James White on Why Mormons Aren't Christians

[maklelan]

I'm guessing that we're disagreeing about degrees of worship.

Can a person worship under duress? Can a person be forced to worship?

Yes and no.

In other words, if you forced people to worship, under threat of death, then would you consider the simple act of bowing down to be equal to a person who was sold out and into worshiping the same person?

Would both be "seen" as worship? I suppose. But, as it relates to the passage in Rev. 3:9, it doesn't change the fact that the object of worship isn't stated as the Philadelphians people. Rather, the bowing is submission to the fact that Jesus loved them.

Besides the fact that your conclusion about the object of the worship in Rev 3:9 is demonstrably wrong, the sincerity or soteriological efficacy of worship makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the question of whether or not something constitutes worship. You still have the example of early Jewish and Christian martyrs to respond to.

[BCSpace]

However, I must disagree that Christianity is monotheistic, at least in a way that materially distinguishes it from Mormonism. Christianity, in all the manifestations of which I am aware, accepts the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, seraphim, and all kinds of divine beings. From an etymological point of view, Christianity is absolutely not monotheistic. It believes in numerous divine beings. A divine being is and always has been, by very definition, a god. We may argue that one is higher than, and rules absolutely over the others, but this is monarchism, not monotheism, and it erases the lines of distinction between James’ Christianity and Mormonism.

I believe this is an error. As not one of your examples of "divine" beings are worshiped as God is, rather all of them worship the one true God.

This logic is fine as long as you also accept that Mormons are Monotheistic for the same reason. We also worship the one true God, not any of the other real and divine Gods that do exist.

[WalkerW]

"Divinized" isn't implied or taught in the Biblical texts. Rather, divinity is what God is by nature. His creation, what we are, is what we will always be, no matter our location. Communing with God directly doesn't make us more divine or change who we are, we will still be his creation.

This presupposes a Creator/creature divide that is the product of the development of creatio ex nihilo in the 2nd century AD.

"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature..." (2 Peter 1:4).

Ironically, the concept of the Trinity was largely based on the doctrine of divinization. From my blog:

British philosopher Christopher Stead writes,

Christian writers naturally turned to the Bible for their teaching on the nature of God. But the use of it was often influenced by the philosophical thought of their own day. The Hebrews...pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though trascending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures. Such a conception, set out in the earlier books of the Old Testament, retained its authority despite some later changes of emphasis. But this biblical view...was radically modified in the teaching of Philo of Alexandria...[who] presents him as the metaphysical first principal of the universe, without bodily form or human passions, indeed without any sensible qualities: a perfectly simple, unchangeable, unfathomable being...Christian writers developed a broadly similar view, partly because they were influenced by the same philosophical authorities, partly through direct imitation of Philo himself. To this they added their doctrine of the Trinity... [1].

Jewish theologians didn't completely rid themselves of the concept of an anthropomorphic God until the 12th-13th century [2]. Even the anti-anthropomorphism of certain Christian philosophers provide evidence that early Christians believed in an anthropomorphic God [3]. Humans were the literal image of God and therefore partook (or at least had the potential to partake) in His divinity [4]. David Bentley Hart, an Eastern Orthodox philosopher (and, consequently, a Trinitarian), recognizes that the earliest Christians would have understood the cosmos to consist of a hierarchy of divine beings, with the Father being at the top as the Most High. Christ was therefore understood as a subordinate, second god:

[T]his secondary divine principle could be called God's "Son" or "Wisdom" or "Logos." The term "Logos" came to enjoy a special favor among Christians, as it had been adopted by the author of the prologue of John's Gospel to identify the pre-incarnate Christ...As a general rule, the "articular" form ho Theos-literally, "the God"-was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the "inarticular" form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, is preserved in the prologue of John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god." It was entirely natural, therefore, for many Christians...to think of Christ as the incarnation of this derivative divine being who, though he functions in all respects as God for us, is still a lesser being than the Father [5].

The Trinity, therefore, was not an original belief of Christianity. He goes on to explain the position of Arius (c. 250-336), who believed Jesus to be a created being, subordinate to the Father. It must be remembered that by this time, Christian philosophy and theology divided ontologically between God and the created order (and by created, they meant creatio ex nihilo or "creation out of nothing" - something that neither Mormonism or the Bible teaches). As Blake Ostler put it,

When we talk about one God in modern Christianity we begin with a basic fundamental assumption in all of Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought: it is that there is God and then there is everything else. I call this the assumption of metaphysical monotheism and this is the very fundamental point from which [other Christians] begin...and it is this assumption: There exists a simple, immaterial substance that is necessarily the sole instance of the kind "divine" and utterly unique in the sense that there are no other members in the class of being occupied by this simple substance; alone has ontologically necessary actuality; (that means God is the only one that can't fail to exist) and everything else that is actual in any way depends upon this simple substance for its actuality. What that means in shorthand term is, God created and everything else is created. It's that simple [6].

Therefore, to Arius, Jesus could not be divine in the same way the Father is. Hart explains why this was opposed, leading to the formulation of the Trinity:

Ultimately, though, the Arian position was untenable simply because it reduced to incoherence the Christian story of redemption as it had been understood, proclaimed, prayed, and lived for generations...For Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and many others, it was first and foremost the question of salvation that must determine how the identity of Christ is to be conceived. And they understood salvation, it must be appreciated, not in the rather impoverished way of many modern Christians, as a kind of extrinsic legal transaction between the divine and human by which a debt is canceled and the redeemed soul issued a certificate of entry into the afterlife; rather they saw salvation as nothing less than a real and living union between God and his creatures. To be saved was to be joined to God himself in Christ, to be in fact "divinized"-which is to say, in the words of 2 Peter 1:4, to become "partakers of the divine nature." In a lapidary phrase favored, in one form or another, by a number of the church fathers, "God became man that man might become god." In Christ, the Nicene party believed, the human and divine had been joined together in a perfect and indissoluble unity, by participation in which human beings might be admitted to share in his divinity...Only God can join us to God. And so, if it is Christ who joins us to the Father, then Christ must himself be no less than God, and must be equal to the Father in divinity [7].

Another scholar writes, "A fully divine Saviour was needed to ensure the salvation of mankind, which was understood on both sides as an actual divinization, or exaltation to the level of Deity" [8]. He continues:

To assert that deification is incompatible with the Bible on the basis of the differentiation between the divine and human found therein is to impose an ontological standard on the text which was not there originally. Stauffer asserts that the Semitic concept of God has to do primarily with power, not metaphysical being. Immortality "is simply a presupposition of this lordship," so that "the emphasis is on the dynamic definition rather than the metaphysical." Although the Septuagint had greatly subdued the anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew Scriptures, "the personal nature of God" was very much "a living reality" to the earliest Christians. Matthew 5:48 calls God τελειος "not in the sense of metaphysical speculation, but in terms of moral perfection." God is "faithful," meaning that his goodness is unfailing, but nowhere is he described as "unchangeable" in an ontological sense. The glib assumption that the Bible's "sharp distinction" between God and man precludes deification is ill-conceived; in fact, this is an example of Greek philosophical metaphysics read into the text. The irony is that it was the Church Fathers themselves who worked at reconciling such philosophical principles with the biblical revelation, while at the same time they were expounding a soteriology of deification [9].

1. Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 1994): pg. 120.

2. See Shamma Friedman, "Anthropomorphism and Its Eradication" in Iconoclasm and Iconoclash: Struggle for Religious Identity, ed. W.J. van Asselt, Paul van Geest, Daniela Muller, Theo Salemink (Brill, 2007).

3. See David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83:2 (1990); Carl W. Griffin and David L. Paulsen, "Augustine and the Corporeality of God," Harvard Theological Review 95:1 (2002); Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives," BYU Studies 35:4 (1995-1996); Paulsen, "Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God," in Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (FARMS, 2005).

4. See David Bokovoy's enduring "'Ye Really Are Gods': A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John," FARMS Review 19:1 (2007).

5. Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press, 2009): pg. 204.

6. Ostler, "The Fallacy of Fundamentalist Assumptions," Transcript of a presentation given at the 2005 FAIR Conference.

7. Hart, 2009: pgs. 205-206.

8. Keith Edward Norman, "Deification: The Context of Athanasian Soteriology," PhD dissertation, Duke University (1980).

9. Ibid. Deification (and thus a lack of metaphysical monotheism) can be found within Judaism as well. For example, after reviewing the "claims of the Hekhalot literature that a man, Enoch, ascended to heaven and was metamorphosed into Metatron, the 'little Yahweh'," Peter Hayman asks, "But how does this material square with the supposed transcendental monotheism of Judaism from the post-exilic period on? Not at all, as far as I can see!" (Hayman, "Monotheism: A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?" Journal of Jewish Studies 42:1, 1991: pg. 5).

[Hughes]

Worship was an act, not a motive behind the act.

In Re. 3:9 the church of Satan will worship the Philadelphians, and know that God loves them. You can't get around the element of worship.

Unfortunately the passage doesn't say that. It says, that Jesus is forcing them to bow, it doesn't say he's forcing them to worship the men as if they were gods, rather as my interlinear translates the word, "should do homage before they feet" or as Dr. Grant C. Richison says, "The word "worship" means to make obeisance, do reverence to. "Worship" comes from two words: towards and to kiss. The idea is to give respect by prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet. People can give respect by attitude and activity of respect and may imply supplication. One day the enemies of the church will acknowledge with respect that the church was right. These religionists will admit that they were wrong. They will see how God opens and shuts doors through the church. " Link to Dr. Grant C. Richison's commentary on this verse

If it meant as you are arguing, then it would say something similar to what the other passages that use the same word say. It would say, they were worshiping the Philadelphians, but since it doesn't say that, pushing that interpretation on this passage is an error in my view.

[volgadon]

Unfortunately the passage doesn't say that. It says, that Jesus is forcing them to bow, it doesn't say he's forcing them to worship the men as if they were gods, rather as my interlinear translates the word, "should do homage before they feet" or as Dr. Grant C. Richison says, "The word "worship" means to make obeisance, do reverence to. "Worship" comes from two words: towards and to kiss. The idea is to give respect by prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet. People can give respect by attitude and activity of respect and may imply supplication. One day the enemies of the church will acknowledge with respect that the church was right. These religionists will admit that they were wrong. They will see how God opens and shuts doors through the church. " Link to Dr. Grant C. Richison's commentary on this verse

If it meant as you are arguing, then it would say something similar to what the other passages that use the same word say. It would say, they were worshiping the Philadelphians, but since it doesn't say that, pushing that interpretation on this passage is an error in my view.

As you have ignored Maklelan's evidence to the contrary, let me ask you this question. When was the last time you read the book of Esther?

[maklelan]

Unfortunately the passage doesn't say that. It says, that Jesus is forcing them to bow, it doesn't say he's forcing them to worship the men as if they were gods, rather as my interlinear translates the word, "should do homage before they feet" or as Dr. Grant C. Richison says, "The word "worship" means to make obeisance, do reverence to. "Worship" comes from two words: towards and to kiss. The idea is to give respect by prostrating oneself before a person and kissing his feet. People can give respect by attitude and activity of respect and may imply supplication. One day the enemies of the church will acknowledge with respect that the church was right. These religionists will admit that they were wrong. They will see how God opens and shuts doors through the church. " Link to Dr. Grant C. Richison's commentary on this verse

That is wrong and is just incredibly bad apologetics. Rev 22:8-9:

And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet (προσκυνῆσαι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν) of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book. Worship God.

The construction is identical: the verb proskyneo with a preposition indicating a location before the other person's feet. The angel said it was inappropriate to be directed at him, and that John should "worship God" (τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον - the same verb). The construction does not mean one thing here and an entirely different thing in Rev 3:9.

If it meant as you are arguing, then it would say something similar to what the other passages that use the same word say. It would say, they were worshiping the Philadelphians, but since it doesn't say that, pushing that interpretation on this passage is an error in my view.

There is no error. The text states that the Philadelphians will be worshipped.

[WalkerW]

For one blaming Maklelan and others of interpretations that are not present in the text, I found the reference to Richison's comments ironic.

[volgadon]

For one blaming Maklelan and others of interpretations that are not present in the text, I found the reference to Richison's comments ironic.

Why don't we ask Hughes were the verse says "These religionists will admit that they were wrong. They will see how God opens and shuts doors through the church."

[todd520]

I know this topic has been done to death, but someone directed me to

, which is a little old. I thought it was an interesting take, especially since James White basically states that Christianity fundamentally defines itself according to its relationship to Mormonism. I have a lengthier response up on my blog (here). What are your thoughts on James' argument?

He is a good example of Christians not really knowing what they are talking about.

As you pointed out, he does create his definition to exclude LDS.

His comment on LDS beliefs on exaltation show he is completely ignorant about the teachings by all the ECF on deification.

The Catholics still proclaim "Christ became man so that man might become God" in their Catechism.

I can accept he disagrees with deification but he can't deny it's Christian origins.

He also misquotes smith to his own petulant ends, completely ignoring metaphor and allegory when it suits his arguments

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

You wrote:

First, if you intend to characterize Christianity as recognizing the existence of other gods while only worshipping one God then you're describing monolatry or monarchism, not monotheism, and what you're describing is no different from Mormonism. Next, according to Revelation 3, the Philadelphians will be worshipped by the "synagogue of Satan." The Bible flatly contradicts your claim. The Dead Sea Scrolls also mention the nations worshipping the people of God (4Q246). Other Second Temple Jewish and even rabbinic literature describes the worship of other divine beings as well. Lastly, many of the other divine beings recognized in the BIble certainly were worshipped by their respective cultures. According to Deut 4 the gods of the nations were set up by God so their nations could worship them.

I'm a bit confused as to what your view really is here. On the one hand, you say that Mormonism is no different from traditional Christianity in its "only worshipping one God." But then you immediately cite the Bible and extrabiblical Jewish literature to prove that other divine beings were and will be worshiped. Please help me put these two claims together.

[maklelan]

mak,

You wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to what your view really is here. On the one hand, you say that Mormonism is no different from traditional Christianity in its "only worshipping one God." But then you immediately cite the Bible and extrabiblical Jewish literature to prove that other divine beings were and will be worshiped. Please help me put these two claims together.

We like to think of ourselves as worshipping only one God, just like you. People criticize your claim just as they criticize ours. You will appeal to Trinitarianism, a fourth century theological innovation, in defense of your claim. I show that the worship of other beings was found in normative ancient Judaism and Christianity, which both claimed to worship one God. If someone doesn't like the way we characterize our worship, that's fine, but they need to be objective about what they propose instead. If one wants to get technical, monotheism cannot really be said to exist at all within Judaism or Christianity. I'm fine with the way you want to self-identify despite the criticisms I can raise of it, and I simply ask that our self-identification be respected as well, despite the criticisms that can be raised of it. If we both assert our criticisms, our worship still comes out much closer to the Bible and to first century Christianity, even if it does not align with the modern philosophical construct that is known as "monotheism."

[Vance]

mak,

You wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to what your view really is here. On the one hand, you say that Mormonism is no different from traditional Christianity in its "only worshipping one God." But then you immediately cite the Bible and extrabiblical Jewish literature to prove that other divine beings were and will be worshiped. Please help me put these two claims together.

How does recognizing that the Bible clearly shows that other divine beings were and will be worshiped require Mormons to do anything more than "only worshiping one God"?

Another false dichotomy there Bowman.

[urroner]

1 Cor. 8:5-6

5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6. But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book II) Sections 2 and 3

Section 2

To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

Section 3

3. VARIOUS RELATIONS OF THE LOGOS TO MEN.

Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity. To this we must add, in order to obviate objections, that the reason which is in every reasonable creature occupied the same relation to the reason who was in the beginning with God, and is God the Word, as God the Word occupies to God. As the Father who is Very God and the True God is to His image and to the images of His image--men are said to be according to the image, not to be images of God--so He, the Word, is to the reason (word) in every man. Each fills the place of a fountain--the Father is the fountain of divinity, the Son of reason. As, then, there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, so there are many Lgoi, but we, for our part, pray that that one Lgos; may be with us who was in the beginning and was with God, God the Logos.

<snip>

Now the God of the universe is the God of the elect, and in a much greater degree of the Saviours of the elect; then He is the God of these beings who are truly Gods, and then He is the God, in a word, of the living and not of the dead.

Bolding is mine, italicizing

[cksalmon]

There is no error. The text states that the Philadelphians will be worshipped.

Daniel,

Just to give you the opportunity to double-down on the "no error" bit (or renounce it entirely, or something else): Is it really your contention that the synagogue of Satan will be made to worship the Philadephians, in this text?

I do agree with you with that proskyneo really does mean worship, here, by the way.

cks

[urroner]

Isn't there someplace within the Bible where the people of Israel fell down and worshiped Solomon?

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

You wrote:

We like to think of ourselves as worshipping only one God, just like you. People criticize your claim just as they criticize ours. You will appeal to Trinitarianism, a fourth century theological innovation, in defense of your claim. I show that the worship of other beings was found in normative ancient Judaism and Christianity, which both claimed to worship one God. If someone doesn't like the way we characterize our worship, that's fine, but they need to be objective about what they propose instead. If one wants to get technical, monotheism cannot really be said to exist at all within Judaism or Christianity. I'm fine with the way you want to self-identify despite the criticisms I can raise of it, and I simply ask that our self-identification be respected as well, despite the criticisms that can be raised of it. If we both assert our criticisms, our worship still comes out much closer to the Bible and to first century Christianity, even if it does not align with the modern philosophical construct that is known as "monotheism."

I have to be blunt here, mak: Your answer is a diversion from the issue. I realize that you have a theological explanation for how you can worship three divine beings in the LDS Godhead and claim you only worship one "God," and that you view Trinitarianism as a similar theological explanation. I don't think your theological explanation avoids the problem, but put that aside for now. You cannot get away with this diversion from the issue, which is that you claimed to worship one God while at the same time affirming various statements supposedly teaching that other divine beings outside the Godhead (God's people, including the church in Philadelphia, and the "gods of the nations") have been and will be worshiped.

[urroner]

mak,

You wrote:

I have to be blunt here, mak: Your answer is a diversion from the issue. I realize that you have a theological explanation for how you can worship three divine beings in the LDS Godhead and claim you only worship one "God," and that you view Trinitarianism as a similar theological explanation. I don't think your theological explanation avoids the problem, but put that aside for now. You cannot get away with this diversion from the issue, which is that you claimed to worship one God while at the same time affirming various statements supposedly teaching that other divine beings outside the Godhead (God's people, including the church in Philadelphia, and the "gods of the nations") have been and will be worshiped.

What was it that Origen said about this? Wait, didn't I just quote him?

[maklelan]

mak,

You wrote:

I have to be blunt here, mak: Your answer is a diversion from the issue. I realize that you have a theological explanation for how you can worship three divine beings in the LDS Godhead and claim you only worship one "God," and that you view Trinitarianism as a similar theological explanation.

No, I hold to no such theological explanation for this question, nor do I think that is similar to Trinitarianism.

I don't think your theological explanation avoids the problem, but put that aside for now.

I've provided no theological explanation.

You cannot get away with this diversion from the issue, which is that you claimed to worship one God while at the same time affirming various statements supposedly teaching that other divine beings outside the Godhead (God's people, including the church in Philadelphia, and the "gods of the nations") have been and will be worshiped.

It depends on who gets to define terms. If I'm allowed to define my own terms, then I worship one God. I direct reverence to Christ, but I consider it materially distinct enough that I think of myself as worshipping one God. Early Christians and Jews held to a very similar view, and they also claimed to worship one God. If I'm not allowed to define my terms, and we must consider all worship identical, as Hughes demands of me but not of the Bible, then I worship more than one God. Fine, so did the early Christians and Jews.

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

You wrote:

No, I hold to no such theological explanation for this question, nor do I think that is similar to Trinitarianism.

Hmm. Okay. I then have no idea what you were getting at when you wrote the following:

We like to think of ourselves as worshipping only one God, just like you. People criticize your claim just as they criticize ours. You will appeal to Trinitarianism, a fourth century theological innovation, in defense of your claim. I show that the worship of other beings was found in normative ancient Judaism and Christianity, which both claimed to worship one God. If someone doesn't like the way we characterize our worship, that's fine, but they need to be objective about what they propose instead.

You wrote:

I've provided no theological explanation.

Okay. Then you didn't answer my question, which asked for a theological explanation. Care to do so? See below for a reminder of the question.

You wrote:

It depends on who gets to define terms. If I'm allowed to define my own terms, then I worship one God. I direct reverence to Christ, but I consider it materially distinct enough that I think of myself as worshipping one God. Early Christians and Jews held to a very similar view, and they also claimed to worship one God. If I'm not allowed to define my terms, and we must consider all worship identical, as Hughes demands of me but not of the Bible, then I worship more than one God. Fine, so did the early Christians and Jews.

Did you not write the following:

I don't find the distinction relevant. Worship is worship, whether it is forced or not.... For the ancients, the act of prostration before another was worship, and coercion did not change the nature of it in any sense.

You say that "it depends on who gets to define terms." But you have already defined worship such that any "act of prostration before another was worship." And you have rejected subtle distinctions in the use of the term: "worship is worship." So by your own definition, you have been defending the worship of multiple gods.

Your answer further confuses matters in another direction. You say, " I direct reverence to Christ, but I consider it materially distinct enough that I think of myself as worshipping one God." Does this mean that you do not "think of yourself" as worshiping Jesus Christ, but only "directing reverence" to him? Are you saying that by your own definition, you do not worship Christ?

And you still have not explained how your worship of God and "reverence" for Christ is coherent with your claim that various "gods of the nations" as well as "God's people" including the Philadelphian Christians were or all recipients of worship in biblical times. I have asked this question twice and both times you have ducked it completely.

I'm honestly trying to understand your view, but so far I'm not having any success.

And if everyone should be allowed to define their own terms, as you assert, what in blazes is wrong with those ignorant anti-Mormons defining Christians in such a way that you don't fit their definition?

[maklelan]

mak,

You wrote:

Hmm. Okay. I then have no idea what you were getting at when you wrote the following:

You wrote:

Okay. Then you didn't answer my question, which asked for a theological explanation.

No, you asked me to reconcile the two claims. I explained that the claims bear on two separate approaches to the topic. That has nothing to do with a theological explanation of either claim.

Care to do so? See below for a reminder of the question.

You wrote:

Did you not write the following:

I did write that because I was responding to Hughes' attempt to define terms for me. He wanted to approach the question within a strict etymological rubric and I accommodated him to show that that approach shoots him in the foot.

You say that "it depends on who gets to define terms." But you have already defined worship such that any "act of prostration before another was worship." And you have rejected subtle distinctions in the use of the term: "worship is worship." So by your own definition, you have been defending the worship of multiple gods.

Yes. Like I said, I can approach the question in two different ways. Hughes decided on one way and I showed that his way bears his position no fruit. Here is his statement:

I believe this is an error. As not one of your examples of "divine" beings are worshiped as God is, rather all of them worship the one true God.

He wants to see early Christianity as fiercely monotheistic, and he wants to paint me outside of that circle. Hughes wanted to hold my description to a strictly etymological approach to monotheism (which is explicitly what I described in the section of my post he quoted) but then wanted to squirm on different kinds of worship. I responded by showing that Christ, in the Bible, explicitly advocates the worship of humans.

Your answer further confuses matters in another direction. You say, " I direct reverence to Christ, but I consider it materially distinct enough that I think of myself as worshipping one God." Does this mean that you do not "think of yourself" as worshiping Jesus Christ, but only "directing reverence" to him? Are you saying that by your own definition, you do not worship Christ?

It depends on the rubric. Hughes responded to what I explicitly described as an etymological argument. I said that from an etymological point of view early Christianity was not monotheistic, at least not in a way that distinguished it from Mormonism. Hughes criticized my point, but from a non-etymological point of view. He asserted that none of the other beings was worshipped "as God is." In other words, the "worship" offered the other beings is materially distinct. He stated, "all of them worship the one true God." This was their self-identification, but if they "worshipped" the one true God then what was it they offered to other beings that used the language commonly associated with worship (specifically proskyneo)? Hughes wants to let their self-identification overrule the etymology of "monotheism." Fine. If they only worship the one true God and they were monotheists then what they offered to Christ was not worship. The language used to describe the "worship" of Christ in the New Testament is distinct from the language used to describe the "worship" of God. In fact, the main word that only refers to cultic worship, latreuo, is never used in reference to Christ, but is frequently used in reference to God. What they offered to Christ was not what they offered to God. When they worship "the one true God" they are not referring to Christ. What did they offer to Christ, then? What I offer to Christ is not what I offer to God. What do I offer to Christ?

Let's go back to the etymological argument. The primary word used in reference to whatever it is the early Christians offered to Christ (proskyneo) is also used in reference to other beings, specifically the Philadelphians. The early Christians were not monotheistic. They worshipped God, Christ, and at some point people were going to worship the Philadelphians. From an etymological point of view, I can also be accused of worshipping more than one being. Which road do you want to take? Will you allow me to self-identify as the early Christians did, or will you demand I and early Christianity hold to an etymological approach to monotheism.

And you still have not explained how your worship of God and "reverence" for Christ is coherent with your claim that various "gods of the nations" as well as "God's people" including the Philadelphian Christians were or all recipients of worship in biblical times. I have asked this question twice and both times you have ducked it completely.

No, I've not ducked out. I've explained twice now that they have to do with two different approaches to the problem. If worship=worship=worship then I worship multiple beings, as did the early Christians. If I and early Christianity are allowed to say we worship one being while still offering something akin to worship to Christ, then I offer to Christ whatever it is the early Christians offered to Christ without violating our "worship the one true God" claim. If you can't stand to say the early Christians didn't worship Christ then say they worshipped more than one being but still claimed not to. I claim the same. If you can accept that the early Christians didn't worship Christ then you can accept that I don't either.

I'm honestly trying to understand your view, but so far I'm not having any success.

It certainly doesn't seem that way to me. Were I a betting man, I would go all in on you trying to trap me in a contradiction and dressing it up in concern for comprehension. That's been your pattern in the past, after all.

And if everyone should be allowed to define their own terms, as you assert, what in blazes is wrong with those ignorant anti-Mormons defining Christians in such a way that you don't fit their definition?

Because they're not defining their own terms anymore, they're trying to define my terms. You can tell me what you are all you want, but once you start saying what your group is not you're no longer defining your terms, you're trying to define your group's terms. There is a huge difference between saying "I am X" and saying "a Christian is X." One is defining your terms, the other is projecting your terms on others, both within your group and without. You don't speak on behalf of your whole group. You speak for yourself. That's the thing about about self-identification.

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

You wrote:

Were I a betting man, I would go all in on you trying to trap me in a contradiction and dressing it up in concern for comprehension.

This is ridiculous. You posted statements in the same context that struck me as inconsistent. I asked you to clarify. I was not hunting for a contradiction; it jumped out at me. I have better things to do than to try to manufacture contradictions in someone's online post.

As for your answer, if I understand it, which I may not, it seems to amount to saying "there's no contradiction if I get to define terms any way I choose and in different ways in the same context." So you claim, I think, that you can worship one God and give some kind of quasi-worship to Jesus and therefore still only worship one God, or you can use the word "worship" in a sense that encompasses your response to the Father and Jesus and admit that you worship two beings but claim that in this sense so did the early Christians.

Let's try to move beyond the semantic quagmire and get a clear understanding of exactly what you claim to do or not do in your responses to God, Jesus, and others. I'll make this really simple for you. I would like you to tell me for each of the following what sort of honor you accord to the following individuals. I'm not worried about whether you call it worship. I want to know what it is. Do you pray to them (address petitions to them)? Do you sing religious songs of praise to them? Do you bow or prostrate yourself before them, or would you, if you saw them? Do you give them thanks? Something else? And for each one following "God/Heavenly Father" (and you can split that into two if it suits you) I want to know if the honor you accord to each differs from or is less than the honor you accord to God/Heavenly Father. For example, if there is some honor that you give to Heavenly Father that you don't give to Jesus, or don't give to Jesus as much as you do the Father, I want to know that.

God/Heavenly Father:

Jesus:

Holy Ghost/Spirit:

Heavenly Mother:

God's people (including the Philadephian Christians):

(Other) exalted beings:

Other beings you care to specify:

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

I had asked:

"And if everyone should be allowed to define their own terms, as you assert, what in blazes is wrong with those ignorant anti-Mormons defining Christians in such a way that you don't fit their definition?"

You replied:

Because they're not defining their own terms anymore, they're trying to define my terms. You can tell me what you are all you want, but once you start saying what your group is not you're no longer defining your terms, you're trying to define your group's terms. There is a huge difference between saying "I am X" and saying "a Christian is X." One is defining your terms, the other is projecting your terms on others, both within your group and without. You don't speak on behalf of your whole group. You speak for yourself. That's the thing about about self-identification.

So, by your reasoning, a Mormon can say "I am a Mormon" but should not say "A Mormon is X" or "Group Y is not Mormon." Right?

[maklelan]

mak,

You wrote:

This is ridiculous. You posted statements in the same context that struck me as inconsistent. I asked you to clarify. I was not hunting for a contradiction; it jumped out at me.

But you don't appear willing to listen to my explanation. I don't see where the disconnect is. I've explained why I said two different things twice now, and you still don't seem to want to hear it. How else am I supposed to understand it?

I have better things to do than to try to manufacture contradictions in someone's online post.

As for your answer, if I understand it, which I may not, it seems to amount to saying "there's no contradiction if I get to define terms any way I choose and in different ways in the same context."

No, I've been perfectly clear, and the above is not at all what I've been saying. Hughes is the one trying to apply two different standards to the same evaluation. I'm explaining that we have to be consistent within each evaluation, whichever approach we take.

So you claim, I think, that you can worship one God and give some kind of quasi-worship to Jesus and therefore still only worship one God, or you can use the word "worship" in a sense that encompasses your response to the Father and Jesus and admit that you worship two beings but claim that in this sense so did the early Christians.

For the most part, although I also point out that if you want me to go by the first definition, the same is the case with early Christianity. It's quite simple. The early Christians claimed to worship one God. From a technical point of view, that's not correct. If we allow them to define their own worship, though, we can let it stand and move on from there. I am only pointing out that whatever approach you take in that case should be the approach you take with Mormonism.

Let's try to move beyond the semantic quagmire and get a clear understanding of exactly what you claim to do or not do in your responses to God, Jesus, and others.

No, I don't see a reason to play that game. I can explain everything clearly and show that the early Christians did the same, and then you'd just find some other rabbit trail. I've explained myself quite clearly. If you take issue with my explanation then explain why.

[Rob Bowman]

mak,

You wrote:

But you don't appear willing to listen to my explanation. I don't see where the disconnect is. I've explained why I said two different things twice now, and you still don't seem to want to hear it. How else am I supposed to understand it?

The problem is not a lack of willingness on my part. The problem is a disconnect as far as your explanation making any sense to me as far as I can see. We can leave it like that and you can say that I just don't understand you and I can say that you weren't clear. But I would appreciate you not impugning my motives, because I can say definitively that your accusation is false.

I tried to find a way out of the semantic difficulties we were having understanding each other, but you dismissed my suggested way forward as a "game," so I don't see any point in continuing to try to sort the matter out with you. I would appreciate an answer to my question in my follow-up post about using the term "Mormon."

[maklelan]

mak,

I had asked:

"And if everyone should be allowed to define their own terms, as you assert, what in blazes is wrong with those ignorant anti-Mormons defining Christians in such a way that you don't fit their definition?"

You replied:

So, by your reasoning, a Mormon can say "I am a Mormon" but should not say "A Mormon is X" or "Group Y is not Mormon." Right?

More or less.