guest
Unregistered User
(7/13/03 7:47 pm)
Reply
|
Jesus: God incarnate?
Is Jesus God, or not? (I do not see this as a question of salvation, but there are some issues that need to be understood, and it is these issues that I've started this thread for to present.)
To think the matter thoroughly through, it would be good to start with the assumption that the answer to the question is a flat "No". (This is how all good disjunctive discussions of a given matter are begun, by beginning with the negative side of a natural positive.) From there, we examine each argument in support of this answer, in their order of logical descisiveness/ease-of-conclusion.
The most logically decisive argument for a flat denial of the idea that Jesus is God is the 'Argument from Ontology' (which I will show in a moment). If this argument is sound, then there would be no need to refer to scripture (that is, unless we wish to admit that the scripture may be false, in which case there is no need to refer to scripture to answer the question). But, if this argument is unsound, then we must refer to scripture, and to that with which we make sense of scripture.
One form of the 'Argument from Ontology' against the idea that Jesus is God goes something like this:
God is infinite.
A man is finite.
Jesus was a man.
Therefore, Jesus is not God.
(There is a certain form of this argument using scripture, in which there is a juxtaposition of statements like 'God cannot be tempted'/'Jesus was tempted', but, I will address this form latter, when I examine scriptural arguments in general.)
Another form of this 'Argument from Ontology' is one that consists of the category-exchange interpretation of the phrase 'God became a man'. This interpretation assumes, on grounds of common sense, that this phrase is asserting that there is somehow an exchange of categories. That is, according to this interpretation', the term 'became' necessarily means that the category called 'God' is exchanged for the category called 'man'.
Now, if you believe that Jesus is God, and if you don't know much in the way of common sense applied to theology, then you might answer this 'Argument from Ontology' by saying things like, 'God's ways are above our ways', 'God is greater than the human mind can understand,' 'It's a mystery', etc.. But, there is a real problem in answering this argument this way. Those who, in rejecting the idea that Jesus is God, pose this argument, and then are given this sort of answer, will be ingrained to the idea that those who believe that Jesus is God are, by definition, superstitious and brainwashed: unable or unwilling to deal with logic and common sense.
If a category-exchange is the necessary meaning of 'became', then the 'Argument from Ontology' would be sound. If it is sound, then we could safely ignore any arguments made from scripture in support of the idea that Jesus is God. The question would be settled, and not on grounds of what some text says, but on grounds of ontology (i.e., on the nature of the being of God and of man).
But, a little knowledge of common sense is dangerous to the person who thinks that this little knowledge suffices (as anyone who deals much with 'freethinking' atheists knows). It does not suffice. Common sense is so much more than what a defensive mind-set can ever realize (as even the superstitious answer to this 'Argument from Ontology' proves to those who reject that Jesus is God), let alone what a mind-set free of defensiveness can realize in a very long time.
No one denies that the phrase 'a ball became red' is not suggesting an exchange of categories. That is, everyone affirms, without thinking about it, that this phrase is not asserting an exchange of categories. The phrase is not implying that the ball is now no longer a ball. Rather, is it understood as saying that the ball has become red. (How much more simply can I put it?  ) If the ball (sphere) was clear, now it has become red (which is a particular color). The category of 'ball' has taken on an additional category, it has not exchanged its own category for that of the other. Thus, to say that 'God became a man', cannot logically mean that God is now no longer God, but that God, in some sense, has taken on an additional category.
The most hidden assumption in the minds of those who make this 'Argument from Ontology' is that the category of 'human' (or, 'creature'), is a fundamental category of the sort of fundamental-ness that prevents God (the Creator) from taking on human flesh (called a vessel). But, what is flesh, that the Creator of flesh cannot be robed in it? Answer it if you can. You cannot answer it. Is the creature greater than the Creator? In fact, if God cannot be robed in flesh, then God cannot, in any sense, exist in relationship to any creature: God cannot be present within the creation. This is Deism (ontologic Deism, which is distinct from teleologic Deism, the latter a belief that God can, but purposes not to, involve Himself with his creatures, or, at least, not to the extent of becoming a man).
So ends the 'Argument from Ontology". It is unsound.
But, there is yet another argument, apart from scripture, that can be made against the idea that Jesus is God: the 'Argument from Teleology'. This concerns God's purposes, and the argument consists of the problem that, if God has the power to become a man, then how can we ever know that, say, Joe Sixpack over there is not God-incarnate? This is a similar worry that of the Reincarnationist, who believes that Ol' Bettsy Cow out there in the field munching grass is actually Uncle Fred come back as a cow (or, maybe Uncle Fred came back as a grasshopper and has just had the misfortune/carma of being eated by the cow). According to this 'Argument from Teleology', a mere human can ever know whether he is looking God-incarnate in the face every time he turns around. Some Arians, in using this argument against those Orthodox Christians who lack much common-sense-applied-to-theology, ask, "How do you know I'm not God?" How would you answer that?
In answer to this 'Argument from Teleology', the kind of Orthodox Christian who lacks much in common-sense-applied-to-theology may say that there just are some things that require faith. Or, he may say that he just knows that no man but Jesus is God. (But, we must know how we know that what we believe is true, otherwise we will cause a superstitious blindness in those who are intellectually subject to us and to who we teach what we believe - which is a negative dynamic that occurs for every belief under the sun, and in regard to every subject under the sun, not just theological beliefs and subjects.) For the Arian using the 'Argument from Teleology', this is no answer at all: as a piece of language, it consists of nothing.
The answer to the 'Argument from Teleology' is found in scripture and, like some say "What would Jesus do?", the scripture shows precisely what God would do if he were a man. That is, the answer to the 'Argument from Teleology' is found in God's character. God does not set out to trick people, but rather sets out to prove, to those who seek him, that he is God. As a man, he would not do this like an idiot would imagine he should, such as going around and saying "I'm God, I'm God!" and performing miracles on demand like some foolish grandparent desperate to prove to his grandchild his love by buying him everything in sight and feeding him anything he wants. (Some atheists argue that if there is a good and all-powerful God, then He would write His name in the stars to make sure everyone believes He exists. But, neutral common sense is prior to the common sense of this atheist argument, and the atheist already admits that man, not some God, is guilty of wickedness and of all manner and degree of pride. Only, the atheist thinks that theism is false and thus that asserting it as true is evil and even pride. To some atheists, theism is the 'original', or, the greatest, sin.) As a man, God would be a perfect man (both in his relationship to God in heaven, and to all other men) and undeniably wise. This would be not only as a witness to us and to all spirits, but as an example for us and a gift to us. Then, that man would die.
So, you see, what is at issue here is the deeper common sense of things. If God cannot become a man, then what God is this? And, if God would not become a man, for our sakes, then who is God? There need be only one incarnation, and God never does things twice in vain. Man knows his own guilt already.
Now, about that form of the 'Argument from Ontology' (AO) that juxtaposes scripture, such as 'God cannot be tempted'/'Jesus was tempted'. The principle behind the nature of the answer to this form of the argument (that's not a redundancy, I mean 'principle behind' for something quite distinct from for 'nature of the answer') is a principle that applies to all scripture that has, or even seems to have, any bearing on who Jesus is. Like the answer to all the other questions above, this form of the AO is answered with deep common sense: You can offer a bride to a judge, and thus say that you bribed the judge, but, whether he falls to, or accepts, the bribe is another thing. He can be bribed and yet not be bribed. Jesus was tempted in all things, yet without sin. That's what the scripture says. Let scripture interpret itself. The scriptures say that God tempts no man, yet it says that God tempted Abraham. God expects you to use your head like the common-sense-creature you are, not like a robot who blindly takes in whatever you think you are being offered, as if you are a computer requiring absolute specificity in your programming, as if you need the Authorized Foolproof Version, or the Authorized Legalese Version (which would be nearly impossible to understand anyway).
The Bible is not a Complete Idiot's Guide to Truth and History, it is history. History between fallen-and-wayard man and a wise God Who knows how to get our attention to a Message of Salvation. Attention to the law came first, for, without knowledge of the essential extent of our guilt which God asserts that we have, we could not see mercy-and-grace as anything but an indulgence afforded our selfish hearts by God. As a man, God kept all the Law. Yet, he could not deny his deity, and even, it would seem, occasionally said things that implied his deity. If Jesus is not God-incarnate, then, it seems to me, the entire Bible is remiss.
|
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies