One of the earliest fathers

Ignatius very clearly differentiates between the father and the son and yet very clearly believes in the full deity of both

Completely so and yet is in no way shape or form a polytheist or a one or a person who believes in a plurality of?

Gods, however, you wish to define that term and it's interesting that Yaroslav Pelikan who is is cited by Peterson and Rick's in their article

Said that underlying this definition of divine truth as changeless was a definition of the divine itself as changeless and absolute because God Transcended change the truth about him also had to do so the characteristic of the nature of God to be impassable and indestructible

All through here it talks about the fact they believe he was immovable Unchangeable all these things must be kept in mind when looking at the doctrine of theosis because what they were saying is not

That men can become God themselves They were not saying that men could become eternal unchangeable, etc.

Etc They very clearly denied that men would ever receive worship so on so forth and when you compare that with with many statements that if we need to get into looking at the statements of Bruce R.

McConkie or Joseph Ewing Smith or Brigham Young or or Joseph Smith the junior the the founding prophet

You know We can go into those things if we need to But you said you will not allow me to speak for the early fathers in regard to the fact that God is

Genitas he is about beginnings about origin and I would challenge you to find any early father that denied any of those things man

I just simply don't believe that those those fathers exist You went to Kelly to talk about the formulation the doctrine the

Trinity Well, it would seem to me reverend white that what you're doing is moving our discussion away from one of deification or theosis, which is what man's ultimate potential is to a

Distinction that that you obviously have with Latter -day Saints and always will which is the nature of God That isn't why what that isn't why we invited you here tonight

And that's not what you did you look at when you look him up here if you look at the name here I finish could I finish you came up here to talk about deification

Anywhere some circumscribed in the concept of deification. Do you find the idea of the origin of God?

That's not there That's not part of it You're trying to very much. You're trying to move us off from the topic of discussion not at all

Let me read you the very opening Then let's both make then let's both make a concession here

And that is that you believe that God has been God from for everlasting and everlasting and we'll say we have a different concept

We believe that God progressed to where he was and then let's move on to the target of deification.

Did you read this? Yes Very clearly the very first thing that says modern LDS apologists like to cite passages from early patristic sources

Asserting that the early fathers taught that men could become gods. It is true Did the early church teach the Mormon doctrine of God did they believe that men could become?

God like God and that God himself was once a man There are a number of passages in early fathers that speak of men being deified and they go on to the quotes quotation

GL prestige My point that's right. Go ahead my point in all the materials. I sent to you

Martin is this That every single father who made any statement regarding deification

Believed that God had eternally been God that men cannot by nature become

God like God is That men can only be be received deification by grace

And as GL prestige goes on to say none of these men in any way shape or form

Violated the fact there's only one true God in their doctrine deification Well, nine nine tenths of what you just said man, and I would

I would absolutely agree with what's in let's go home Six ten six, okay. All right. Let's go to the phones now.

I stand there Stan's gone and I don't blame him Lewis. Are you there? I got a disagree with both sides over I already talked about the

Trinity I happen to know for a fact the Trinity actually comes from the pagan rituals of making gods and the dead

They're they're idols and the gods I disagree with attorney on two points the Bible clearly states 68 times that Jesus Christ Is the

Son of God? Yes, and of course the doctrine of the Trinity states that but not the trinity does not because the trinity the way

I've heard it From Christian is that they make Jesus Christ the Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Father Jesus Christ. I'm sir.

I'm sorry I I'd like to suggest that you find a decent Christian theology book and read that because I've read that I've heard it out a lot

That's that's fine, but you know, I I heard some real interesting Doctrine that was brought in because they wanted to bring in the pagans into the

Catholic Church, excuse me, sir But I have heard a lot of interesting statements made by for example,

Latter -day Saints outside the temple yesterday But I'm not going to throw that up in someone's face as being representative of their beliefs what it was done on and it also in fact the first time this debate really started was a 880 the first one was 80 day a 80 -day

Days me 80 days started this debate 80 D. What is 80 D sir? I'm talking about 80 8080 he started the debate the debate started in that period of time and it was brought in because everybody

Jesus Christ himself clearly declared that no one worshiped him Which is in heaven and he made that clear

I've read that in the scriptures I'm sorry. You just said the father worships the son and that the only the father

Said to his to a bunch of people not to worship him Worship his father and heaven not him

So you don't believe that Jesus is worshipped. It does not that Jesus Christ I don't believe that because Jesus Christ clearly stated

I have no power But what my father gives me in heaven, so in Hebrews 1 6 when the writer says all the angels of God worshiped

Jesus Christ He was just wrong about that Not what I'm getting at it said that we're not supposed to worship the father and the son

The son said to worship his father pointing to his father that no man could go through him, but to his father

He didn't say to worship him There's the difference between in the oriental culture of respect and work when a man respected somebody he fell down at his feet

That can be translated as worship. It's a respect so so in Revelation chapter 5 when the lamb is seen standing in the presence of the father and all the

Actually all of creation all created things whether in heaven or an earth or under the earth fall down in worship

He who sits upon the throne and the lamb. They shouldn't have done that That's not you see you don't understand oriental culture the book was written in oriental language

That's the first thing that we got in this culture. You gotta go back to understand what the definition means an oriental culture

All right, Lewis. Thank you for making your point. I appreciate your call. I think are you with us?

Yeah, I just want to ask him and he asked who your guess there Wow, Van Hale or reverend whites a reverend white.

All right It's ridiculous to think that God would be a man but I didn't say that sir

You didn't say that no I know that in the incarnation the eternal God took on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ To die as a sacrifice for our sins what

I did say though is that the early fathers? Felt that God had eternally been

God and had not been a man who progressed to that point Maybe you confused to the things I said

I I believe that God became man the son became man the person of Jesus Christ. No question about that Yeah How about Matthew chapter 19 where the disciples asked him what their reward is going to be

For giving up family and home and friends and following What's your answer to that when he tells him that he has a he has a crown which

I interpret would be he's a God that his father gave him and they also will have

Crowns and Judgment of Israel doesn't that make them God? No, I don't think that the judges of Israel were gods do

No, sir. I do not believe that makes them gods because God says that before me there was no

God for him there should be none after me, so I Don't believe that that applies at all.

I'm not sure exactly what point you're making I use you just again said that Jesus was God and and yes I I fully believe that the that the son became

Flesh in Jesus Christ. The word was made flesh on 114 And he had eternally existed in the presence of the father

He had been eternally equal with the father according to Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 to 6 and he became flesh to die as a sacrifice for sins, but Are you saying that because the the

Apostles would judge Israel that make them God? What will be our reward for following and doing and then he turns around he says my father has given me a

Crown what does that mean to you? How would you interpret that my father has made me a

God? No, no, because the scriptures say Jesus Christ eternally been God so that that wouldn't be a possibility

Yeah, who gave him who made him that way is God's father. If you've eternally been

God no one ever made you God, sir Oh, yeah, the point of it is if These disciples are gonna make be made equal with Jesus and doing the same thing and they become

God's That that doesn't make you equal with Jesus. I can I can love someone and God loves people that doesn't make me a

God What what is the specific passages sightings are I chapter 19 of Matthew?

Well, that's 30 verses long But it's 26 or 27 right near the end of the chapter

Okay, I tell you the truth that the renewal of all things and the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne You who have followed me also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel and everyone who has left

Excuse me and everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father and mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times

As much and will inherit eternal life, but many who are first will be last many who are last to be first I I didn't hear anything about a crown or anything

You'll be sitting in judgment of another word Judgment of all people

These these people sit in judgment of Israel, they're not near as powerful but To me

Him telling them that that they'll become not not as powerful as him, but they'll become

It's like judges, you know, and I'll they'll become lesser gods, right? Well, of course,

I don't believe in lesser gods in the sense that you're talking about I believe that there is only one true

God you may you may want to use the term as it's used for example In Psalm 82 and and use it in that way, but Jesus wasn't using it in that way

He didn't he didn't bring that up and I I just don't understand the exact points trying to make I don't think it means that men becomes

God Well, that's one of them to me that explains what's gonna happen and Well, you know

Solomon judged the people of Israel, but that didn't make him Jehovah God It didn't make him equal to him. It didn't it also didn't mean that in his being he was divine

Solomon remained a human being human beings are created. They came into existence at a point in time

God did not come into existence at a point in time. He is the creator of time You're not talking you're talking

Solomon judging people here on earth But I think chapter 19 of Matthew is talking about judging people after they're dead

Well, of course, he's talking to the disciples. He's talking to the disciples. So let's use Peter as an example Peter was a man.

His spirit was created by Jehovah God, according to Zechariah 12 one. He is the creation of God He came into existence at a particular point in time

And so therefore no matter what terminology you may use of him later on down the road call him what you will

There will always be a vast chasm that will separate he who is created from he who has eternally existed

Let me ask you something now seriously. Do you believe that God? Sat in the heavens all by himself

For eternity before he ever created anything and he sits there Now alone without anybody in other words if there's no if there was no

God He's got to be a lonely person. Well, first of all, I believe that there is eternally been fellowship between the

Father Son and Holy Spirit So this sense of being quote -unquote alone would not will not apply Secondly, I believe that God exists outside the realm of time time is a creation that he made so to speak about the time before Time is created is is is not really something that you can do

God is so far above our puny conceptions of him. We are time bound creatures we can only speak in the language of time and since God's the creator of time speaking of Him being quote -unquote lonely

Before he creates time really doesn't doesn't make any sense to the to the Christian perspective of God as as it's been understood

Dick, thanks for joining us cellular caller. Are you there? Yes, ma 'am to your name, please Kelby. Kelby.

Thanks for joining us Yeah, I like to ask your guest a couple questions First is in fact, I'd like to address this to the

LDS people that are that are on your program tonight I have just a couple missionaries and they can never come up with an answer for me

Do you think God the God of this world has ever been as ever sinned? Well, they probably couldn't come up with an answer for that because I know no

LDS answer to that That's because you can't answer. Yes or no because if the answer if you have to yes

He said that it goes against the good Bible if you say no, then you can say well God was a man at one time an imperfect man supposedly

Well the third alternative the one that you're overlooking Kelby is that there has never been any kind of an

LDS Pronouncement on that particular issue. Oh, what is on the issue that you just addressed and that is whether or not

God has ever sinned But you've out you've painted yourself into the corner by saying that a man can become a god.

Well, that's not true Well, if that's true that then then most of the early church fathers did that as well because they're

Their writings are rampant with that particular idea and I mean they're all over the place

What a Justin you what did Justin died then Justin Martyr was painted into a corner to and Clement of Alexandria was painted into a corner to an

Iranian was painted into a corner to of believing that men could be could become gods They use that very term.

They didn't say men can be saved But they say there's only one God can become gods.

Well, let's leave that aside for a minute You can't we but we but we but we can't. All right, then.

What did they mean? What did they mean? When they said let me finish the comment here

Justin Martyr quoting psalm 82 said I said you're gods and are all children of the

Most High thereby it is Demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming

God's plural and of having power to become sons of the highest and Clement of Alexandria Said this knowledge talking about the gospel leads them to the end the endless final end

Teaching of life that is to be ours a life Kind of conformity to God with God Plural when we have been freed from all punishment.

I mean, okay, let's go on and on you have here Yeah, let me finish a couple of quotes here and then you can then you can have your say at it

Let's let's let the listening audience Hear what these early church fathers actually had to say as translated in into English not by Mormons But by Protestants and Catholics quote they have received the title of God's Since they are destined to be enthroned with other gods who are ranked next below the

Savior Here's Iranians and how shall and how shall man pass to God unless God has passed unto man?

while man gradually advances and mounts toward perfection That is he approaches the eternal the eternal is perfect and this is

God We are not made gods at our beginning. But first we were made men then in the end

God's plural now Kelby. I would like to ask you Have they painted themselves into a corner?

What did these people who are acknowledged to be early? Christians mean when they said men could become gods were they lying or were they deceived?

What about that Kelby? It's irrelevant. The Bible is the only thing that's relevant. Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute But were these people

Christians? Let's start out there. I think were they Christian? I can't judge their faith. Only God knows their heart

Well, do you believe I'm talking to our guests? Please? Please? Let me finish Look, you said

I'd have the opportunity you asked you will get it James. You will get it James Let's let's let a few callers talk now when we went when these people say this

Kelby What what are they talking about? What do you think they mean? They're making those comments

I say that they're obviously equally misled as the Mormons are so you believe that all the early

Christian church fathers who discuss deification Were misled like Mormons any early church father who believed they could become

God was definitely misled. God is perfect He's always been he created everything you put your your philosophy implies infinite regression, which is impossible

There's no it has to be wrong Kelby What did the Apostle Paul mean?

When he said that we would be heirs of God in joint heirs with Christ and what did

Peter mean when he said that? We were going to be partakers of the divine nature That's very simple a person who's an heir is someone to inherit something having not done anything for it

And what do we inherit if we inherit everything that Christ inherits which we are told?

Well, it says everything. I mean heaven isn't everything We are told in the scriptures

That we will inherit the very likeness of Jesus not just in our account as I mean our body as well

With that scripture you just quote quote quote quote that scripture that has nothing to do with inheriting the likeness of God well

The righteous the righteous become like God Matthew 25 34

Luke 22 29 John 17 21 through 23 the righteous will reign with God Romans 8 17 1st

Corinthians 6 2 1st Thessalonians 4 16 through 17 the righteous will receive glory like God I mean there are million scriptures on that none of those implies.

They become equal to God. Nope wait a minute wait a minute Nobody has said that no

LDS person has said that we will become Identical to God nor have the early

Christian fathers said that I think you're putting words in people's mouths Kelby No, I think

I think you're totally wrong in fact if you go back to Genesis 3 You'll find the answer answer lies in the fact that that Satan is who's the father of lies

And who's not capable of telling the truth lied to Adam and Eve and telling them that they could become God Martin do you have but that but that very but that very same

God later on Says that their eyes were opened and they were as God's they were as God's knowing right from wrong

That's right Not know right from wrong in the so are you saying that in that sense and knowing right from wrong?

They were like God in that they knew right from wrong. They were like God Okay, and and if they and if they had the likeness of Jesus later on Because of their righteousness

That's a little more like God right now had a quality of God and that they know right they know right and wrong they did not know wrong prior to that time and and people people who become joint heirs

I mean jointly Does not make it equal to God at all they become joint heirs in that their possession is heaven and Everyone has an equal equal inheritance in heaven, but that doesn't make them equal to God This is totally two totally separate issues inheritance if if I inherit my father's house

It does not make me my father. You're totally off base on it well Kelby All I can say is that I'm in very good company

With the with the earliest of the Church Fathers because they it's not untrue

It is very all right that the very quotes that I just read which I can Explain to you if you allow them to speak for all they said and not do you have the have you read those men have?

You read Irenaeus I? Are you talking to Kelby or I'm talking to you have you I know that Kelby didn't because he doesn't know what the other church

Fathers were saying he made that clear because he didn't understand what they were saying I have have you read

Irenaeus Yes, yeah, I have read every word that he has said, but I have read a great deal of what he said

This is Martin Tanner religion online. We'll be back with a response from James white I promise to turn the time back over here to Reverend white to make a few

Comments, and I will do that and I will also mention over the air as we've been discussing during the break

If I made a comment over the air which I apparently did that no LDS church leaders have made comments about whether or not

God the father has sinned that that is an error But I do stick by my comment of the fact that there is no official

LDS doctrine on that specific point Reverend white okay, and I think you know there are references to that that could be examined

But I I want to stick with the main issue that was brought up And that is you went into a quotation from from various the early fathers

And I want to read to you very quickly. You said what were they talking about well?

one of the great Patristic scholars that I like to read on this subject of element gentleman by name

GL prestige said the following all Such expressions the deification of man are it must be remembered purely relative

They express the fact that man has a nature essentially spiritual and to that extent resembling the being of God Further that he is able to attain a real union with God by virtue of an affinity proceeding both from nature and from grace

Man the father's might have said is a supernatural animal in some sense his destiny is to be absorbed into God But they would all have repudiated with indignation

Any suggestion that the union of men to God added anything to the Godhead? They explained the lower in terms of the higher, but did not obliterate the distinction between them

Not only is God self -dependent He has also all those Paul's positive qualities

Which man does not possess the attribution of which is made by adding the negative prefix of the common attributes of humanity

In addition insofar as humanity possesses broken lights of God They are as far as possible from reaching the measure and perfection with which they are associated in the

Godhead Real power and freedom fullness of light ideal and archetypal spirit are found in him alone

The gulf is never bridged between creator and creature Though in Christ human nature has been raised to the throne of God by virtue of his divine character

Yet mankind in general can only aspire to the sort of divinity which lies open to its capacity through the union with the divine

Humanity eternal life is the life of God men may come to share in its manifestations and activities

But only by grace never of right Here's the important part man remains a created being

God alone is ogeny toss. That is uncreated you quoted from Irenaeus Irenaeus says we hold however the rule of truth according to which there is one almighty

God who formed all things through his word and Fashioned and made all things which exist out of that which did not exist

Irenaeus believed in crashio ex nihilo God creates out of nothing all these early fathers

Irenaeus Ignatius Tertullian denied with behemoth the concept that matter is co -eternal with God Etc etc here you have the creator of all things including your spirit hence when you when you ask the caller well, what were these men talking about when the caller objected to the

LDS concept of deification and You have said over and over again look we're supposed to be talking about deification here

And you said now you're off talking about the nature of God you cannot allow creation

You cannot talk about deification without talking as all the materials

I sent to you every single one of them did over and over again You cannot talk about deification without first recognizing that every single father you're quoting from there

Believed that God had eternally been God that God is the creator of all things including the spirits of men and That he did not undergo any type of progression or exaltation

That cuts the very foundation out from underneath any type of parallel you can draw because you're talking about completely different perspectives of God and if you're talking about different perspectives of God And if what you would like to do is talk about the nature of God Then let's set up another program and we'll talk about that then let me know let me read to you as a statement

James because What you're doing is you have looked at the early church fathers and you're saying

Okay, I've looked at the early church fathers. I've looked at the LDS point of view and there's no parallel In regards to nature of God.

No, we're talking about deification. I thought we were anyway Well in regards to deification most definitely because okay because those same early church fathers

What is deification mean? Well, it means men becoming God or God they used to both plural and singular.

So How then can what they believed God was be separated from the discussion of deification?

Well, whether you said I don't have any problem bringing the two together. I just don't think that You are admitting them

I mean you are acknowledging that the early church fathers taught that meant or said man Whatever whatever it was that they meant they did say that men can become

God's some of the early church fathers They're not all many of them. I don't know would be a majority. In fact,

I have a quotation here from Harnack who's you know recognizes perhaps one of the one of the greatest historians on Christian doctrine

He says they all thought it's it's in the teachings of all All you know, it's not in it's not in Ignatius.

It's not in clement of Rome So that that's obviously an overstatement But I I just read a statement from GL prestige where it talks with the fact that yes early church fathers

Gave statements regarding deification. Do you believe in it? Do you believe in deification? In the sense that they meant it you believe in it in the sense that they meant it which which means there's only one

True God. Well, okay. I believe there's one true God. We receive eternal life that that God well, wait a minute

I don't you when I say I believe one true God when you say you believe one true God We don't mean the same thing and you know that family we it depends it depends on the

God eternally being God if we're talking about If now we're back to the nature of you have to you have to Martin if you can explain to me how well you can

Discuss what an early church father meant by deification without discussing what that early father meant about God Tell me what you're saying is that you could you can you can talk you can't talk about a car without mentioning a tire

I just don't believe that no, that's a crude It gives occasion example, but if deification is how a man can be made like God or a

God How can you avoid talking about what the father meant by the word God? Okay. Well, let me read this to you

Though this is what I was trying to get to let me read you this statement you read from prestige Mm -hmm. Let me read to you from Ernst Benz Okay now here what

I'm what I'm about to read is from a former professor of church history at the University of Marburg and he's the author of a number of books and articles on Christian history and The thing that he has done

But I have no idea whether prestige has done this or not But he doesn't come out in the quotations that you cite but what

Ernst Benz has done is he has After a lifetime of study of the history of Christian doctrine and the writing of a number of books and articles and so forth

He also studied the LDS doctrine And he's making a direct comment

He's doing the same thing that you've done. He's looked at the LDS doctrine He's looked at the early church fathers and he comes away with a different point of view than you do

Okay, and let me read it to you He says in no other Christian doctrine is the connection between God and man so closely conceived

The idea of man is the image of God so concretely and literally interpreted man brought into such close proximity

To God and God on the other hand so strongly directed to man as in Mormonism One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification

Which is a term that he uses to define to describe the LDS doctrine says 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 Athanasius the great bishop of Alexandria the head of the church in all

Egypt Summarized the Christian doctrine of salvation in the words God became man so that we may become

God The goal of salvation is deification and Athanasius invokes in this context the words of Jesus be you therefore

Perfect even as your father which is in heaven is perfect Okay, that's that's a brief Quotation from a seven or eight page article that he wrote that I heard where I'd be interested in knowing it

It appears in a collection called reflections on Mormonism a book published a few years ago by well

It was he presented this first that a Symposium at BYU.

I don't know the year. I didn't catch what he said here whether he was LDS or not No, he's he's not

LDS burn spins as a as a German author and man, who's written many books on the history of Christian doctrine and In particular and in particular has had an interest in the idea of deification or early

Christian thought and looked specifically at the LDS point of view and compared and contrasted it and He Just comes away with a different point of view than you know

I'm what contrast did he come up with Jericho? Did he point out the difference in the fact the early fathers believed that God was again?

He tossed whereas Mormonism does not well. He was looking at the idea of man in the image of God that was the specific focus that he was looking at and and It see what what happens is in LDS thought

We have speculated Beyond We we have a different Cosmology today.

We have a different understanding of the universe of the world the solar system So on and so forth then the early early

Christians did they didn't they had no idea of the immensity of space and so forth In LDS thinking we we're not so we're not turning back to the early

Christian fathers to say We're going all right our views are identical to their views because we don't believe that we believe that God has given additional revelation

We're not trying to say that they believe just as we do. We're saying that they didn't they don't believe just as we do in fact as you're well aware the

LDS point of view is that that very early on there was an apostasy that began and Universal until continued until there was a universal apostasy

In and of course we'd have to define that it was not the idea that everything that was true was lost but But already so we're yes, but so we're not committed

We're not trying to say we believe the same as the Christians of the second third or fourth century

We're we're perfectly comfortable in looking at that and saying that there are parallels there that the

LDS doctrine the LDS concept of man's Ability to become something incredible Mainly to become

God's and we wouldn't we're not saying that we're going to take God's place or anything of that nature

I don't know. I know I'm just saying we're not saying that we're that we're going to ever become equal with God That's not a concept

But are you saying that are you saying that we are consubstantial with God what I'm what I'm saying is that No, I would not say we're consubstantial with God Would you say that but you would say we're with the same species of God?

I do believe that we are the same species of Scott and I don't believe that that idea At least in my reading of the early

Christian writers. I don't think that that idea. I don't find it there I also as as you mentioned early on I also don't believe that the early

Christian writers had any concept of God having once been a man That's an idea which I don't see in their writings

But I don't think that that the bad idea that we've got to focus on that idea and say well

We don't we can't see any parallels between the LDS point of view and the early Christian point of view

Because we can't find parallels in these other areas. They didn't believe these other ideas two things very quickly

The statement regards to consubstantiality comes out of BH Roberts Mormon Doctrine of Deity where he asserted that that we are consubstantial with our father and That I think you'd have to agree with me as something that is that is utterly not only utterly foreign to the early fathers

But it's interesting you you quoted a scholar in regards to deification one that seems to be a favorite for example of Peterson and Rick's is

Pelican and Who also has has probably written more than anyone else on the subject of deification coming from the

Eastern Orthodox perspective? It still holds to this and in the ensign article both volumes one and two of pelicans works are cited and I want to cite from the second volume of Pelicans works very quickly because I see a full bank of calls there and and There's Martin gets a certain expression on his face when when the lights blink for too long

But in regards to deification here is something that Pelican said the emphasis on the reality of the divine in Revelation applied also to the divine in deification

Maximus he's speaking of one of the early important Fathers in the Eastern way of thinking had expressed this unequivocally in the formula quote all that God is

Except for an identity in ugia one becomes when one is deified by grace

Now what does that mean if you if you look at the term ugia? What does that mean that means being that is what one is in one's being?

And when you go back and look at what the early fathers believed they asserted that the being of God that which makes

God Has cannot undergo change Has never been anything he has never been in anything, but God etc.

Etc Now notice very quickly I continue to quote a way had to be found to preserve the reality of salvation as deification

Without implying and here's what Pelican says the absurd and blasphemous idea that those who are deified became

God by nature They became Divine according to grace the absurdity and the blasphemy were avoided by teaching that the deifying gift

The spirit is not the super essential ugia of God. That is the very being awake make what makes God God Okay, so to avoid saying the deification made a human being

God by nature It was necessary to insist that grace is supernatural that is beyond nature he goes on to point out

Pelican makes it very very clear just as prestige did and just as Anyone I think who would be honest in saying look

I've got to look at everything with that You're in a said in regards to deification to really understand what he's saying and if you're if you're in a s

Believe that God eternally been God and that God's nature is eternal without beginning without origin without source that he is the fountain and foundation

Of all things then I must understand his doctrine of deification in light of his doctrine of God That's why

I've kept saying to Martin who's smiling at me now You were smiling at me, that's why that's why

I I believe very clearly in everything that I sent to you That is the whole point that has been made from beginning to end that the early fathers

Did not believe what Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett funeral discourse about the nature of God Well, I'm not suggesting as I'm saying

I'm not suggesting that they believed what Joseph Smith believed in the King Follett discourse But I would like to hear you address yourself to some of the statements that they are making

Well, let me ask you something rather than reading from prestige. I'm not I'm not reading for the season This is you you said this before and I just want to ask you a quick question.

Why then in in the ensign article? Why in in the books that this is being presented in why

I suppose I shouldn't hold you responsible for what Derek Evenson did But obviously he was pulling from other sources

Why isn't it said then when the doctrine of deification is presented? Why I would think that the honest scholarly thing to do would be to say the early fathers differed

Substantially at a foundational level with LDS thinking in regards to the nature of God.

However, it's interesting to note That they had this concept of deification now, it didn't make men

Gods in their being they did not become exalted personages where they ruled and reigned over a planet

But they did say that men could become gods in the sense of receiving eternal life in the fullness of salvation

Now that goes beyond that it goes way beyond that in the writings of the fathers if you read the statements

And I have read the statement if you read the statements You also have then encountered the frequent use of sharing the divine nature coming from 2nd

Peter chapter 1 verse 4 Mm -hmm. Yeah, you're sharing going to share the divine nature.

I mean that's going beyond just Just says what you're what you're suggesting I don't know what your belief on this is because different LDS have had different viewpoints on this

But right now as I sit before you as a believer in Jesus Christ, I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God In fact according to Ephesians chapter 2

I am seated in the heavenly places with Christ Jesus at the past tense and in in the Greek Now if I am indwelt if my spirit is indwelt by the

Holy Spirit of God I am partaking the divine nature that does not make me a god However, well, all right, you're saying it doesn't make you a god

But what I'm saying is that if you turn to the the early Christian writers And I've got a whole stack of them.

We could we could read through more and more of these but there but it's a common idea that I suspect that you're aware of but they're saying that the the idea of partaking of the

Divine nature is in fact part of what they're talking about in becoming God It also has to do with sitting on the throne reigning with God.

Yes, it has judging angels Yes, not only judging Israel or judging angels judging heavenly beings and in every single instance van

I would challenge you I would challenge you that the man speaking if you were to walk up to him and ask him if that were possible to do if we build a time machine and Teleported you back to athanasius if you walked up to athanasius and Said does what you are saying mean does partaking of the divine nature mean?

That my nature itself is changed So that and and you tell me where this doesn't represent your perspective so that My nature is that I am of the same species as God to put in that way

What athanasius has said I'm of the same species of God when he who spoke so highly of men becoming

God Are you telling me now van that he would have said that we are the same species as God? All you're saying is that there are some differences and that's fine.

I'm saying there are some there are some foundational absolutely basic and foundational

Differences that destroy the parallel completely destroy the parallel complete I guess

I guess you see that the glass is half empty and some other people see it as half full Well, I'm glad I guess your own point of view.

I don't mean let the listener decide I'm not going to beat a dead horse But I think that any listener who's heard what

I've said from the beginning knows the point that I'm making is that the early father's Belief about God differs so substantially from the

LDS perspective that the parallel of deification with what they were saying Has no relevance to the

LDS perspective because God is not That's fine,

I'm just simply say Let me just make the point I made before and that is that all right

That's you look at it. You see it that way. I have cited to you of a prominent

German scholar who has looked at both and he's saying different And I cited and I'm better back to you

But you haven't cited Pelican because he hasn't examined Mormonism at least that's right indicated in that the one scholar

We have here who has examined Mormonism closely on this very issue Says that he finds more parallels between Mormonism and early

Christian thought Then with any other Christian faith and early Chris happens

That's a remarkable statement in view of your fact that there's absolutely no parallel for me

It's all one your your ideas and his I I would very much like you know I would very much like to know if the

German scholar Is fully aware first of all of the teachings of Joseph Smith in regards to do it to do to men's

Progression to become God's yes Yeah, and then if he addresses the fact that the early fathers taught that God was without beginning

Does he address that yes, he's aware of both of those he's you've talked to him. He's he's very aware

He's written. He's written a number of books and articles on the subject. I mean, you know, he's he's at least as Least as much aware of it as the authors that you're citing

I'm just simply saying here we have someone who is a scholar who is not doesn't have any particular anti Mormon bias or anything

Pelican well, but Pelican hasn't what I know that well No, I said that I don't know that I said, but from what you're citing

How do you know that he doesn't see parallels? How do you know that he would make the same kind of a statement that Ben's is making?

Well, because he's you don't really point out. We don't know Well, it's what I'm hearing here is is instead of dealing with what the father said in regards to the nature of God I'm hearing well, there's there's one scholar says he can see parallels

The point is All the all the things I've looked at all the places where these parallels as supposed have been brought out

Have been brought out for the purpose. It seems to mean that now correct me if you feel I'm wrong van But what was the purpose in?

inciting these things in an ensign article other than to attempt to say that there is a valid parallel between deification in the

LDS perspective the eternal law of progression and What Irenaeus was talking about that quotation was in regards to the nature of man not in regards the nature of God and what what

What God can become and I he's definitely right in saying that Mormonism does more to bring

God and man close to one another Now, I think that that's it That is a mouthful because the chasm that separates the two in the early fathers is insurmountable

Well, that's that's a you're you know, that's your your The father

I would invite anyone to read the father's for the Okay, I would too.

I haven't heard you though Address yourself to any any of this the quotations of the fathers.

I mean, well, I'd like to hear you Tell us what? What this deification means? I mean it has disappeared out of Western Christianity.

I just discussed it I I you asked me what does that mean? And I and I and I spoke to you of the fact that what they are talking is very similar to salvation

But that but but why has that disappeared? Wait, then why do they? Salvation why are they talking about they do they do you

I know but why is there a separate word? Why is there a separate concept of deification and becoming gods and using that specific word if this is just sort of the same thing as salvation even the sources even the sources that Peterson and Rick site say

Salvation defined as deification. That's right So so Pelican makes it very clear that when the father speak of deification they're speaking of that solely in the sense of what salvation is and Salvation brings about the full redemption of mankind

The full unity of of the redeemed with Jesus Christ and you're not totally correct to say maybe the specific

Terminology is not used in Western Christianity But if you were familiar at all, for example with Jonathan Edwards you would know that there is a strong emphasis in his eschatology upon the fact that the redeemed are our partakers of the divine nature and that they are are

United with Christ in an ever increasing fashion throughout Eternity and so it is present and yet he as well is is the first one to stand up and say

God has eternally been God. I am a creature. I am different than God.

I will always be God's creature I will never ever ever be God by nature.

Oh, I feel your father said how often have you in in your lifetime?

Commented to somebody that you believe that you will become a god. I Don't okay.

The early church fathers are doing it over and over I've got I'll bet I have 300 quotations that I've collected over the last six eight years

And I bet you they said that there is one true God far more time that you could become a god, right? Well, it doesn't matter.

I'm not talking about that. I'm not talking about that point you you're saying. Okay, you're focusing on that I'm saying why is it if somebody says

I'm going to become a god Is That all right, what is it?

Okay, is it okay to say that why don't you say why isn't that being said today? And I've never heard.

I've never heard anybody say that. What is the rule of faith the early fathers? Do you ask me if it's okay if someone says they're a god my first question for them would be what do you believe?

What is the rule of faith for the early fathers? I mean, it's it's it's they talk about that far more than they talk about deification guarantee you that by by by 20 fold

What is the rule of faith for the fathers the rule of faith for the fathers is there is one

Eternal God the creator of all things you're not gonna answer Vance question I am getting to it right now. Now if they if someone believes that there is one eternal

God he has eternally been God and that I am his creature created by him and he wants to talk about the the the

Becoming a god through union with Jesus Christ That's one thing and that's what the early fathers did and that was the context in which they spoke

They made it clear at the very beginning when they catechized the new convert There is one God who is eternally been

God now when I hear Joseph Smith saying it is the most basic Print it is a basic principle of the gospel to know that God is once a man like you and I are a man

I go wait a minute at the very start the very get -go the two have now gone to completely different direction

You've made that point at least 15 times tonight. I don't know how many times you need to make it If That's all we're gonna discuss, you know, we we can we can end at 9 o 'clock because there's

I mean, you know How many times you need to beat a dead horse? How often did the FBI persecute John Gotti?

You know, what can I say? You got to repeat it until it sticks, you know Let me read to you a statement by Hubert Cunliffe Jones and in his highly highly acclaimed book history of Christian doctrine

Published by Fortress Press 1981 and he says this he says we have touched on various aspects of patristic thought about man's salvation

There are two central ideas repeatedly expressed by the writers of this period The first of these is the concept of deification as the goal of salvation.

That's the goal of salvation Salvation is one thing the goal of salvation is deification the most direct and indeed startling expression of the idea of deification

In the New Testament is the characterization of believers as partakers of the divine nature 2nd

Peter 1 verse 4 but the usual scriptural basis for this idea is the Pauline teaching on adoptive sonship towards God and the recreation of believers in the likeness of the

Son of God and he goes on in In this in several chapters to quote and talk about all of the early church

Not not all the early church fathers, but for about 40 pages Talking about the early church fathers and their ideas on this bringing out some of the differences

One of the things that you were saying earlier is that this sort of thing? the the deification

Potential as you see it is something that comes about by grace. That's an idea, which is all only

Presented by a few of the early fathers. Most of the early church fathers are not presenting that idea.

It's an I it's a It's something that a person acquires through In fact, there are all kinds of lists through these quotations

But it's something that doesn't it isn't something that's just acquired by grace now I've let me just put back to you the question

How do you feel about the the early church fathers who believe that deification is something that comes about through obedience and living

Living a certain kind of a life I mean if that is an acceptable idea is the deification and also the idea that it's a it's a goal of so It's not identified.

It's not identical. It's the goal. It's Pelican says it's the goal of salvation as well. I Understand that and it again as I pointed out even with Jonathan Edwards That's something that is that is future in being in the perfect union with Jesus Christ after leaving this mortal existence

I already pointed that out. I did you want to break in there? No, go ahead. I'm sorry. I know you're okay

But you you ask how I respond to that and here comes point here comes time number 16 within their context

I have no problem with that their context However is not in any way analogous to discussion of Mormonism now

You just said maybe you're just asking a question the difference between those who said something about it being by grace

Which is the Eastern perspective and supposedly those teaching it by by works Is that are you trying to bring in a grace and works issue because the grace?

That Pelican is talking about is the difference between nature and grace not between grace and works.

Are you aware of that? well the point that the point that Conleth Jones brings out in this and it's

I mean all he's doing is bringing in the statements from From you know a hundred or so different statements from early church fathers on this is that their view of?

How a person acquired how a person came to be deified Yes, there was a difference in point of view on that well possibly

I can very very quickly Move us on to the next point in saying this Does the point from Pelican and others in emphasizing the grace aspect is that even if a person were into quote -unquote a works?

System they would say that even the ability to do the works was dependent upon Grace and that the actual deification would be an act of God's power, and it was not inherent in man

I read that a little bit earlier I read a little bit quickly But it was not something that was inherently the ability of man and from even from the perspective as I understand from the

LDS Perspective it would not be within man's power to deify himself. Isn't that correct?

That's correct. That's correct So with that Union did you have another point or can I go on to a call here?

No, I don't need to necessarily say to repeat it for the 16th time. So hey, thank you for sparing us branch

You're on the air. Yes, I'd like to make just a real quick comment and then get the both of your points of view

As I understand it, and this is my Concept is that We have a council on heaven in which

Jesus and Satan who were brothers Offered up a plan to the father

Actually Satan offered a plan the Jesus accepted the plan of the father

They were brothers. They were our brothers Now this is a spiritual children not as physical children on the earth

Now when of course our Heavenly Father Had accepted his own plan, which was the right to come to earth and choose

Good or evil thereby Weeding out those children that would not follow the father as a reward for the

Doing What the father has asked we are given the right to become

God's Under him With our own worlds with our own

Families In the same way that we were his children

Now, I'll let you go ahead and discuss that from there What was that addressed to anyone?

I think it was a dress to both both. Yes, sir Say that it doesn't well, okay a council in heaven.

It doesn't say anything about God submitting his his plans For approval to any type of council

Psalm 135 6 as God does whatever pleases him in the heavens and the earth Are you ignoring

Genesis? No, I'm not ignoring Genesis at all the council in heaven. There is no council in heaven in Genesis Yes, there is.

Where is it, sir? Albright thought there was one mentioned there Where I'd have to take him

Dig it out right now. I can't give you an exact chapter and verse. Okay? Well, I did not believe there's any passage in the

Bible that teaches that God puts forth his doctrine of salvation His plan of salvation for a vote.

I didn't fight. I said Satan put forth a plan I thought you said that Jesus presented the father's plan. Yes, he did.

Okay. Well, I was just that that's exactly what I said Is that there is Satan want us to come to earth and be?

subjected to him The Bible does not address Satan appearing in a in a council in heaven regarding the doctrine of salvation

So there's no way to answer that color. You're really You know addressing this kind of question to James Okay, I mean really doesn't really doesn't is the wrong place to do it because the

LDS point of view isn't turning isn't That we're simply turning back to the

Bible to try and identify every point everything that we believe and a good portion of what you've presented in your

Scenario has to do with ideas and beliefs that Latter -day Saints believe our further revelation

All right. Thank you for calling. Let's talk now with mark Yes, I appreciate you're putting me on You know,

I thought I wanted to express that I do appreciate Reverend white making that point 16 times Actually, I think even did it more than that The reason

I appreciate it is because I was once on my way to becoming a Mormon becoming a member of the

LDS Church And it was because somebody Stood where he stands and brought forth the truth clearly that I didn't follow as my family did becoming

LDS But rather found it found the true and living Jesus Christ, but here's the point that I wanted to make

Well, thank you for your opinion on that. Well, yeah, it's more than opinions I'm well of the

Lord of Christ is absolute and his truth is absolute and it's not Subject to any man's opinion.

You see my my opinion would be that your family had found the truth And unfortunately, you were not willing to accept it there and that's the way we have our difference of opinion

Let's leave it there rather than make jabs at the LDS Church, you know, I won't leave it there for this reason

I think this is because or the reason is right on what Reverend white had said and Making it 16 points and I really haven't heard you or Van Hale address

This point satisfactorily. You keep asking him to address the point of The Apostolic Fathers and commenting on them if you have been listening.

He has addressed that again and again He's come he's made it clear what their definition was in light of their definition of God in terms of his eternal substance and his

Eternal existence. He's also addressed it in terms of showing that there's absolutely no parallel Between the

Apostolic Fathers view of God and now he has coming got hang on a sec, please Sure, and man becoming

God and so he's addressed that satisfactorily but what you haven't I haven't I haven't heard you address satisfactorily is

The absolute in the set absolute necessity of a Changeable God to your doctrine of eternal progression which therefore

Addresses man's deification. In other words, I've heard Reverend white point out very clearly and pointedly that man

Can't become God By very nature because God is eternally existent and has eternally been

God didn't change in substance That's been the the understanding of the church throughout history at the church history

Man won't become God in the sense that God is God according to the biblical definition

But you haven't addressed that satisfactorily that I've heard which is the key point because you think if God has always been eternal and Has not changed one iota

Then the doctrine of eternal progression falls apart completely. You have to have what do you mean?

Not changed. Let me ask you that question for starters here. What do you mean? Not changed God's Essence and his substance his character who

God is does not change. Well, and I would agree with no, you wouldn't because all right Okay.

Okay. We've okay. Okay. Thank thank you. Thank you, sir Thank you, sir for telling us what we believe and not allowing us to express our opinion if I could put it

Like let me just make it clear. My assumption is that you believe what you're taught as an LDS person

He's the prophet who started the church So, excuse me, if you don't believe what Joseph Smith taught But if you do believe what he taught then you don't believe that God Yesterday mark, which would you like Mark?

Do you want to have a dialogue? All right, Mark. Mark, you're gone. Go ahead.

Get your get your comment in here I have no reason we can't have a dialogue. I go ahead then

I I have no reason to think that the caller had you know knows anything about what

Joseph Smith believed but What what Latter -day Saints believe I've been trying to focus on what

I thought was the Our point of discussion, you know, I don't have any trouble talking about anything but I Came here with the idea that we were taught we were going to be talking about deification

James has made made the point that he feels like We've got to talk about some other subject in order to be able to talk about this

No, no, let me finish my statement and I Let me finish my statement and I think that's not fair.

I think to an extent James is right I'm not okay. Let me make us if you let me go on a little bit here

James We'll be alright, but I went a little compliment from you. Is that is that what I did? Yeah, I I think that what you're saying is relevant but in order to in order to discuss that I think we we need to focus on the

The LDS concept of God we need to focus on the early Christian father's concept of God and we need to be

I Think prepared as far as I would look at it. I'm But the ideas that the early

Christian fathers had within the context that they were speaking Hi, I simply don't see a great lot a lot of difficulty because they had a whole different perspective than we have today

In our modern world, I'm a modern world. I'm not just talking LDS. I'm talking about People of all religions.

We have a different concept a different perspective of the world creation universe so on and so forth and And that needs to be taken into consideration because within the within the the perspective

That Latter -day Saints think we're thinking beyond in in two different directions if we're talking about this world, which is the only thing that the

The early Christians had any concept of the everything was created for the work for this world

The world our world is not a is not just a tiny speck in a vast infinite universe

In their thinking it was the center of the universe everything was created for it In in the perspective that they're thinking in regards to this earth.

We only believe that there's one God We don't believe that we're ever going to be his equal or that we're ever going to take his place

Or that we're ever going to be God in the same nature in the same way that he is now

I'm I'm not trying in any way to suggest that we have the same point of view as the early

Christian fathers but I'm saying that if you take their ideas and you take our ideas and put them in and cut off the

The views that Latter -day Saints have that that go beyond the cosmology of the early early

Christians That then it changes the discussion quite a bit. Well a couple things.

First of all, I Believe that I do hold the exact same doctrine of God as for example

Ignatius I believe that God is has eternally been God so and so forth just like Ignatius didn't

I don't think that's necessarily relevant to my my My view of the universe as such

I may I may have to deal with more things like the concept of time Than an early father did or so on so forth

But it's interesting you you just said that that Mormons believe there's only one God for this planet the caller attempted to ask a question on the basis of The fact that Christians believe that God's being has not changed and you said you don't believe

God's being has changed either Did you say that I'm saying that yes within within the within the same

Within the same period that That the early Christians would have been thinking they had no, you know, they had no way of knowing of any

Possibilities of anything else out anywhere Okay, do you agree with Brigham Young for example who stated that God is our father and was once a man in mortal flesh as We are it is now an exalted being

God has once been a finite being journal discourses volume 7 page 333 Do you agree with his statement there?

I agree with it in the context in which he's speaking But you see you're okay you're trying to take you're trying to take something that Brigham Young saying in one context and Trying to bring it into a discussion of the early

Christian fathers. They were they're coming from two different points of view Well, I don't think so For example

Milton R. Hunter said that Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth That God the

Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that Through which we are now passing

He became God an exalted being through obedience to the same eternal gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey

Now the caller had said that the God's being does not change now if God is once a finite being

You know if you're saying that the early fathers never addressed the context of a of an exaltation of God Of course not because they believe the

God of eternally been God's the whole concept of God once I lived on another planet It's totally and completely foreign to them.

That's right. And in fact, it's totally completely foreign to the Christian faith It's it's foreign to their particular cosmology they had no concept of the the immensity of the universe the the possibility of I mean

I don't know. Do you think do you? This is perhaps a diversion, but I'm just let me just throw it out.

Do you think there's a possibility of any other? intelligent life being anywhere else out in the in the

Infinity of the universe or was or was the whole universe created for this? No, sir,

I think the whole universe was created for God's purpose in Jesus Christ, and if there is any other

Intelligent life out there, which I don't think there is They would be wrapped up in the purpose of the creator of all things

That is Jesus Christ who has eternally been the creator of all things Now but you just said that we only have one

God for this earth. Mm -hmm Okay. Now now you're well aware of the many statements from LDS Leaders in regards to a plurality of gods in fact, we're saying in fact

Bruce R McConkie said that we worship a plurality of gods. You're aware of that. Of course. I am Do you agree do you disagree with him or agree with him?

It depends on the context in which you're speaking Bruce R McConkie as I would imagine you're well aware from a very famous speech that he gave a few years ago about the about God the

Father is expressed the LDS point of view which

I think I could demonstrate throughout all LDS history and that is that in regards to this earth

The father of Jesus Christ is the one and only God every every

Other person is subordinate including Jesus Is subordinate to the father there is a sense in which and it's the same sense in which

Paul speaking throughout his epistles There is a sense in which the father alone is God Jesus isn't

God I don't think that's true at all. Well, I think as we have discussed before I think it's absolutely fair to Paul He says it over 200 times in his epistles

Excuse me over 200 times in Paul's epistles. He calls God the father He he identifies

God as the father and Jesus is Lord drawing is a distinction Between God and Jesus and as we discussed last time between the father and Jesus as we know last time

No, he Lord being Jehovah would actually be a higher title You want to start using it an attempt to distinction, but he draws a solution

Paul calls Jesus Christ They ask as well. So your distinction does not hold He draws a distinction over 200 times in his epistles between God and Jesus not the father in Jesus between God and Jesus But who is who is

God for Paul you have yourself said he's referring to the father. That's referring to the father okay, he's got a distinction between God and Jesus that you wouldn't draw in a

College is God like in a well, maybe he did maybe do I think he did very clearly

He said that we're a period we're waiting for the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ So you're the distinction

I don't think comes from from Paul because Paul would not have distinguished between God and Jehovah Which is who he identifies

Jesus time. No, he doesn't identify Jesus as Jehovah. You know, really? No, he doesn't

You know, it never uses Jehovah Of course the tetragrammaton does not appear but courteous does in quotations from the

Old Testament that contain the divine name the tetragrammaton are used By Paul of Jesus Christ many times for example in flip.

They're also they're also used It's it's also it's a generic term for Lord. He uses it and he doesn't only use that but in Philippians chapter 2

For example, he quotes from Isaiah chapter 45 where it's 48 Why don't I have to look at very quickly in regards to Jehovah God and applies it to Jesus Christ?

So you're saying that the Paul applied these things to just generally I'm simply saying that you open

Paul's epistles any one of them to the first of the epistle and you start reading and it says for example and Paul's letter to the

Corinthians He says to the Church of God Which is a current to all who are called to be God's holy people who belong to him in union with Christ Jesus together with?

all people everywhere who worship our Lord Jesus Christ their Lord and ours may God our father and The Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace exactly draws a distinction between the

Father who is God and Jesus How's the doctrine of the Trinity always has right? No, they know it hasn't the doctrine of the

Trinity does not draw distinction does not draw a distinction between God and Jesus the distinction is between the

Father and Jesus. He did that doesn't say God our father. Yes Okay, so so his transferring name to the

Father is God and his transferring name to the Son is Lord He draws a distinction between the

Father who is God at Jesus who is Lord hundreds of times in his epistle Okay, and he also calls Jesus Christ God and the

Lord He just said we who worship Jesus Christ worship was only given unto Jehovah God the only true

God that exists So I think that he doesn't say that wait a minute. Just you just read it and said and who worship our

Lord Jesus Christ, right? No That's what I heard you say I'm just I'm just saying that the point

I'm making James is that the father is not the son. No. No, that's let me state my own point

What I'm saying is that Paul in in over 200 instances in his epistles draws a distinction between The Father who is

God and Jesus who is Lord? He doesn't he doesn't ever one time twist that around He doesn't ever say right now

Jesus who is God and the Father who is Lord not one time right in his epistles but hundreds of times he

Identifies he's got a formula. The Father is God. Jesus is Lord standard usage. Yes. Uh -huh. That's right.

It's all there's no No argument about that at all. All right Now that we have an area but the application the application of it

I think is very wrong because you made a subordination a subordination issue and it's not Because Kodiak is not a lesser title in Theos.

He uses Theos of Jesus Christ, maybe he does Very clearly anyone want to tell you is 213

Romans 9 5 a couple of All right Dick are you there?

We lost dick. Let's talk with Wallace. All right You could talk about God in the many different aspects for quite a few programs

Martin certainly could We're just down to one but I could name 20 different programs with things like God Creator God Eternal nature the corporal nature of him and the

God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob the God of battles many things from the scriptures And you'd have your whole outline for what to talk about.

This has been very interesting I want to point out two or three things One is is that that actually the

LDS Church in the Book of Mormon? States somewhat what this man says about the eternal nature of God, for instance 1144 says there's one eternal

God to be judged according to their works and in Mormon nine and nine God is the same yesterday today and forever and In dr.

Kevin's for behold, I am endless and the punishments which They bring bring upon people and so forth

It indicates that he is an eternal God. There's many scriptures that on that You've heard of the endless is my name without beginning of days ran.

So I say LDS scriptures backs up the idea that God is eternal, you know now man is supposed to be eternal

We're according to LDS thought and belief and theology by some We always existed as intelligences our ego and from that God created this into spiritual beings and We know that God is the father of spirits because if he was to read in Matthew 6 and 9 that he says he is the

God Spirits in number 16 and 22 and 27 and 16 or he's called the father spirits meaning that he is the eternal

Parent of the spirit Christ and of all other spirits in so much However, as Christ attained God to it while yet in pre -existence.

He too stood as a God to the other spirits Excuse me, sir. Is this a question because if so, there's a number of things you've already said that would take me

Well into the next hour to respond to the God is the God of spirits Well, for example, you just brought up the concept of father of spirits the term father

Especially the Old Testament refers to one who is the creator of all things For example, it's called the father of Israel that doesn't mean that God gives birth to nations

But that he is the one who created Israel as a nation you then brought up the Book of Mormon and Said that it sounded like what

I was saying and I wasn't exactly sure the point that you were attempting to make But yes, I believe that God there's an eternal eternal nature in God.

Well, yes In fact Mormon 818 says that the God is eternal I believe that what

Joseph Smith believed in 1829 1830 is radically different than what he believed in 1844

And that's one of the many examples of it in the Book of Mormon. You have God eternally being God in the

King Follett field Of course, he says we've imagined suppose that God was God from all eternity I'll refute the idea and take away the veils that you may see in Alma 34

You have God dwelling in men's hearts and somewhat. I'm sorry in doctrine covenant section 130 verse 3 That's called a false sectarian notion

I Believe and and it would take us off the course of the subject But I do not believe that Joseph Smith ever claimed

Or believed in a plurality of gods prior to the mid 1830s He didn't claim to have seen God the father prior to that time

And I think there's a lot of evidence that that's the case So I think that you're right about what the Book of Mormon says about God being eternal

Doctor Kevin's to in the early ones. Yes Uh -huh, then I want you expressing nature

But that that is that there is a relationship between God the spirits and the spirits of mankind if you follow

Creator creator creation relationship is what I believe the scriptures to that nature You bring it out and I believe it in my own life.

I've received a lot of grace from God in progressing I think I've received some from doing good works

I think it I've received some from this nature of things that would that would go into a whole discussion

I'm not saying I'm gonna be a god though. You know, I don't know I think if this is what

God determines, but I think it from the scriptures that there are Lords and God's many according to the

New Testament And I think it even Joseph Smith said that Abraham Isaac Jacob But I think those are the three he pointed out that become

God through the doctrine of covenant DNC 132 says that yes, but I obviously would strongly disagree with that statement

Yeah, but anybody who does it would have to have the approval of God the Father But I don't think that we take the place or anybody

Yeah, never said that point would ever take the place of Christ or would ever take the place of God.

I Think that they are Hierarchy there. Do you worship Jesus Christ, sir?

Yes, I do you bet in fact He's told me that the scriptures come follow me and do the things he did.

Do you do you worship God the Father? I were I I worship God the Father mostly

But I do have great respect for Jesus Christ and pray in his name. Do you worship more than one

God then? well, I Think I just worship God the Father, but I also

Use Jesus Christ as my example And with when with that comment we need to break for NBC News this one point has been made here that I would like to address and that is that Concept the

Reverend white and one of our earlier callers Brought up that there is no parallel between The concept of deification is held by the early

Christian Church fathers and that is held by Latter -day Saints. I think that there is a

Tremendous parallel a great deal of parallels if one looks in Doctrine and Covenants section 76 the very same concepts that are enunciated there of What ultimately happens to those who are deified?

Just parallels Almost completely with biblical concepts on the topic and the statements of the early church fathers on there with the same things

That the Latter -day Saints who are faithful will will inherit it's it's it's quite a remarkable parallel And so I think the comment that's been made here that there is just absolutely no parallel It's just without any basis.

Well, if I could respond to that and again Martin I you you say you don't understand it, but I Don't understand what well the the biblical authors for example

Statements of biblical authors in regards to Exaltation or deification I don't believe that there are such things because there is no concept of exaltation

To the status of being a god in Scripture, but you just said the early church fathers and I well that and I again opinion

I I believe very strongly that Paul and Peter have taken that position and partakers of the divine nature to the early church fathers and to me means

That one can become God I'm sorry idea untruths and the early church fathers did not believe that there were a

Plurality of gods in a certain sense they did because they talked about a lot of God's in the plural

Please demonstrate that I I've quoted to you vans quoted to you.

You've read. Yes the word God's plural Mm -hmm about men about men in in the early church writers

It says that they change they changed I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand they change from men

To God and that's the change that's being talked about here. It's not they are gods and men at the same time

They are changing James James, that's the whole concept here and they become more and more and more like Jesus as a matter of fact, there are some striking parallels between the concept of Deification and the concept of what

Jesus Actually is Martin the early church fathers as I have pointed out

Believed let me just read you a quote that God is unchangeable by nature And you've read those you've read those you've read those and the point is that the early fathers

Talked about deification. We're not saying that men could become

God's as God is God Which is what the LDS Church is saying? Well, well, all right.

All right. Let me finish my quote In fact, the very the very mention of the word

God Made the interpretation of become in regards to as applied to God quote.

This is from Cyril Stupid and altogether wicked end quote if it's supposed that this could refer to any sort of change

In the unchangeable God now, there's fire. I'm not I'm not saying that no one

No Latter -day Saint has ever said that because men can become like God that somehow

God is Change Martin. You're not you're not listening to my point My point is that every single man that you and van have quoted believed that God was unchangeable

If you've been with that James, you've told us I don't know how many times but you're not listening

Martin I we are listening. You're not listening to the parallels James. We have acknowledged.

Let me finish we have acknowledged That there is a difference between LDS view of the concept of God and your view and also early

Christian Church Fathers views of God the very same ones really the very same ones were quoting and Different about God than you do.

Yes, they did. Yes, they did Okay I don't think we've ever had a difference of opinion about that and I don't understand why you

Fail to acknowledge that why you know had to repeat yourself on that so many times I don't understand also why you

James fail to acknowledge that there are striking parallels that other scholars have acknowledged between the

Mormon Concept of deification and the concept of deification is espoused by early

Church Fathers. You fail to recognize that James Well, is it because can I you cannot possibly fathom to answer that somehow the

Latter -day Saints might might actually Might actually believe something that the early Christians did and gosh that they might actually then

James have some Form of Christianity that they believe in to answer that now, please.

Thank you I have pointed out over and over again since Irenaeus Ignatius Tertullian You name them every single one of them we can provide quotations where these individuals

Believed as you have now admitted that God has eternally been gone Now when a man who believes

I believe that God has eternally been God He's eternally existed and also that that man has eternal has an eternal

Component to him Joseph Smith said we have imagined in it. We have imagined that God has been

God from all eternity I'll refute the idea and take away the veils to George He's very in a way in a very true sense that that's the case and in another true sense

You would have to acknowledge that if God means ruling over heavens and earth then for all eternity

God has not been got in that sense because there was a time when there was no heaven and when there was no earth and when

There were no creations for him to be God over and there is no one if there is nothing and no one

For God to be a ruler over or a God over or God over you acknowledged earlier that there was a time

Before anything else had been created if there was a time like that, then there was a time when God was

God of nothing I don't know what kind of a God that is for you James, but that's not much of a God And so God has changed in the sense that he has created things

According to you the early father didn't believe as you just did In fact, they would have called you a a gross heretic to say that God because he pre -existed all created things

In fact, they utterly denied and called a blasphemy the idea that matter was co -eternal with God, which is an

LDS belief That's correct They do not agree with that and they would also not agreed with many of the concepts the you knows now man

Trinitarian clothes were not around in their earliest Subject at time.

I'd be glad to debate you on the subject of what they believe about the tree Well, you brought up early you brought up earlier tonight the idea of Creation the idea of the nature of God the idea of many different things that were not to be part of our discussion tonight

So I thought we were focusing in on deification and you're the one who brought us off point many many times

James You're you are an attorney. Are you not? I Am sir. Did you read the materials I sent to you?

Yes, I did Were those subjects brought up in my discussion of deification? Yes, they were

I thought they were extraneous to the concept of deification which is what you wanted to discuss In your letter your letter requested a discussion of deification

Actually, I sent up to you the pamphlet one God a response to Mormon apologists that the entire

Substance of the response Martin is to point out that the parallel falls down Because any sound parallel and you as an attorney no one said tonight parallels were complete

Can I get at least a couple of sentences together in a row here James? You've done that over and over again every jumped in on me when

I pray to make every head that everything Well, you've over and over again said that I've tried to take the thing off topic

I refute that charge but pointing out to you that the substance of everything that I provided to you very clearly very explicitly without even the slightest bit of hesitation made it clear that the refutation that I have provided of the attempt to parallel the doctrine of theosis with with LDS theology is

Based upon pointing out that any solid parallel as you as an attorney must know must take into effect foundational concepts and foundational beliefs the early fathers who spoke of deification had a radically and completely different view of God than the

LDS Church and hence any attempt to parallel that they themselves would have refuted now if you want to say there's parallels between Christianity and Buddhism and use that term for parallel sure because there's

I mean we talked about how to be good to one another We talked about how do you live righteous lives? Okay?

Now you've had 14 sentences in a row. Let me respond here your idea of Mormonism and Buddhism is absurd and you if you're honest would have to acknowledge

You would well the idea there Maybe I can say it this way James The idea that there are

Profound differences extreme differences and and practically no parallels if any between Mormonism and early

Christianity Is absurd on the face of it. In fact, I would say that there are far more parallels between Mormonism and early

Christianity than there are between on this particular topic on deification than there are between any other brand of Christianity and And and the early church fathers and and I would go one step further here and I would say that The You are focusing in on One difference here and that's the difference between the nature of God, you know that there is a difference

Between anything and therefore no parallels no No Analogy will stand up completely

Unless you're talking about the very same thing for the analogies the subject which which would be crazy And and so I am saying yes, there are differences in the concepts.

I Acknowledge that Vans acknowledged that but what you're failing to recognize are the tremendous number of parallels that are

Acknowledged if you'll look at scriptures in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants and and throughout the

New and Old Testaments and Many many of of these scholars have acknowledged that but but you alone seem to fail to do that GL prestige is not is not alone and you've you know,

I just want to go prestige does not address Mormonism will you acknowledge that? Oh, why does he have to?

Nobody said he had to just acknowledge it for me Well, the GL prestige has not in any of the writings that you have from him looked at Mormonism.

No, he is not Thank you. I didn't I didn't say that he had of course you implied it you implied it clearly

Well, I think the LDS beliefs would be clearly applicable to what he said Okay, but I'm gonna let

I'm gonna let the listeners decide if what the early fathers believed about God and how their entire

Fundamental belief and of course for a Christian I was talking about God again, of course not know what you've done that 30 times.

Excuse me for jumping in we're talking We're talking here about men and their ability to become like God I'm sorry

Martin, but Christians do not define God on the basis of man to define man the basis of God We have very different viewpoints on that and the early church did not define man on the base

God on the basis of men They defined men on the basis of God Your view of God is foundational to all other things and if it differs at that point

Then you can draw the parallels you want as I pointed out Hey people draw parallels to all sorts of things

But the individuals who believe those things would not have accepted as all right. Let's talk about the parallels

Do you believe that men can become joiners with Christ? Of course, you believe that they can rule on a throne in heaven

Yes with the same authority that God gave Jesus They are given authority through Jesus Christ and to judge

Well, the Apostles will judge the people of Israel and the Saints They paint the Saints are given judgment over the earth and they are going to reign

Yes, and they are filled with a fullness of God as we read in Ephesians 319

Yes, and they are partakers of the divine nature as we read in 2nd Peter Mm -hmm, and they receive a share of God's eternal glory as we read in first Peter 510

What do you mean by them and Colossians 127? Well, let's Colossians Colossians one.

I'm sorry. I was trying to say Colossians 127 Yes, do they receive a share of God's eternal glory?

Okay, that's a yes or no. Well, I'd like to look it up if you could all right to whom

God has made Chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you the hope of glory

Okay, you would you had cited from that page a couple times to the caller in regards to you've mentioned Matthew 25

And I looked up to all the references you were giving and and I didn't have any idea what you were referring to Yes, we we do have a glorious Hope as the genitive construction there can be translated and that hope is in Jesus Christ The other reference we will be one with him as he and Jesus are one as we read in John 1711 what will we mean and in God's image as we read in Second Corinthians 3 18 and we will be like him as we read in first John 3 well 2 and then

I can't load those up that fast Martin those those are well I thought you had all these memorized the point is there incredible parallels here between This biblical concept here of what the ultimate end of man is and what?

LDS doctrine is there that is what I believe deification is there are tremendous parallels to this situation to the early church because Peter and John and Paul all confessed that there is one true

God and that he has eternally been God so if you attempt to make that into anything other than that an attempt to read into their words a

Concept of the end of man that would deny their foundational beliefs that would be wrong But you cited first Peter 5 1 in supposedly short sharing the glory of God to the elders among you

I appeal as a fellow elder a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed now

Glory as in God's glory Jehovah says he will not share his glory with another and in John chapter 17

Jesus Christ and his high priestly prayer speaks of the fact that he shared the glory of the

Father from eternity past Now we will definitely receive glory in fact according to Scripture.

We have been glorified in Romans chapter 8 we have already received Glorification in one sense, but that is not the glory of the being of Jehovah God Okay, there's a clear.

It says the glory. I don't claim that I'm gonna become his being somehow Well since that's he's the only being who is

God if you're gonna become a God that's that's that's all there is he is Well, we're the only God in a certain sense the early church fathers believed that men could become

God's Not the same God, but God's and and I believe also that men can become

God's In a certain sense as well. Are you denying that men can become God's? No, I I accept perfectly exactly what the early church fathers taught in regards to men becoming gods

Which does not in any way shape or form have anything to do with my being

Ceasing to be a creature with my being becoming eternal with my in any way shape or form

Ceasing to be completely and totally dependent upon God throughout all ages Which is also something that the early church fathers taught that we when we become

God's quote -unquote are not to be worshipped I never really worship. I don't believe I will ever become independent of God or you need to become my

God Do you ever believe you will be worshipped? I don't know the answer that question. I do not know the answer if if God as as we read from Milton R Hunter and Brigham Young others if God went through a mortal probation as we are going through now and Became a god

I and you worship him now Then he was once a man and he will be worshipped if you were to receive exaltation and if God's glory

Comes through the ever -increasing number of his offspring even through your own

Spiritual offspring and your own being a god over your own planet. Isn't it true the true creation?

Okay, isn't it true then that your spirit offspring would give worship to you?

I I think that's possible, but I don't know the answer to that question I don't think there's I don't think we need to be too timid about that from the

New Testament You know the things that we read about in the New Testament. We're going to sit on the throne

We're going to share the throne. We're going to share the glory That Jesus has been given

By God says that we're worshipped. Well, in fact the early fathers since we want to talk about the early fathers

Explicitly denied that we would ever be worshipped. Are you aware of that? The very same very same father's did you in regards to deification

James James? I need that. I want to say something here that like I keep wanting to say every time

You keep talking about that the early church fathers saying this and believing that and this is their concept of God and on and on And on the fact is that there was tremendous diversity

That the concept of God that you keep referring to as being the concept of the early church fathers

The the overwhelming consensus of historians on early Christian doctrine are are maintaining that the position that you hold to as far as The nature of God and so forth particularly in regards to the

Trinity is not an idea held by the early church father And I corrected you on that earlier you you tried to correct me, but you didn't get it, but you did

Many scholars Well, if you believe James everything that the early church fathers did about God Then you believe contradictory things because are any of them held contradictory opinion

If I could if I could define my position one more time I have said in regards to what the early church fathers believed that they believed that God was eternal in our guinea toss

I didn't bring in the Trinity. Did I did I do that? Did I say that the early church fathers? Quoted the

Nicene Creed a hundred years before it was written. Did I say that? No You specifically interrupted me and said you can't speak for the early fathers in regards to the one thing that I said

And that is that the early fathers believed that God was our guinea toss now

You can find that in Kelly. You can find it in prestige. You can find it any One as you're making it sound as you're making it sound like there was the beginning.

Let's define Let's define this the early fathers had no con Can you show me a single early father who had the concept that God had ever been anything other than God?

Yes, who Let me respond to it in this way because this is this is the the area that I was

I was interested in is that you have diversity among the early church fathers in regard to the the

The position of Jesus I Was talking about God being anything other than God?

Okay. All right And that and you don't see the application to the the differences that were held among Christians in these early centuries in regard to the deity of Jesus No, okay

I'm asking when the early fathers spoke of God. Let's let's take let's take an air.

Let's take areas Mm -hmm. Okay, who clearly denied the deity of Christ? Was there any concept many areas his belief?

He I can't let you speak for areas. He didn't deny the deity deity of Christ said, okay in Then I will change that he believed that Jesus Christ had a point of origin in time

There is a time when the Sun was not that's right, but he didn't deny the deity of Christ. He was called a

God Yes, okay Did Arius or anyone else who would not have believed in Consubstantiality of the father and the son did any of them believe that God the father at a point in time?

Had been anything other than God? Okay. Now you're talking now you're changing it to God the father Okay, let's let's stick with God the father cuz you know

Because that's that's not the point that I wanted to make why not the point that I wanted to make is that there was

Considerable diversity and you're bringing up areas is not a bad example There there was considerable diversity about About the very use of the term

God various believed that Jesus was God He didn't believe that Jesus was God in in exactly the same sense that Athanasius did but he nonetheless believed that he was

God Okay, but he believed also believed he's a creature that he believed He wouldn't have used the term creature he didn't he did not use the term creature they created

But no, nope, he didn't even use that he used the term begotten, but he believed that he was begotten at a point in time which

Athanasius Athanasius was arguing against that he was Eternally been guy eternally begun.

So so here's the point Here's the point is that when you start trying to speak for all of all of early

Christianity and saying they all They all held this particular point of view. Here is an example with areas of a prominent church father

Who held to a point of view that that there was a being who was

God but who's? who's Who was begotten at a point in time and there was a time when he was not?

Did areas believe that there was more than one God in a supreme sense? I Would say

I'm okay. I'm glad that you have to say in what sense though Okay now did any early father that you know of in speaking of God the father and this is the whole point that I've made

From the beginning. Okay, but I'm making a different point. Well, but I'm asking you a question now Okay, did any early father teach that God the father?

Had once been anything other than God did any early father you really admitted that I've already told you that I have not

Found that I don't know how they did not believe that God the father had ever been anything other than God, right?

We've made this point Okay Now every time that I have said and represented the early fathers in regards to the nature of God It has been on that one point now if we all agree on it

Why do you keep stopping me and saying? Oh, but early early, you know, we're talking about it because James were talking about a different point

Well, wait a minute if you're gonna correct me at a point I'm making you need to deal with my point Not one you'd like me to make okay Well, then let me deal let me just let me come back and go over this point with areas one more time because he was not by any means alone

That there were a number of different ideas number of early Christian fathers who held ideas about about God that involved the possibility in fact, not that not just the possibility, but who believed that there was a point at which

G a point before which Jesus was not God and a point after which that he was

God The idea the idea of a person No, I've got a correction.

Okay a point before which he was begotten Now are you talking are you trying to bring in any type of adoptionism here?

Well, sure. Okay. All right, so you're There are all kinds of ideas. It's not just adoption. Okay, but arias would not be an adoptionist

You're right that Jesus Christ was created but he clearly differentiated him from the one true

God who has eternally been God, right Well, I believe that he did that okay that that's what

Athanasius would have said Arias wouldn't have I don't think would have agreed to that He saw Jesus as as having been begotten having come forth from the father at a point in time

So there was a and that was the whole argument on that particular point between him and arias was arias or Athanasius was saying

No, he is eternally begotten There wasn't there's never been a time when the son was not begotten and what was the whole point that brought up the controversy there?

The whole point about the controversy was that the Christian people Believed that God had eternally been

God when arias denied that Jesus Christ had eternally existed That was a denial of his deity hence a part of of Christian thinking of what makes deity is that you have to Eternally be

God to truly be God that is that it's all through the Old and New Testament and through the early fathers

But that's what that's what these these writers are talking about when they when they point out Tation for example says that our

God does not have his constitution in time He alone is without beginning. He himself constitutes the source of the universe

Martin asked, how do you you know, how do you define God? Well, that's that's that's how patient did he said

God is spirit He does not extend through matter, but it's the author of material spirits and of the figures in matter

He is invisible and intangible, but there was a party there There was another sense in which all these earlier church fathers

Use the word God and God's and it was not that sense that you're talking about that the word

God Meant more to them than just that but where does Tatian could you say that?

Where does Tatian apply that that description to Jesus? I don't believe that he necessarily doesn't he didn't apply that to Jesus All right, if are you saying

Tatian did not believe the deity of Christ? I'm not saying that at all Okay, if he did when he did then this would apply to the substance that the ouija the being of Jesus Christ would not

No, not necessarily not Because in the The the point that I'm getting at or attempting to and I don't know whether you see it and won't

Acknowledge it or you just don't see it, but I'm saying that in among the early

Christians There there were a number of them and a number of ideas Before the

Trinitarian concept kind of took over. I know that thing that I know, you know that But the there was the concept that it was possible

In fact with Jesus we have an example of a situation where we're

There are voices voices waiting to attend there there was a there was a

There is an example in Jesus of someone of a person who is

God in some sense And in fact among them in a very high sense

But who is not? equal to in the same Trinitarian sense with the father and his deity, but he is deity in a lesser at a lesser level than He was begun and very very quickly

I hear the point that you're making and I'm pointing out to you that when I have spoken of the early fathers I have spoken of their speaking of God in his absolute being and I would point out to you that the fathers who spoke about deification

Or as far as I as of the main ones Athanasius you cited him Irenaeus These individuals did believe in the full deity of Christ and he'd eternally existed with the father

So if you want to take it back to deification, but go ahead Dan. You're on the air with our guests I have a question for Reverend white.

He's made a great deal of the gulf of the chasm between Creator and creation a creator and creature.

So I'd like to know what he makes just as a point of information Of a passage like act 17 versus 28 to 29

You're talking about the passage that speaks of God being the creator. No No It's where Paul cites a pagan poet who says that we are

God's offspring and then he obviously quotes him with approval What would you make of that? Well, I think

I gave an indication in in exactly what I just just said that God who made the world and everything in it is the

Lord of heaven earth and does not live in temples built by hands It's what he says in verse 24

And so yes, he speaks of the fact that God is the creator of all things and that's how

I understand the term father God is not a man as we are men Hosea 11 9 tells us and says since we are

God's offspring We should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone In other words, we are created in the image of God if we are not

Idols of gold silver and stone that obviously God cannot be an idol of gold silver or stone either

We are creating the image of God in that sense You can be called an offspring But it that does not make

God Something different than what the prophets of Israel said the very God who is the eternal creator of all things

Who is spirit and who is is omnipresent? So offspring there has a very specialized definition that you could never use in any other context

No, not at all. Not at all. Because no not at all because for example in the Old Testament Israel is the offspring of God Israel Israel is called

Or God is called the father of the people of Israel, but obviously does not mean that God gives physical birth to nations

Well, that's quite true. It's using a metaphorical sense, but it does as it is here the same type as it is here

No, no, no No, you may remember that the word genus which is used there in the Greek is related In fact

Latin with genus the same one that we use and it means of the same type.

It means race descent kind Well, well,

I think you've just given type I think you've just caused yourself a problem because for example the term monogamies

Which is made up of monos and genos that is used of Jesus Christ as he is the unique the only begotten

Son of God Now if you're going to force genos into that, what are you going to do with with that? Meaning he is the with with that meaning he is the only one now

Again, it doesn't have to do with get off there obviously related, but it's not the same thing I don't want to get into a technical discussion of Greek terminology here

So all of the standard Greek dictionaries indicate something that is at the same get off with something else

Those things have something in common. They are the same kind of thing. I Think you're not really dealing with that issue

Well, I think you raised through the whole program and it simply breaks down when confronted with a verse like that Well, sir,

God rebuked those who thought that he was like them in Psalm 50 21 You've got to read

Acts 17 in the light of everything that has come before it which includes the clear emphasis That God is not a man that God is eternal that he is the creator of time

And this idea that he is somehow creating Beings of the same kind off of get off I think is reaching far beyond that if you have one of the standard

Greek dictionaries available to you For example the one you're right in front of me. Okay, bow aren't gingrich and donker. Does it cite

Acts 17 29? God I can get the other one in a second, but I don't think

I'll take the radio time to do it Well, I just tell you what it says here. Can I can I ask you something defendant?

Uh -huh genus. Yes That's what it says. It does not say The relationship of light bulb to inventor of light bulb

Okay So what your meat what you're saying that is if that same term is used of God creating a a planet for example in Psalm 90 verse 2

It says before the mountains were brought forth wherever thou form the earth in the world even from everlasting to everlasting thou art

God The word brought forth has has reference when used of humans to birth Are you going to be consistent and apply the same technical definition there and be?

Extremely literal and say that God is actually a female who brings the who gives birth to mountains and worlds

No, they're going to another language Greek term get up if you this way Uh -huh

Are you are you prepared to say right now that genos is never used of anything other than a physical? Relationship of the same kind father and son.

No, I'm not. I'm precisely not it can be used metaphorically In fact, you'd probably find it saying that it means kind or genus.

It says here. We are also his offspring now I don't care about that.

We are also his genus. We are of his kind, but that's what it says I don't say that it implies a physical relationship.

I do say that it implies a qualitative similarity. Well, wait a minute now I Think you've got to dig into this passage a little bit deeper and look for example at the verb that is used here and try

To deal with what it are. Are you familiar with the verb that's used there? So I'm looking right at it. What would you have in mind for park on?

Mm -hmm? What does that say? What do you think it says I'm curious well, obviously

Paul I do not believe for a second that Paul believed that we are gods or of the genos of God in that sense

I realize you don't mean you don't think that it means that but it seems to me to mean precisely that okay

And so would you say that we are are you would you say that the way I interpret this passage when you first gave it?

To me violates the meaning of genos. Yeah, we are created in the image and likeness of God that violates the meaning of genos

Well, by the way, you interpret image and likeness, yes, I think it does well I think that I interpret image and likeness the same way that Paul did because he said

God is invisible So what do you think image and likeness means? Oh Paul didn't mean by invisibility the invisibility and in theory he meant invisibility.

In fact, that's a very easy thing to deal with a very invisible a very easy thing to deal with that he when

Describing the nature of God said he is invisible. Yes, we don't see him. Do you see him right now? He dwells in light unapproachable.

Mm -hmm, and then that's just because well, we haven't seen him. But wait a minute I thought Joseph Smith saw him didn't he?

Yes, he did. Well, that means he's on visible doesn't know all the argument on this I'm not going to get into this Could I could

I invite you if you would be willing and if Martin would allow me to do so to For me to give out my address and to correspond with me on the meaning of genos

I would certainly be glad to correspond with you on the meaning of genos Can I could I give that address out Martin?

Sure, that's fine. Okay, you could write to us at Alpha and Omega Ministries and the post office box four seven

Zero four one. Let me repeat that. That's post office box four seven zero four one

Phoenix Arizona And the zip code there is eight five zero six eight

That's eight five zero six eight I would very much like to correspond with you on the meaning of genos in act 17 and Dig into you you mentioned you'd be willing to talk about the definitions the words dig into Bauer and gingrich and donker kittles

Theological dictionary, etc, etc Do that good. I'm looking forward to like by the way to take the occasion to deny something else that you've been assuming all along which is that That God is the creator of all things ex nihilo that doctrine is not attested before the second century and anything like clarity

I think that's very untrue. I think you'll find it. First of all in the Jewish sources very strongly where philo

Well, none of well, I wouldn't I wasn't even including philo in in in that but it is it is clearly said in Sense the context that I said it was in regards to the early church fathers

Obviously before the second century you're what you're saying is you do not find in Clement Ignatius or Irenaeus or maybe possibly

I'm sorry Well, I was talking about Clement of Rome Not Clement of Alexandria.

You don't you don't find it in Irenaeus. Nope. You don't you do not find Malito of Sardis Okay, and you'd and if you saw these things

I'm getting knocked across the room here moment And if you and if you saw these things if they were sent to you

Well, if I saw them, I'd want to know how you interpreted them. I doubt that they're there I'm thinking particularly of a correspondence or excuse me an exchange of articles between a couple of people in journal of Jewish studies a few years ago

There are far greater authorities on creation ex nihilo than I am But who placed the the invention of the doctrine sometime around AD 165 your favorite station?

Well, actually I'd place it in Colossians I'm sorry, Isaiah chapter 40 is being a very clear evidence. I know

I'd absolutely deny that. Well, you can deny it I just I just like to invite the listeners to read Isaiah chapter 40 through 48 and see if they don't find out there for Themselves.

Well, I think that's fair. They should know though that the that if the consensus informed opinion right now among scholars

It's simply the doctrine does not exist in the Bible I I totally deny that and would ask them to to look into it for themselves

Anything by David Winston who is the professor at the Graduate Theological Union Berkeley probably represents the greatest authority on the subject right now

And I'd like to just the dr. Kaiser from Trinity evangelical divinity school on the subject the Old Testament the doctrine of God there

Oh, well, I hate to say it. I hate to play academic status games, but he just doesn't write against Winston well, if you want to feel that way, that's fine, but Anyway, I think

I think it should be said for those who are listening that in terms of reputable scholarly accepted academic opinion outside of theological seminaries where their theological access to grind

The idea is this doctrine did not exist among the early rabbis among the writers of the

Hebrew Bible or even among the writers of the Greek New Testament and I'd like to add that amongst most scholarly Opinion outside of theological schools.

There is no God virgin birth or salvation either if you want to go that far Well, we're not talking about that kind of an issue of faith

I think we are and I wouldn't identify as an issue of faith That's it's not simply an issue of faith that's an issue of truth

Let me just suggest this that what you've been saying is you've been assuming as if this is something we just all had to go

Along with that is not true. Assuming what sir about creation? Actually, no, no, I mentioned

I absolutely rejected a majority of commentary. Excuse me I mentioned creatio ex nihilo in reference to the very same early fathers that we were citing in regards to deification

Please try to be accurate. No, no, no, you also used it with reference to the interpretation of the hermeneutic of act 17.

Oh Yes Yeah, well, I believe it's clearly in Paul Well, no one else all things are made by him and for him and he is before all things on him all things

In part with There are lots of things that that Reverend White has has disagreed with us and and the scholars on this evening

So I guess we'll leave it there. We don't give me that I think it's the truth that is a statement of fact

James I have a statement of fact there are many things that you've disagreed with First of all and foremost is is the parallels the striking parallels between the

Mormon? Concept of deification and that found in the writings of the early church fathers

If you want to leave foundational things, that's fine But don't say that you would like scholars money if you would like to that's fine

But you are disagreeing with scholars and I will make that statement again as are you you realize that you that the more of the

Entire Mormon position disagrees with ninety nine point nine percent of all Christian scholarship in the world

That is an absurd statement on the face of it This area of deification and on any other day

There's a K and on any other subject that there is a ninety nine point any degree of difference

Okay, that that is absurd the parallels between all brands of Christianity are far more striking than the difference

Let me let me ask you how many how many scholars? Would support the changes

Joseph Smith made in the Genesis chapter 50 and that in fact would support the

Joe Translation do you believe that that's 99 % that 99 % of the Bible was changed by Joseph Smith What does that have to do?

I just asked you you said that over 99 % was not The same was not parallel in any way

No, what I said was that 99 % of Christian scholars would disagree with as an example

Joseph Smith Quote -unquote translation. I use the term very loosely because I don't think he was translating anything

For example of inserting a prophecy about himself in the 50th chapter of Genesis Can you name me any

L any scholars outside the LDS faith that believe that Joseph Smith quote -unquote?

Restoration of Genesis chapter 50 has any basis in historical reality whatsoever as a translation as a translation

No, but I would be willing to say that 99 % of them have never even looked into the matter either

And so it's interesting when when scholars do look into it Then all of a sudden they are they're said to be biased because of supposedly being anti -mormon

I've had many conversations with Mormons for example where when a scholar has made a statement on Something relevant to the

LDS faith. Well, he's got a bone to pick well And and when we brought up a source earlier this evening where my word as a scholar finds striking parallels

I am if he was LDS. Yes, and he wasn't proper. No, that's fine. And and surprise.

He wasn't how do you account for that? James, what do you mean surprise? He wasn't I want to know if he was LDS because I've seen some writings that are tremendously

Did you buy it LDS? No, I did not. I wanted to ask if he was how do you account for the parallels that he found?

And the fact that he was not LDS I disagree totally with him with the application that has been made of the doctrine of deification in for example

The ensign or in Robinson's book if you want to say well, yes There are totally and completely foundational differences

The early the early Christians would never ever viewed their doctrine of deification the way we do

But there are still parallels if you want to say that and I said and and I said Something very close to that in the first three minutes of the show.

Mm -hmm, and that's why there are some substantial differences, although you Continue to fail to accept the striking and numerous parallels

Yeah, well, I don't I'm sorry if you walk home striking and numerous parallels The simple fact the matter is the early church fathers will let our letter to the night

Let me talked about joint heirs about drones about judges divine nature about all authority all those other things about becoming the very image and And I about about being made in God's image

All those things and yes, and and and you you don't see any of those and then

I have seen none of those is parallel Well since the early church fathers didn't define God by those things

Martin are oh really? But I don't define God none of those things have anything to do with that God Let that's an absurd statement

Those very things are used to describe a lot and those very things are used

To say how we will become like him. How can you say that those things don't define

God? How can you say that early fathers define God by some of the following things? Creator of all things do they ever say that men will be the creator of all things?

No, no No, and they ever say Mormon. They ever say be the creator of all things and neither do the early church fathers

Then you just made my point for me that they obviously Clearly do not have in the concept of deification the idea that men will become

God's in the way that The LDS believe that we are of the same species of God.

No, they ever say that they are to be worshipped No, but he's afraid to nobody says that the the deification as LDS believe it is exactly 100 % the same as the early church fathers.

We've said that there are striking parallels. You have pointed out a few different I'm sorry

But if if if those differences are absolutely foundational you as an attorney know that any good argument if you're attempting to make a parallel You have to deal with the foundations since the foundations are completely different since the early church fathers defined

God regards to his eternity and creation. Are you ever telling men in that? Are you telling me that the

LDS concept of God is in no way similar to the early Christian view in your view?

Yes, there's no parallel. No, no No, no, you believe it is not we carry on knowing you can not

God's all -knowing. You cannot do you believe? Yes, obviously you believe that he has all power.

Yes Great. We've got a few parallels. Don't we know how do you account for that the LDS? God the

LDS God does not have all power sir. Not in the Christian sense Well, what is it was there a

God do you believe do you believe what's there God before him? I I don't know the answer that I believe that that he was there from all beginning and so what?

Attorney, you know if you say that listen if you say that if you say that you have to say in what sense because in a very real sense

LDS people believe that God always has been you failed to acknowledge.

He always been God And he always been God of existence. He's self -existent. He was never begotten

No, no, he never lived as a man on another planet. I know he Was it was he was he born of parents?

Yes. Was he God at that time? No, then he cannot have eternally been

God. Oh, are you self -existent in a very real sense? Okay. So what you're saying is you're self -existent and God is self -existent with the early fathers who said that you were self -existent

Some would yes. Oh, really in a sense of God is self -existent. All right. I don't know

You're asking me to try and you tell me who said you're trying to get me to speak for the early church fathers the way

You want to speak for him? And I the fact is there are foundational very foundational differences between what you believe and what the early church fathers believe

Foundational difference I want but you don't want to acknowledge that you just want to point out you want to point out all

There is no difference between latter -day Early Christians, but you want to just sweep under the rug all the differences be

Martin. I don't appreciate that I'm not I'm not sweeping anything under the rug. That is that is an unfair statement

That is not an unfair statement you have you have presumed to speak for early Christian one point on and I've documented that and you

I don't read with the point. No, I that's not true. Yes, it is true What was the point that I spoke for the early fathers that God was again a toss?

Without beginning and origin and source and you agreed, but that's what they had said Oh, that isn't exactly what

I said. I disagree. I'm glad this is videotaped. I disagreed with you Because then we can go back and listen go back and listen, but let me just refresh your memory.

I made the point that The early church fathers did not all agree with you on the idea about That there is no possibility for a person being

God Except for the father I didn't say that first of all the point that I made in Representing the early church was that they believed that the being of God is our guinea toss without origin source

Independent and self -existent and that he is alone in that van. He is alone in that I stand by that.

In fact, I would be willing All right I would be willing to come back up here to Utah at your at your

Leisure and we'll find a place to do it and we'll go for three hours in a scholarly debate with with with moderator and And go for exactly what the early church fathers taught in regards to the fact is

God Self -existent or is he not? Well, I believe God's self -existent.

That's not the point. We've agreed on that We've agreed on it a hundred times And I said you keep going back to that as a veil for the point that I'm trying to make not avail at all

Yes, it is. It is. It's not I I'm saying and I I think you I think you were acknowledging

I mean you're kind of nodding your head and so forth I was I was pointing out that many of the early church fathers

Believed that there was a point in time when a person be became a person who is now

God Prior to that time was not God and I'm making reference to Jesus They did not believe that Jesus Christ was

God in the sense that God is God. That's right. That's right That's my point. Okay, we agree point.

How about that? That's a foundational difference between your your position and their position a foundational one

James a foundational one Can you accept that? Okay, who were they? You have a foundational difference between the early church fathers

Not the early church fathers Martin a few unorthodox early church Oh now they're unorthodox because they don't agree with where they're in the name them right now without any help

Who were they right now Martin? I can't name them So you don't even know who we're talking about to you this what did what did what?

Question you address what you address Vance question rather than trying to have jumped in on me and attacked me and said

I was out Of line with the early church fathers. I want to know from you I believe are you believing what somebody else is saying or do you know this of yourself?

I'm believing what somebody else is saying address your then let's read Origin origin said that God was hot they off and Jesus would say off.

He did not use the article of him Okay, we've got origin now I don't think you're gonna want to buy into origin because of everything you probably know enough about origin

I want to matter doesn't matter whether I want to buy into anybody or not I don't buy any of them as I told you in the first okay their point being that it was a not

Not the majority opinion of the early father. Let's stop right at 300 Are you gonna tell me that it was the majority opinion the early fathers that there was a point in time which a man became?

God I'm not talking about a majority. I'm saying that he was I'm saying that there is not

You said I disagreed with the father's if that's not a majority if it's one or two some okay

Oh, there's a girl father's plural or two No father's plural. Sure. We're not all

I never said all don't put words in my mouth either. Okay? We're not talking about one or two. We're talking about a very substantial debate

Mm -hmm and controversy that raged for a long time. That was a there was a we're not we're not just talking about some little

Some little unorthodox personal we're talking about something that let's go with a nation that was basically splitting

Let's start with Ignatius. Well, what's my view? I don't want to start with Ignatius I don't know because we're we've got four minutes left and I just wanted to make a general state go ahead and make the general statement is that the the historians of Christian doctrine have

In large numbers expressed Consensus type of opinion that the the concept of The Trinity which ties in all of this was not something which was known and prior to Prior to the 4th century the beginning of 4th century.

I found Ignatius and you know You can think you find it in Ignatius, but it's not there

Oh, I think there's no you that that requires an interpretation of Ignatius as does the statement that it's not there, right?

Well, of course, it's okay. So they're both they're both The statement it doesn't require an interpretation to say that there is no statement of the

Trinity In the New Testament or in Ignatius. He does not make it not as a formal He does not make a statement of the

Trinity. He just bases his thinking on it. Well, I Well, you can say that I mean you can blurt that out.

That would be an interesting point to discuss and debate It would be it would be something that we we wouldn't be able to Establish one way or the other because it's easy to state the

Trinity It's very easy to state the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity Paul could have stated that Jesus could have stated it

Ignatius could have stated none of them did and in fact, you know in all of them there are statements which simply don't

Don't fit well with the Trinity. Well, obviously that's that's a whole other subject I know it is I if we have a second to make a closing statement

I would just like to make the closing statement that all the materials that I Sent up upon which we were going to discuss made one point.

The point is that the early church as we have all agreed Well, I'm not gonna say that I also make the statement a lot of people discover it for themselves if they wish to do the research on it

The early church fathers who taught the doctrine of deification and they were not the entirety of the people

But the early church fathers who taught the doctrine deification taught that God has eternally been God never been anything other than God that he was without origin without source and hence any attempt to cons any attempt to parallel a concept that we can become gods that we can inherit the same power in the same exaltation as Joseph Smith said in the

King Follett funeral discourse and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Cannot be made a valid parallel because it differs on a foundational level if a person wishes to sacrifice

The meaning of the term parallel and just say well, I see things that are similar

Sure, their beliefs are totally different, but there are similarities Then of course those parallels can be can be drawn

But I do not believe that that is an accurate or scholarly way of dealing with the early church father Okay, let me summarize my thinking in one statement from Gregory of Nazianzus In which he says this for a cause he was born referring to Jesus and that cause was that you might be saved

While his inferior nature the humanity became God Because it was united to God and became one person

Because the higher nature prevailed in order that I too might be made God so far as he was made man

I mean, there's a there's an incredible statement being made there and those who are interested in reading the

The writings of the early church fathers are going to find incredible parallels between what they're saying about men's

Opportunity for deification and what the Latter -day Saints are saying and the same Gregory said God always was and is and will be or better He always is and goes on from there.

I don't look at everything. There's no debate about that We're out of time this evening. Let me

Invite you to join us again next week when we will talk on some things of interest to everyone

To deal with religion This is religion on the line at your chance each week from 7 until 10 to talk about religious related topics

I'm your host Martin Tanner and my thanks to James White and to Van Hill for being with us this evening two weeks after the previous program aired in Utah we began our missions work at the

LDS Easter pageant in Mesa a Christian brother from Utah came down to share the gospel during that event in speaking with him

He told me that he had listened to religion on the line And then informed me that the next program was entirely devoted to the exact same topic this time without any

Christian Representation I was not invited to provide further comments with reference to that program

Upon returning to Phoenix from Salt Lake I visited the local LDS bookstore and purchased the book

Reflections on Mormonism from which Van Hale had cited Ernst Benz's comments The listener will recall that it was commonly asserted that I was in conflict with Benz in regards to the position

I took with reference to the beliefs of the early fathers upon reading Benz's article I was only mildly surprised that what

Ben said was not exactly the way had been presented in the program Here is the quotation and the context given by Van Hale Not that he doesn't come out in the quotations that you cite.

But what Ernst Benz has done is he has After a lifetime of study of the history of Christian doctrine and the writing of a number of books and articles and so forth

He also studied the LDS doctrine And he's making a direct comment

He's doing the same thing that you've done. He's looked at the LDS doctrine He's looked at the early church fathers and he comes away with a different point of view than you do

Okay, and let me read it to you He says in northern Christian doctrine is the connection between God and man so closely conceived

The idea of man is the image of God so concretely and literally interpreted man brought into such close proximity

To God and God on the other hand so strongly directed to man as in Mormonism One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification

Which is a term that he uses to define to describe the LDS doctrine

Says 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 Athanasius the great bishop of Alexandria the head of the church in all

Egypt Summarized the Christian doctrine of salvation in the words God became man so that we may become

God the goal of salvation is deification and Athanasius invokes in this context the words of Jesus be you therefore perfect even as your father which is in heaven is perfect What did

Bence actually say first We know that he opens his 17 page article with a discussion first of Augustine's doctrine of the

Imago Dei The image of God and then contrasts this with the views of the Christian mystics

It is these mystics that Bence will refer to when comparing LDS theology Next in defining

LDS theology Bence goes against most modern LDS teachers, but follows Joseph Smith closely

He says quote beginning at page 210 of the book But what was God in the beginning the

Mormons startling answer to this question is that in the beginning God was man His relationship to the universe is the same as man's relationship to the universe

He attempts to rationally form the given universe and make it useful to him since he is subject like man law of progression this has to mean that and then he quotes

God must have been engaged from the beginning and must now be engaged in progressive development and Infinite as God is he must have been less powerful in the past than he is today it is clear also that as with every other being the power of God has resulted from the exercise of his will as Knowledge grew into greater knowledge by persistent efforts of will his recognition of universal laws became greater until he attained at least a conquest over The universe which to our finite understanding seems absolutely complete

We may be certain that through self -effort the inherent and innate powers of God have been developed to a godlike degree

Thus he has become God That being a quote from John Wood so's rational theology

He continues this naive formulation of that which Schelling made the basis of his natural theology the doctrine of theogony

Presupposes that the form in which God undertook the progressive organization of the earth was the human form universally accepted among the

Mormons is the idea that God has attained his present state of godhood through his own efforts to organize the

Universe in place of the God of conventional Orthodox churches who has always been complete

Mormonism knows of a God who has attained by his own activity by progressive creative organization of the eternal material power laden universe a

Relative Dominion over the world a task which in no wise is complete and which needs further refining by means of more

Eternal progression the universe is not yet complete God has not yet attained the highest degree of his godhood

He has accomplished a great deal since he engaged as an exalted man in the organization of the universe

But he has yet much to do progression is infinite and Here we have a direct assertion by bentz that according to Mormonism God is still progressing in all aspects of his being a belief decried by Mormon Apostle Bruce R McConkie even van hale asserted that God's being has not changed relevant to our time period

Note as well that bentz identifies this concept as naive and that he clearly sees that it is foreign to the orthodox concept of God Bentz continues his article by discussing various corollaries to the

LDS conception of deity He speaks of the LDS concept of marriage and then of birth control

It is in this context that the quotation provided by van hale is found. However, Mr Hale left out a great deal from the quotation.

He read here is the quotation in full In no other Christian doctrine is the connection between God and man so closely conceived the idea of man is the image of God so Concretely and literally interpreted man brought into such close proximity to God and God on the other hand

So strongly directed to man as in Mormonism the thought of apotheosis in mysticism

Which expresses itself there and the idea of the spiritual divine birth in man and in the spiritual procreation of the

Sun in man and in the progressive deification of man has been Translated here into a theology of evolution and progression

Where the path that man travels from his prehistoric to his earthly form of existence? To his future corporeal mode of existence in the kingdom of heaven is understood as the path of eternal progression

Determined by the great plan of God which makes possible man's ascent to godhood It is not the path

However of the lonely celibate mystic but the way of a great and ever -growing family of Saints in whom the creative conscious

Organization of the universe is perfected 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 were Who conserved the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy par excellence?

We must remember here that for the ancient church salvation stood in direct correlation to embodiment Athanasius the great bishop of Alexandria the head of the church in all

Egypt Summarized the Christian doctrine of salvation in the words God became man's that we may become

God The goal of salvation is deification and Athanasius invokes in this context the words of Jesus be therefore perfect Even as your father which is in heaven is perfect Matthew 5 48

Note that mr. Hales quote skips the entire point that Bence is comparing the LDS view with that of apotheosis in Christian mysticism

He further states that the Christian mystics view is translated into a quote Theology of evolution and progression and quote in other words

He admits the clear differences between the two concepts even in the doctrine of deification itself

Next we know the mr. Hale left off in the middle of a sentence and skipped directly to another sentence in his quotation

Leaving a false impression that was very important to the arguments presented by the defenders of Mormonism for the rest of the program

Mr. Hales quote went like this LDS doctrine says 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

Athanasius the great bishop of Alexandria the head of the church in all Egypt Summarized the Christian doctrine of salvation in the words

God became man so that we may become God However, the actual quotation goes as follows one can think what one wants 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 were who consider the thought of such a substantial connection between God and Man as the heresy par excellence.

We must remember here that for the ancient church salvation stood in direct correlation to embodiment

Athanasius the great bishop of Alexandria the head of the church in Egypt summarized the Christian doctrine of salvation in the words

God became man so that we may become gods now in all fairness to mr Hale we should point out that a year earlier on the same program on KTK K in Salt Lake City When mr.

Hale read this passage he did include that section later on in the discussion not when he first read it

But he did go back and add that in and at that time we did not discuss the subject to the depth that we did

In this program finally we know some of the closing comments of Benson's article 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 most sublime 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 a man a consciousness of his own divinity

But attempts to have him recognize the image of God in his neighbor What a contrast between that and these words from Mormon Apostle George Q Canon men talk about evolution

This is the true evolution being such as we are and developing advancing and progressing in that upward and onward career

Until we shall become like him in truth until we shall possess the powers that he possesses and exercise the

Dominion that he now Exercises this is the promise that is held out to us. What is there more helpless weak puny insignificant?

And it may be said in many respects than a human being when it is born into the world Yet this being if nurtured properly if trains it should be has before it a career of never -ending glory

That little puling infant may become in the eternity of our God a God to sway power and Dominion in the eternal worlds

To be the father of unnumbered millions yet at its birth who would anticipate such a future for it

He also said we hear considerable about evolution Who is there that believes more in revolution than Latter -day

Saints the evolution of man until he shall become a God That is the gospel of Jesus Christ believed in by the

Latter -day Saints In closing we find nothing in Benson's article that would dispute We asserted from the beginning that being that the

Mormon concept of God is so far removed from the view of the Bible in the early church that the attempt to make a parallel between the concept of Theosis in the teachings of some of the early fathers and the

LDS concept of eternal progression is improper the attempts by LDS writers such as Robinson Peterson and Rick's to deflect

Christian criticism of LDS teachings by attempting to draw a parallel between the patristic doctrine of theosis and the