Matt Slick has recently written an article attempting to respond to James Stutz, Can a Man See God? 1 Timothy 6:16 in Light of Ancient and Modern Revelation. I will interact with some of Matt's comments showing that, in spite of his popularity, his inabilities at exegesis is mediocre at best; non-existent at worst.
One of the arguments presented in support of this is that God the Father cannot be seen by mortal men as the Scriptures teach in John 6:46 and 1 Timothy 6:16
Just on John 6:46, let me just state that, according to Craig Keener, a competent biblical scholar, noted that in some Jewish and Christian traditions a mortal could see God if his vision was supernaturally enhanced or is his life was spared through God’s mercy (The Gospel of John [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003], 1:143 n. 570). Such is consistent with D&C 67:11 and James’ arguments.
In other words, he assumes the validity of Mormonism and begins with the assumption that Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father. This is a logical fallacy called begging the question where a person assumes the validity of the thing he is trying to prove. Mr. Stutz does this by assuming that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and then argues from Smith's statements as revealed in D&C, which you'll see later.
Slick is also begging the question here; apart from his lack of exegetical abilities resulting in a lot of poor arguments, much of Slick’s arguments are based on his a priori assumption of sola scriptura. I have discussed this false doctrine a number of times on this blog, and to see how Slick cannot defend this doctrine, see my article responding to his comments on 1 Cor 4:6 and his radio debate with Robert Sungenis.
Here is a question for Slick: Where in the Bible does not it tell us that special revelation ceased with the inscripturation of the final book of the New Testament? He will not be able to make an exegetically-sound argument.
My Trinitarian position is that the passage correctly describes the Father as the only one having immortality. Of course, the context is key
This would mean that there is an ontological difference between the Father and the two other persons of the Trinity, so Slick is shooting himself in the foot by using this “argument.”
Perhaps Mr. Stutz does not realize that the apostle knew Jesus was resurrected and was in an immortal, glorified state.
This is a dodge. Resurrected persons are made immortal in Slick's theology, so discussing the resurrected person (not only his mere human nature) of Jesus being immortal is Slick dodging the real issue which James raises.
Jesus is referring to all of the Old Testament appearances of God and says no one has ever seen the Father - except himself. We know this is the case because Jesus was sent from the Father (John 4:34; 5:24; 6:38). In addition, the perfect tense "has seen" deals with the past, not the present, and not the future.therefore, all of the appearances of God in the Old Testament were not God the Father. However, we know that God Almighty was seen (Exodus 6:2-3) but it was not the Father (John 6:46). Logically we would say that the appearances of God in the Old Testament are the pre-incarnate Christ.
Again, Slick dodges the real issue that James raises in the article vis-a-vis Trinitarian Christology. In this theology, the Father and the Son (as well as the Spirit) are the same substance of one another, so he is again dodging the issue with respect to man seeing "God"; if the Father cannot be seen due to the glory/immortality he intrinsically has, the same must apply to the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity. Sick's arguments refute his Trinitarian Christology.
One text that refutes Slick’s absolutised reading of 1 Tim 6:16 is that of Acts 7:55-56 where Stephen sees both the Father and the Son, something similar to Joseph Smith’s experience in 1820.
But he [Stephen], being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55-56 [KJV])
Some may claim that Stephen only saw the “glory” of God (v.55), but only if one isolates this verse from the proceeding verse that speaks of Jesus being at the “right hand” of God (the Father).
A typical response to LDS usage of this verse as evidence for our theology is that the term, “right hand” can be used in a metaphorical sense. Therefore, they argue, it is being used in a metaphorical sense in this passage. There are a couple of things wrong with this approach, most notably it is the fallacy of undistributed middle—
First premise: Some instances of “right hand” are metaphorical.
Second premise: “Right hand” is used in Acts 7:55-56
Conclusion: Therefore, the use of the term, “right hand” is metaphorical in Acts 7:55-56.
The predicates in both the major and minor premises does not exhaust all the occurrences of this term and would therefore not necessitate such an interpretation in Acts 7:55-56. A more non-dogmatic and accurate conclusion would be that Acts 7:55-56 could have a metaphorical meaning, but such should be said with much caution as the argument for such a meaning is not nearly as simplistic as critics would like it to be.
It is true that the term can be used in a sense of authority (e.g. Biden is Obama’s “right hand man”). However, to claim that this is how it is to be interpreted in Acts 7:55-56 is eisegesis. This passage is describing what Stephen saw in vision; it is not a metaphorical for the relationship Jesus has with Father vis-à-vis authority. Indeed, what is being described is the spatial-relationship between the Father and the Son. Those who critique the LDS understanding have to ignore the literary genre of this pericope. Furthermore, the author of Acts 7:55-56 is alluding to a Messianic text from the Old Testament, Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX). The LXX of this verse reads:
τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμός εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου
Psalm of David: The Lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool (my translation)
Here, the first Lord (in the Hebrew, Yahweh) says to a second lord (adoni in Hebrew, meaning “my lord”) to sit at his right hand. The only meaningful, and exegetically sound interpretation of this verse is that the second lord is sitting at the right-hand of God, and not that he is the “right-hand man” of God (though he does indeed serve as God’s vizier, to be sure).
In Trinitarian theology, there is an allowance (albeit, an ambiguous one) for a distinction between the persons of the Father, Son and Spirit (e.g. the Father is not the Son). However, there is no allowance for a distinction between “God” and any of the persons. However, the Christology of the New Testament tends to distinguish “God” (θεος) from the Son, not simply the “Father” from the Son, as it does here, differentiating between ο θεος (literally, the God) from Jesus. Indeed, the other instances of the New Testament’s use of Psa 110:1 differentiates, not just the persons of the Father and the Son, but θεος and the Son. For instance, consider 1 Cor 15:22-28 and Heb 10:12-13:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order. Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is expected, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God (θεος) may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:22-28)
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (θεος); From henceforth expecting till his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet. (Heb 10:12-13)
In both these pericopes, Psa 110:1 is used, and clearly, a distinction is made between, not just the persons of the Father and the Son (which is accepted, equivocatingly, by Trinitarian theology), but God (θεος) and Jesus, a distinction not tolerated by Trinitarianism, and something one also finds in Acts 7:55-56.
LDS apologist, Jeff Lindsay, provides a good LDS interaction with this pericope and common objections to its use here.
If Matt Slick will reject the Prophet Joseph Smith's claim to have seen the Father in the First Vision, consistently, he will have to reject the account in Acts 7:55-56.