{"id":6927,"date":"2014-12-19T04:04:16","date_gmt":"2014-12-19T09:04:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=6927"},"modified":"2016-07-02T15:54:17","modified_gmt":"2016-07-02T19:54:17","slug":"did-jesus-have-faith-in-god-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/did-jesus-have-faith-in-god-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Jesus have faith in God? \u2013 Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"letsIn part 1<\/a> and part 2<\/a>\u00a0of this series, I’ve deliberately argued from present-day evangelical assumptions<\/strong>, and not from the classical catholic theorizing<\/strong> about Jesus. Let me explain.<\/p>\n

Evangelicals nowadays think (most<\/em> of the time)\u00a0that Jesus is God himself<\/strong> – 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,<\/p>\n

Only God can forgive sins – no one else can.<\/p>\n

Jesus forgave sins.<\/p>\n

Therefore, Jesus is God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is clearly a valid argument<\/strong>. (But I would say, not sound<\/a>. If you’re unclear on validity and soundness, read this<\/a> before proceeding.) And when you understand the logical form of this argument, you see that the conclusion must be an identity claim<\/strong>, of the form a = b. The first premise says that\u00a0only<\/em> God can forgive sins – no other being can. So, anyone who can do that<\/em> (second premise) is none other than him (conclusion).<\/p>\n

Mr. Gilson seems to be reasoning\u00a0like this:<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. God doesn’t have faith.<\/p>\n

2. Jesus is God.<\/p>\n

3. Therefore, Jesus doesn’t have faith. \u00a0(1, 2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And he urges that happily, the New Testament doesn’t contradict 3. By remaining silent on Jesus’s faith, he thinks, it confirms 2.<\/p>\n

Or maybe his point is better captured this way:<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. Jesus doesn’t have faith in God.<\/p>\n

4. Any thoroughly good being other than God has faith in God.<\/p>\n

5. Jesus is thoroughly good.<\/p>\n

2. Jesus is not other than God; Jesus is God himself. (3,4,5)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This too is a valid argument.<\/p>\n

I agree with 1, 4, and 5. But<\/strong>\u00a0as I argued in part 1<\/a>, the New Testament teaches that Jesus did<\/em> have faith. So, 3 is false<\/strong>. This makes the second argument unsound because it’s first premise (3) is false.<\/p>\n

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,<\/p>\n

1. God doesn’t have faith.<\/p>\n

6. Jesus had faith.<\/p>\n

7. Therefore, Jesus isn’t God (Jesus and God are not numerically identical). \u00a0 (1, 6)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What will Mr. Gilson say<\/strong>, if he agrees that 3 is false?<\/p>\n