In part 1 and part 2 of this series, I’ve deliberately argued from present-day evangelical assumptions, and not from the classical catholic theorizing about Jesus. Let me explain.
Evangelicals nowadays think (most of the time) that Jesus is God himself – that Jesus is a self, that God is a self, and that they’re the same one, the same self. You can see this by how they argue for “the deity of Christ.” For example, they will argue,
Only God can forgive sins – no one else can.
Jesus forgave sins.
Therefore, Jesus is God.
This is clearly a valid argument. (But I would say, not sound. If you’re unclear on validity and soundness, read this before proceeding.) And when you understand the logical form of this argument, you see that the conclusion must be an identity claim, of the form a = b. The first premise says that only God can forgive sins – no other being can. So, anyone who can do that (second premise) is none other than him (conclusion).
Mr. Gilson seems to be reasoning like this:
1. God doesn’t have faith.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Jesus doesn’t have faith. (1, 2)
And he urges that happily, the New Testament doesn’t contradict 3. By remaining silent on Jesus’s faith, he thinks, it confirms 2.
Or maybe his point is better captured this way:
3. Jesus doesn’t have faith in God.
4. Any thoroughly good being other than God has faith in God.
5. Jesus is thoroughly good.
2. Jesus is not other than God; Jesus is God himself. (3,4,5)
This too is a valid argument.
I agree with 1, 4, and 5. But as I argued in part 1, the New Testament teaches that Jesus did have faith. So, 3 is false. This makes the second argument unsound because it’s first premise (3) is false.
But 3 is also the conclusion of the first argument. Since that argument is valid, and its conclusion is false, one or both premises must be false. I say it is 2 that’s false; Jesus, according to the NT, isn’t God himself, but rather God’s Son, the Messiah, God’s anointed. God’s anointed is someone other than the anointer. So I argue,
1. God doesn’t have faith.
6. Jesus had faith.
7. Therefore, Jesus isn’t God (Jesus and God are not numerically identical). (1, 6)
What will Mr. Gilson say, if he agrees that 3 is false?
- The problem for him is that evangelical tradition strongly affirms 2.
- Yet 1 seems self-evident. Being all-knowing, all-powerful, and provident, God would not need to have faith in God. He knows with full certainty that he himself is utterly reliable. Does he put faith in humans like Abraham or Peter? That’s an interesting question, but I set it aside for this discussion. We’re taking about faith in God here. But, if 3 is false, one must deny 1 and/or 2.
I suspect he may choose to go positive mysterian; here, one just commits to 1, 2, and 6. One says,
I know 1, 2 and 6 appear to be an inconsistent triad of claims. I realize that 1 and 2 seem to imply 3, which is contradictory of 6. But scripture strongly, and equally supports 1, 3, and 6. So we must affirm all of them (1, 2, 6). They must really be consistent, though we can’t show how. To us fallen, limited beings, they can only appear to be inconsistent.
I don’t think that is a rational stance. We all have overwhelming evidence that 1, 2 and 6 can’t all be true. This should move our interpretation of scripture. Our strong, firm intuitions about consistency rightly guide our interpretation of scripture; there’s nothing arrogant about this.
Another point is this: positive mysterianism is not the main, traditional catholic stance. They would employ some distinctions heretofore unseen in this series. Perhaps evangelicals neglect ancient catholic tradition to their peril…
Next time: a more catholic response.
(Here’s a link to all five of my posts in this series.)
Pingback: Responding to Dale Tuggy on Jesus and Faith - Thinking Christian
Dale,
“That’s like trusting the meanest conservative talk show host you can think of to explain the platform of the Democratic party, while making no effort to hear out those politicians in their own words.”
Indeed, or like asking a liberal democrat to accurately represent the Republican party, for that matter. People seem to be incapable of resisting opportunities to caricaturize and demonize the other side when it comes to views they hold dear, whether they be religious or political. Thus, as you observe, we must be VERY careful about putting too much store in assertions about the beliefs of any historical person when those beliefs come to us primarily pre-filtered through the often distorted perceptions of their opponents.
~Sean
I have no love at all for Athanasius (and the way he pandered to the Cappadocian scoundrels, at least since the Synod of Alexandria – 362 CE – is disgusting), I fact I believe that Marcellus of Ancyra, not Athanasius, would have saved Christianity from its “self inflicted would”. That being said, though, at least Athanasius put an end for good to Subordinationism (and its philosophical basis, the “chain of being”). We will get rid of “trinitarianism”, in the end, but we’ll never go back to Subordinationism (even if I hear it is having some success with the Evangelicals, mainly for its anti-feminist use …). Nor, I believe, Socinianism is the solution. The solution will be a proper understanding of Logos theology.
Nicely said! I have not cared for using Socinius as my basis. Paul and His one God – the Father works just fine. Or, hey, why not just go to Jesus in Jn 17:3…:-) – Father, you are the only true God.
Dale,
Thank you for the comment.
When I sent to seminary, I was fortunate to have a professor who returned the first few papers I wrote (without accepting them for any grade) because of the unsubstantiated assumptions and poor argumentation. He seemed determined that nobody was going to pass his class without learning how to “think critically.”
I took the class from him many years ago, but I think he was the most important teacher I ever had. I’ve run into him a few times and always take the time to thank him for changing the way that I approached doing exegesis ever since. 🙂
“Why do people still propose so many arguments and conclusions that don’t take all of the evidence into consideration.”
Rivers, this is the disturbing thing about modern theological education. Students there are not effectively taught to argue carefully, nor to use the tools of logic and philosophy to evaluate arguments. And often – look at any theological textbook – little or no effort is made to present the best arguments each side has to offer. *Especially* unitarian arguments – we all know, the attitude is, that that is merely rationalism, deism, or some bad -ism – not anything worth taking seriously. And the “Arians” of the 4th c. – I have no special love for them, but it is painful to observe how many theologians will simply take the word of their bitter, hateful opponent Athanasius. That’s like trusting the meanest conservative talk show host you can think of to explain the platform of the Democratic party, while making no effort to hear out those politicians in their own words.
As a professor of philosophy, I find this attitude scandalous. We can’t always be evaluating arguments, but still, the guild has a duty to carefully lay out the debates fairly, even while rendering a verdit themselves.
@ Dale
“Evangelicals nowadays think (most of the time) that Jesus is God himself – that Jesus is a self, that God is a self, and that they’re the same one, the same self.”
… self … self … same self …
The way you phrase it, it seems more fitting to Oneness Pentecostals than to Evangelicals.
“2. Jesus is God.”
Gilson kept some reserve on this, by saying about the kenosis that “it’s a more involved topic than I want to explore here” and, even more …
“4. There may be other issues relating to the kenosis that I haven’t thought of.”
… on which you commented, in Part 2 …
“I’ll have to remain agnostic on 4. 😉 ”
Dale,
Considering how important forensic objectivity has become in legal matters during the past generation, you’d think that it would catch on among theologians as well. Why do people still propose so many arguments and conclusions that don’t take all of the evidence into consideration.
Comments are closed.