In 2002, James R. White (Reformed Baptist) debated
Latter-day Saint apologist, Martin Tanner on the topic, “Can Men Become Gods?”
This debate focused on the Latter-day Saint doctrine of “eternal progression”
(AKA Theosis; Apotheosis; Deification; Divinisation).
Being a convinced Latter-day Saint, I admit to being biased; however, I have to say that both sides were pretty awful. One can
watch the two hour debate on youtube here:
Martin did a good job at presenting the key scholarly
sources on the patristics vis-à-vis the doctrine of deification, and would
recommend the sources he used to those wishing to delve into this doctrine
(they present the non-LDS understanding of this doctrine better than any of
White’s books or debates). However, one will notice that he did not give any
meaningful discussion of the Latter-day Saint understanding of deification, let
alone the theological presuppositions underlying the LDS understanding
of deification (e.g. eternal pre-existence; creation ex materia as
opposed to ex nihilo). This allowed White to score a few superficial
points with the audience in his opening by presenting the LDS view and then
claim his opponent is sidestepping his own faith’s distinctive teachings (a
common tactic he has employed before [e.g. in his 2010 debate on Purgatory
against Robert A. Sungenis]). Martin also should have zoned in White’s dancing
around Christology—Jesus was exalted according to New Testament authors
(e.g. Phil 2:5-11). If Jesus was exalted and given a name above every other
name, and we will inherit all the things which Christ inherited from the
Father, it stands to reason that we will share in that divine inheritance.
White tried to relegate the importance of Rom 8:17 by saying that we will
inherit all the things Christ inherited but such does not include any
promise of exaltation (many Protestants would interpret this text as a promise
of glorification, but not deification).
Additionally, while Calvin and Luther may have held to
some form of deification, there would be a number of theological
presuppositions underlying that doctrine that would be alien to LDS formulations
thereof (e.g. the nature of justification and righteousness; the nature of
mankind). This also brings us up to an important part of the debate—theologically,
they were speaking past one another, as the presuppositions were different from
the get-go. If LDS are to engage Reformed individuals in debate, one should be
cognizant of their theology (e.g. forensic nature of the atonement and
justification; total depravity of human beings). It is not just simply a matter
of exegesis of Rom 8:17 and other texts.
And while not an important part of the debate, Martin’s
claim that “Abba” means “daddy” was like nails on a chalk board for me (Abba is
vocative not diminutive; "o father" would be the correct translation, contra Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus and other commentators).
White was equally lousy. Indeed, this was one of the
poorest showing from White, argument-wise, and is perhaps only matched by his
poor showing against Robert Sungenis on the topic of Predestination.
Furthermore, White made the same, time-worn and long-refuted arguments from his
anti-Mormon books (e.g. Is the Mormon My Brother?), such as the Elohim in Psa 82:6 are human judges, not deities and that Isaiah 40-48 teaches strict monotheism. Furthermore, he equivocates when he
cites biblical and patristic literature on “creation” (he labours under the
mistaken assumption that “create” and “creation” mean creation ex nihilo.
However, as Blake Ostler and Thomas Oord have shown, that is simply not the case, and
is refuted by any scholarly study of the Hebrew and Greek terms denoting
creation; White et al are guilty of equivocation). In addition, he is simply
wrong in claiming that no one among the apostolic fathers held to deification.
Origen is a key witness in his work, “Dialogue with Heraclides”:
Origen said: Since once an inquiry has
begun it is proper to say something upon the subject of the inquiry, I will
speak. The whole church is present and listening. It is not right that there
should be any difference in knowledge between one church and another, for you
are not the false church. I charge you, father Heraclides: God is the almighty,
the uncreated, the supreme God who made all things. Do you hold this doctrine?
Heracl.: I do. That is what I also
believe.
Orig.: Christ Jesus who was in the
form of God, being other than the God in whose form he existed, was he God
before he came into the body or not?
Heracl.: He was God before.
Orig.: Was he God before he came
into the body or not?
Heracl.: Yes, he was.
Orig.: Was he God distinct from
this God in whose form he existed?
Heracl.: Obviously he was distinct
from another being and, since he was in the form of him who created all things,
he was distinct from him.
Orig.: Is it true then that there
was a God, the Son of God, the only begotten of God, the firstborn of all
creation, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are
two Gods, while in another there is one God?
Heracl.: What you say is evident.
But we affirm that God is the almighty, God without beginning, without end,
containing all things and not contained by anything; and that his Word is the
Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God
according to the spirit, man inasmuch as he was born of Mary.
Orig.: You do not appear to have
answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow
you. Is the Father God?
Heracl.: Assuredly.
Orig.: Is the Son distinct from
the Father?
Heracl.: Of course. How can he be
Son if he is also Father?
Orig.: While being distinct from
the Father is the Son himself also God?
Heracl.: He himself is also God.
Orig.: And do two Gods become a
unity?
Heracl.: Yes.
Orig.: Do we confess two Gods?
Heracl.: Yes. The power is one.
Orig.: But as our brethren take
offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the
doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the
two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which
are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught
that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of
things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only
to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the
simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill
the doctrine in the ears of our hearers. . . . Accordingly, there are many
things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages
of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his
wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of
the creation of the world that they two are one: "For the two shall be one
flesh." Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however,
that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one
spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one
flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the
apostle to be one with Christ: "For he that is joined to the Lord is one
spirit." Is it not true that the one is of a subordinate nature or of a
low and inferior nature, while Christ's nature is divine and glorious and
blessed? Are they therefore no longer two? Yes, for the man and the woman are
"no longer two but one flesh," and the righteous man and Christ are
"one spirit." So in relation to the Father and God of the universe,
our Saviour and Lord is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher
than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings
are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous man
is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father
is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honourable than these —God. That is why we
understand in this sense "I and the Father are one." When we pray,
because of the one party let us preserve the duality, because of the other
party let us hold to the unity. In this way we avoid falling into the opinion
of those who have been separated from the Church and turned to the illusory
notion of monarchy, who abolish the Son as distinct from the Father and
virtually abolish the Father also. Nor do we fall into the other blasphemous
doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures
mean when they say: "Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be
none after me," and "I am and there is no God but me"? In these
utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe
. . . in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from
God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus' saying,
"I and my Father are one."
Compare the above to the longstanding Latter-day Saint
understanding of the relationship of the Father and the Son, the “number of God,”
and interpretation of John 17:22.
Furthermore, Tertullian, contra White, did teach
deification—see his Against Hermogenes. As for his comment that Ignatius and
Polycarp did not discuss deification, and this somehow deflates LDS claims,
such is utterly inane given the brevity and highly limited scope of their
epistles (also, White has to ignore that Polycarp’s most celebrated student,
Irenaeus of Lyons, explicitly and repeatedly taught the doctrine). Further, it
is not true that comments about deification language only appears in
apologetic contexts—they appear in non-apologetic contexts in the writings of
Clement of Alexandria; Cyprian and Origin, among others.
I did find it funny that White had to qualify his
response to Martin’s question (if White considered Athanasius orthodox).
Athanasius held to a number of doctrines White believes to be blasphemous (e.g.
the perpetual virginity of Mary; infant baptism; baptismal regeneration;
transformative justification; the personal sinlessness of Mary). And yet, White
will quote Athanasius in his works as evidence, for instance, that the early
Christian fathers held to Sola Scriptura (apparently, they held to
formal sufficiency of the Protestant canon but held to a diametrically polar “gospel”
than the one White proclaims [see his chapter, “Sola Scriptura in Early
Christianity” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible]).
While much more could be said, on his use of Vajda’s
MA thesis, ("'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Modern Doctrine of Divinization") I will quote Errol Amey in a message he sent me about this debate
from 2013:
He quotes from Vajda
concerning differences between patristic and Mormon thought, but completely
ignores the section that emphasises the similarities between them, and is conveniently
silent concerning the fact that Vajda drew conclusions that are contrary to
White’s own. Nor does he mention that after years of additional study, Vajda
[who has been a Catholic priest] became a Latter-day Saint.
Overall, this debate could have been informative had a
good LDS debater who knows LDS *and* Reformed theology (e.g. Blake Ostler) and
a scholarly, non-LDS engaged in a debate. However, as it stands, this was a
pretty poor debate.
