There's an interesting parallel between Mariolotry and unitarianism. For instance, Catholics draw hairsplitting distinctions between dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. There's the veneration paid to the saints, the special veneration paid to Mary, and the adoration reserved for God.
Likewise, unitarians say Jesus is rightly "worshipped", but not in the say way God is worshipped.
By the same token, Catholics say it's proper to pray to Mary. Even though she's only human, Mary can simultaneously process millions of prayers in dozens of foreign languages every day.
Likewise, the NT records prayers directed to Jesus (e.g. Jn 14:13-14; Acts 7:59; 9:6; Rev 22:20). So unitarians must believe that Jesus, even though he's merely human, can simultaneously process millions of prayers in dozens of foreign languages every day.
What is more, Catholics believe Mary is the Queen of Heaven. Likewise, unitarians believe that Jesus, though just a man, is sitting at God's right hand, and subjugating God's enemies from heaven.
ReplyDeleteGood questions in this post. Thanks.
"Likewise, unitarians say Jesus is rightly "worshiped", but not in the say way God is worshiped."
That's what *some* unitarian Christians say. But towards the end of this talk, I say that this looks like a merely verbal distinction, unless it is a trivial one. I invite you to interact with what I argue there. http://trinities.org/blog/who-should-christians-worship/
The "kinds of worship" gambit is interesting; it was enshrined into law, is it were, by the seventh ecumenical council - Nicea II (787). That's a long discussion! But I think Protestants are right not to be impressed.
Don't say, BTW, that in our view the risen and exalted Lord is "merely" human or "just a man." Nothing mere about the Messiah, in the NT view. It's just that, he doesn't "have a divine nature." We don't buy into such problematic, post-biblical theories. The "mere" rhetoric is just an old hostile slander, really - as if in our view, Jesus is no greater than other men. This is like describing Calvinism as "fatalism" or Arminianism as "denying sovereignty." Obnoxious, non-descriptive labels that the folks would reject - this is not good apologetic procedure.
If you want to know why "two natures" theories are problematic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6wK-lRZP-k&t=96s
About Jesus hearing prayers: if God has put Jesus in charge of the church and the world, he must have somehow upgraded his power and knowledge. I agree with trinitarian philosopher-theologian Tom Morris that there is no obvious upper level to how much power and knowledge a human being can have. So yes, in my view, he can do what you said. The NT does feature prayers to Jesus. Still, the primary way of prayer there seems to coming to God, through Jesus, and asking directly of him, as in the Lord's Prayer.
Don't want to "worship a man"? Better get used to the idea - everyone will, whether reconciled to God or not. Philippians 2:9-11.
Phil 2:6-11 teaches the Incarnation. Teaches the deity of Christ. So, no, I don't have to get used to worshiping a man.
DeleteInteresting, Steve, how you just said "man" when you meant "a mere man." I find proponents of "two natures" theory often making this mistake. They think, the Logos - that's the real Son, right? And it's not essentially human. No room to also have a human in there. So the "man" Jesus really turns out to be God in disguise - perhaps a longer lasting theophany. This is a major motivation, btw, for biblical unitarians - consistently and without confusion upholding the straightforward NT teaching that Jesus is a man.
Deletei) Dale, try to be more intelligent. I'm responding to you, so I'm using the word the way you were using the word.
Deleteii) I said there's a God in disguise "motif" in the OT, and the Synoptic Jesus has parallels with that.
That doesn't say how he's "disguised". It doesn't imply that his human appearance is just an appearance or costume. A God-incognito is entirely consonant with a full-blown divine Incarnation.
iii) In fact, God's nature is essentially indiscernible, not an object of direct sensory perception, so assuming a two-natures divine Incarnation, only the human nature would be directly observable. The divinity is not an empirical phenomenon. Observers can't see that a God Incarnate is a God Incarnate.
Rather, a God Incarnate must say and do things that imply his divinity. And in that respect it's not fundamentally different from knowing God in general. That's going to be mediated by creation.
For that matter, it's analogous to the knowledge of other minds. Not something we directly perceive.
Thanks for that advice, dear friend. I shall henceforth try to be more intelligent!
DeleteIn his A Vindication of Christ's Divinity, Daniel Waterland makes many good points on the side of Trinitarianism when it comes to worship in Query XVI and following queries. He too makes a comparison between Unitarianism's and Catholicism's graded worship. For example, He points out that internal psychological intention of graded worship is not consistent with Scripture or Christian practice. He gives many examples. One is that such graded worship would have been permissible toward angels if it were true. Yet it's forbidden twice in Revelation 19 and 22. Another is that early Christians willing to die rather than sacrifice to pagan gods would have been pointless if they merely had to think in their minds that "I'm just performing physical actions and not adoring those gods". In the link above, it starts at page 229 internal to the scanned pages [or page 260 according to the pdf page numbering].
ReplyDeleteI know this is a tempting argument - *surely* your view entails that it is OK for us to worship Mary, saints, angels, Tele-Tubbies, pagan gods, etc. But that just doesn't follow, no matter how much you want it to. Here is our view, premise 1:
ReplyDelete1. It is right and obligatory for people to worship Jesus because God wants all people to worship Jesus (as shown by his exaltation of Jesus).
2. _____
3. Therefore, it is right and obligatory for people to worship Mary (etc.)
Annoyed, please try to fill in the blank. Give us a premise to which any Christian is committed, or to which we unitarian Christians are committed, that together with 1 will imply 3. Then you'll have an argument.
Note that the position above does not require any "psychological intention of graded worship." The position is compatible with distinguishing between different kinds of worship, or not.
My comment wasn't in response to your comment, but Steve's post. Also, that sidesteps the more fundamental issue of why it is Jesus can be worshipped given OT precedent. As I wrote to you in another blog:
Delete"...nowhere does the NT explicitly say that OT regulations about only worshipping YHVH and having no other gods before or in addition to Him has been abolished and [actually] reversed(!) such that now there are two gods or being[s] who can be worshipped. Or give instructions as to why this could be."
Doesn't your position make God out to be an idolater since He commands His creatures to worship that which is not God?
DeleteSorry, meant to say that your position means that God commands idolatry since you assert He commands that His creatures worship that which is not God?
Delete"why it is Jesus can be worshiped"
ReplyDeleteBecause, God has exalted him to his right hand, and this is understood to imply that he should be worshiped, as seen in Phil 2, Rev 5.
You are right that no such explicit revision of that OT law is in the NT. It is an interesting question why. But their practice is clear enough, as is their justification for it, as Hurtado has observed. Nor, as he and I have also observed, do they collapse Jesus and his God into one and the same God. In NT theology, God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ, and now this one Lord ("Lord" as in Ps 110:1) is worshiped together with God (Rev 5), to the glory of God (Phil 2). Two objects of worship, yes. (Note: not three or four.) Hence Hurtado's talk of the "binitarian shape of worship" in the NT.
Nor, as he and I have also observed, do they collapse Jesus and his God into one and the same God.
DeleteAs you know some scholars would demur or outright disagree on account of passages like 1 Cor. 8:6. Possibly even John 10:30 might suggest it given Jesus repeatedly says "hear" in the chapter as if echoing the Shema (meaning "Hear") and Ps. 95:7 which says " Today, if you hear his voice....". It's interesting that Jesus says He and the Father are "One" in that chapter. Suggesting a connection with the Shema. I go into this in a blogpost citing McLatchie and Lewis.
In NT theology, God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ...
That doesn't necessarily mean Jesus wasn't Lord/YHVH or Messiah prior. The fact that Paul says in Rom. 1:4 Jesus was declared to be the Son of God after the resurrection doesn't mean He wasn't the Son of God prior. In the same way, Jesus could have been YHVH prior to His incarnation as many NT and OT passages suggest. Surely you're aware of how some have argued that John's use of Logos includes an allusion to the Aramaic targums/targummim which often personified the Angel of YHVH or the Word of YHVH. That can't just be swept under the rug. This was dismissed early on by scholars, but it has revived because of manuscript discoveries since. See John Ronning's "The Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology". I know you're also aware of the Two Powers speculations among the early Jews.
Hence Hurtado's talk of the "binitarian shape of worship" in the NT.
But that doesn't necessarily deny that the Holy Spirit can be worshipped. Especially since the NT focuses on how the Holy Spirit enables us to worship Father and Son. But a case could be made that the Holy Spirit can be worshipped and treated as God. Revelation 5:6 says that the seven eyes of the Lamb are the seven spirits/Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. The fact that Rev. 1:4-5 says that grace and peace is bestowed not only by the Father and Son, but also from the "from the seven spirits who are before his throne" is consistent with the Holy Spirit being a divine and personal dispenser of grace and peace. Notice how the seven spirits (or Spirits) are closely attached to or associated with God (the Father) and the Lamb (Son). [cf. Rev. 3:1; 4:5. As well as Rev. 22:1 where the river–signifying the Holy Spirit—flows from the throne.]
The Holy Spirit enabling us to worship the Father and Son is how we share in the divine life. Or as Peter phrased it, partaking of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). This is why it makes perfect sense for the NT to teach that we become temples of God when the Holy Spirit indwells us. All the while affirming the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son. As I document in my blogposts:
DeleteThe Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality
The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit
Hi C.M., good question. The short answer, is, what you said is not a proper definition of idolatry. Worshiping the exalted human Messiah is not, in the view of NT writers, idolatry, even though yes, it is worshiping a creature of God (and thereby worshiping God). For my longer answer, and my interaction with that verse in Romans 1 you're referring to, please see my "Who Should Christians Worship" talk on YouTube or the paper, which is freely available online.
ReplyDelete"As you know some scholars would demur or outright disagree on account of passages like 1 Cor. 8:6. Possibly even John 10:30 might suggest it given Jesus repeatedly says "hear" in the chapter as if echoing the Shema (meaning "Hear") and Ps. 95:7 which says " Today, if you hear his voice....". It's interesting that Jesus says He and the Father are "One" in that chapter. Suggesting a connection with the Shema."
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed, one just can't argue with this sort of free association. Hints and indications and broad similarities, really, are worth nothing in this debate.