(Scripture Reading Exercise.)

SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF DEITY.

SPECIAL TEXT: Stephen, "being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly 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 vii: 55, 56.

NOTES.

These notes are taken from the Roberts-Van Der Donkt Discussion on Deity. The Catholic Father states the objections and presents the argument for them; Elder Roberts gives the answers, and argues for their accuracy and efficiency. The debate in full is found in "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," chs. ii and iii.

1. The First Objection—God is a Spirit—Hence Immaterial: "God is a Spirit" (John iv., 24). "Another strong and explicit statement is: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in heaven.' (Matt. xvi). "As the Christ has asked, what^[1] do men say the Son of Man is (Matt. xvi, 16, 17), there is an evident antithesis and contrast between the opinions of men and the profession of Peter, which is based upon revelation. The striking opposition between men, flesh and blood, and the Father, evidently conveys the sense that God hath not flesh and blood like man, but is a Spirit (Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion—Mormon Doctrine of Deity—p. 45).

2. God is Invisible, Hence Immaterial: It is also held that God is described as being "invisible," in the Bible. Then it is added: "All material beings are visible. Absolute invisible beings are immaterial or bodiless: God is absolutely invisible, therefore God is immaterial or bodiless. * * * * * * Tertullian, (A. D. 160-245), Ambrose (330-397), Augustine (354-430) and other Fathers, whose deep scholarship is acknowledged by Protestants and Catholics alike, informs us that God the Father is called invisible because He never appeared to bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested Himself as an angel, or through an angel, and as man, after His incarnation. He is the eternal revelation of the Father. It is necessary to remark that whenever the eternal Son of God, or angels at God's behest, showed themselves to man, they became visible only through a body or a material garb assumed for the occasion (see Cardinal Newman's "Development of Christian Doctrine," 9th edition, pp. 136 and 138)." (Ibid.)

3. The Purpose of Anthropomorphic Appearances and Descriptions of God: "Again, Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of this wickedness"—Eph. vi: 12—Could plainer words be found to teach that angels both good and bad, are spirits devoid of bodies. Now, the Creator is certainly more perfect than His creatures, and pure minds are more perfect than minds united to bodies (men). ["The corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind" (Wis 9:15.) "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (St. Paul).] Therefore, the Creator is a pure spirit.

"It is a well known fact that all men, after the example of the inspired Writings, make frequent use of the figure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the Deity a human body, human members, human passions, etc.; and that is done, not to imply that God is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man, who, while he tarries in this world, can perceive things and even ideas only through his senses or through bodily organs." (Ibid).

4. The Answers: The whole fabric of this objection and argument, is built upon the assumption that "spirit" is immaterial. I say "assumption," because it is nowhere declared in revelation that "spirit" is immaterial. On the other hand, whenever spirits have been seen, or God has been revealed, they have appeared to the eyes of the beholder in human form. They were tangible to human sight; they had configuration; they occupied space; and as form and extension are qualities of matter, spirits must be material, albeit of finer substance than the bodies tangible to the senses in normal states of consciousness. The argument quoted in the preceding notes of the lesson, were treated in part in the following manner:

5. Of God Being a Spirit: "Mr. Van Der Donckt's first premise is that "God is a Spirit," quoting the words of the Savior (John 4: 24); and Paul's words, "The Lord is a spirit," (II Cor. 3: 17.) He then argues that a spirit is different from a man, and quotes the remark of Jesus to His disciples, when He appeared to them after His resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have" (Luke 24: 37-39). Also the words of Jesus to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it [that is, that Jesus is the Christ] unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven." (Matt. 16: 17.) The gentleman, in all this, sees a striking contrast between men, flesh and blood, and the Father; which "conveys the sense that God hath not flesh and blood like man, but is a spirit." * * * * With reference to the passage—"Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven," and the Reverend gentleman's remarks thereon, I wish to say, in passing, that the antithesis between man and God in the passage, extends merely to the fact that the source of Peter's revelation was God, not man; and is no attempt at defining a difference between the nature of God and the nature of man. Here, also, I may say, that the Latter-day Saints do not hold that God is a personage of flesh and blood, but a personage of flesh and bone, inhabited by a spirit, just as Jesus was after His resurrection. Joseph Smith taught, concerning the resurrection, that "all [men] will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." Again, in speaking of the general assembly and church of the first-born in heaven (Heb. 12:23), he said: "Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by the Spirit of God, can." So it must be remembered, throughout this discussion, that the Latter-day Saints do not believe that God is a personage of flesh and blood; but a personage of flesh and bone and spirit, united. * * * * * * * * But now for the "Mormon" exposition of the text. Is Jesus Christ God? Was He God as He stood there among His disciples in His glorious and, to use Mr. V's own word, "sacred," resurrected body? There is but one answer that the Reverend Catholic gentleman or any orthodox Protestant can give, and that is in the affirmative—"yes, Jesus is God." But "God is a spirit!" True, He is; but Jesus is a spirit inside a body—inside an immortal, indestructible body of flesh and bone; therefore, if Jesus is God, and God is a spirit, He is an embodied spirit, just as the Latter-day Saints teach.

Mr. Van Der Donckt endeavors to anticipate the "Mormon" answer to this argument by saying: "I am well aware that the Latter-day Saints interpret those texts as meaning a spirit clothed with a body, but what nearly the whole of mankind, Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans, have believed for ages, cannot be upset by the gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator of this last century."

At this point, I will not appeal to or quote the "gratuitous assertions of a religious innovator of this last century"—meaning Joseph Smith. There is no need of that. If I were an unbeliever in the true Deity of Christ, I might take up the gentleman's argument in this way: You say God is a spirit, and hence bodiless, immaterial? His answer must be, "Yes." But Jesus says, "a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have."—Hence Jesus is not God, because He is a personage of flesh and bone, in the form of man—not bodiless or immaterial. (This refers to the Christ after his resurrection when he was a resurrected man and immortal in that state). This, of course, is not my point. I merely refer to it in the beaten way of good fellowship, and by way of caution to my Catholic friend, who, I am sure, in his way, is as anxious to maintain the true Deity of the Nazarene as I am; but his method of handling the text, "God is a spirit," might lead him into serious difficulty in upholding the truth that Jesus was and is true Deity, if in argument with an infidel.

6. Of God Being Invisible: Mr. Van Der Donckt thinks he sees further proof of God's being a "Spirit," and therefore immaterial or bodiless, in the fact that He is spoken of in the Bible as being "invisible." Moses "was strong as seeing Him that is invisible," (Heb. 11:27); "No man hath seen God at any time" (I John 4: 12). "The King of kings—whom no man hath seen nor can see," (I Tim. 6: 16); are the passages he relies upon for the proof of his contention.

Of course, Mr. V. is aware of the fact—for he mentions it—that these passages are confronted with the explicit statement of scripture that God has been seen by men. Moses saw Him. At one stage of his experience, the great Hebrew prophet was told that he could not see God's face; "for," said the Lord, "there shall no man see Me and live." But even at that time, Moses was placed in a cleft of the rock, "and thou shalt see My back parts," said the Lord to him; "but My face shall not be seen" (Exodus 23: 18-23). On another occasion, Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, saw God. "And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet as it were, a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink." (Ex. 24: 9-11).

Isaiah saw Him: 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple.' At the same time the seraphims proclaimed His holiness, saying, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory." Then said Isaiah: "Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." (Isaiah 6: 1-5).

To harmonize these apparitions of God to men with his theory of the invisibility of God, Mr. V. appeals to the writings of some of the Christian fathers, and Cardinal Newman, from whose teachings he concludes that God the Father is called "invisible" because "he never appeared to bodily eyes; whereas the Son manifested Himself as an angel, and as a man after His incarnation. * * * Whenever the Eternal Son of God, or angels at God's behest, showed themselves to man, they became visible only through a body, or a material garb assumed for the occasion!" "Surely Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, the great English Cardinal of the Roman church, and Mr. V. are in sore straits when they must needs take refuge in the belief of such jugglery with matter as this, in order to reconcile apparently conflicting scriptures. And what a shuffling off and on of material garbs there must have been, as from time to time hosts of angels and spirits appeared unto men! It is but the materialization of the spiritualist mediums on a little larger scale. But there is a better way of harmonizing the seeming contradictions; and better authority for the conclusion to be reached than the Christian fathers and Cardinal Newman. I mean the scriptures themselves." (The argument in illustration of the last statement is too extended to quote here. See Roberts-Van Der Donckt Discussion, pp. 80-84.)

7. Of Anthropomorphism and Understanding the Bible Literally: I must say a word upon Mr. V's remarks respecting the plain anthropomorphism of the Bible, and the matter of understanding that sacred book literally. With reference to the first he says: "All men, after the example of the inspired writings, make frequent use of the figure called anthropomorphism, attributing to the Deity a human body, human members, human passions, etc., and that is done, not to imply that God is possessed of form, limbs, etc., but simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man."

I would like to know upon what authority Mr. V. adjudges the "inspired writings" not to imply that God is really possessed of form, limbs, passions, etc., after attributing them to Him in the clearest manner. The "inspired writings" plainly and most forcibly attribute to Deity a form like man's, with limbs, organs, etc., but the Bible does not teach that this ascription of form, limbs, organs and passions to God, is unreal, and "simply to make spiritual things or certain truths more intelligible to man." On the contrary, the Bible emphasizes the doctrine of anthropomorphism by declaring in its very first chapter that man was created in the image of God: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him." The explanation is offered that it was necessary to attribute human form, members and passions, to God, in order to make spiritual things intelligible to man; but what is the reason for ascribing the divine form to man, as in the passage just quoted? Was that done to make human beings or certain truths more intelligible to God? Or was it placed in the word of God because it is simply true?

The truth that God in form is like man, is further emphasized by the fact that Jesus is declared to have been in "the express image" of the Father's person (Heb. 1: 3); and until Mr. V. or some other person of his school of thought, can prove very clearly that the word of God supports his theory of the unreality of the Bible's ascription of form, organs, proportions, passions and feelings, to God and other heavenly beings, the truth that God in form is like man, will stand secure on the foundation of the revelations it has pleased God to give of His own being and nature.

8. "The Morbid Terror of Anthropomorphism": Dean Mansel, in his "Limits of Religious Thought," administers a scathing reproof to the German philosophers Kant and Fichte (and also to Professor Jowett, in his note xxii in Lecture 1) for what he calls "that morbid terror of what they are pleased to call anthropomorphism, which poisons the speculation of so many modern philosophers, when they attempt to be wise above what is written, and seek for a metaphysical exposition of God's nature and attributes." These philosophers, while holding in abhorrence the idea that God has a form such as man's—or any form whatsoever—parts, organs, affections, sympathies, passions or any attributes seen in man's spirit, are, nevertheless, under the necessity of representing God as conscious, as knowing, as determining; all of which, as pointed out by Dean Mansel in the passage which follows, are, after all, qualities of the human mind as well as attributes of Deity; and hence the philosophers, after all their labor, have not escaped from anthropomorphism, but have merely represented Deity to our consciousness, shorn of some of the higher qualities of the human mind, which God is represented in the scriptures as possessing in their perfection—such as love, mercy, justice. (The very extended passage from Mansel's work will be found as foot note in "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," pp. 85-88.)

9. Angels Bodiless Beings: According to Mr. Van Der Donckt's doctrine, "Angels as well as God are bodiless beings." Angels, both good and bad, are spirits, devoid of bodies. The Creator is more perfect than His creatures, and pure minds [minds separated from bodies] are more perfect than minds united to bodies. * * * Therefore the Creator is a pure spirit." But where does this leave Jesus? Was and is Jesus God—true Deity? Yes. But Jesus is a spirit and body united into one glorious personage. His mind was and is now united to and dwelling in a body. Our Catholic friend says, "pure minds [i. e., minds not united to bodies] are more perfect than minds united to bodies." He also says, "Angels, both good and bad, are spirits (i. e., minds) devoid of bodies." Therefore, it must follow from his premises and argument, that angels are superior to Jesus, since His spirit is united to a body, while they are minds not united to bodies! I will not press the point, that the same conclusions could be drawn from his premises and argument with reference even to bad spirits, whom he says are bodiless, and hence, upon his theory, superior to minds or spirits united to bodies, for that would be ungenerous upon my part, and would lay upon his faulty argument the imputation of awful blasphemy, which I am sure was not intended, and would be as revolting to him as it would be to myself. Mr. V., I am sure, would contend as earnestly as I would that Jesus is superior to the angels, though it is perfectly clear that He is a spirit united to a body.

Footnotes

1. The Catholic priest, Van Der Donckt, who is stating this objection, uses the word "what," although that word is not used in either the common English version, nor in the Douay (Catholic) Bible. "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" Then to the apostles "But whom say ye that I am? (Matt. xvi, 13-14). This is from the common English version. The Douay Bible gives the same passages, "Who do men say that the son of man is?" and "Who do you say that I am?" So really the question is not what the son of man is, but who; hence there is no significance added to the matter from the questions asked.