Ok so today's entry is a response to an email from a devout Catholic who wishes to remain anonymous.
We'll call him Yoda, since today is national Star Wars day or something.
Yoda writes this long bit:
-------
"So here’s God, a father of multiple children. He has a child (humans) who continually disobey him. He gets angry with them. He even kills a bunch of them off in a flood before deciding that’s not right, maybe they’re aren’t ALL bad, but he’s disgusted. So he tries again, this time putting a part of himself into one of them to bring forth Christ. This child is perfect. He is without sin. He has done no wrong and obeys all that his Father says and wishes.
…and the Father knowingly allows his disobedient first child (children) to torture and murder his good obedient child, willingly and in order to prove he will love and forgive regardless of what they do.
Does that make sense?"
--------
Thanks Yoda.
To start we need to address some fundamental flaws in the question's wording.
1. The question says after the flood, God decided his actions weren't right.
This is not possible. The book of Numbers tells us God does not repent or change his mind in this fashion. "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" Many passages in the bible do talk about God being moved, or hearing prayers but there is a difference there between that and regretting an action or changing his mind after the fact. This debate on this one matter alone could take weeks of blogging.
2. It says God put part of himself into a human to make Christ. This is a biggie. In the third and fourth centuries there were heresies abound about Jesus. Namely the Arian and Sabellianism heresies. Arainism taught that Christ was a creature made by God, and Sabellianism taught a more confusing concept that I don't even want to try and summarize.
I don't know which Yoda is ascribing to here but it is heresy (the post-baptismal rejection of revealed truth) to believe that Christ is anything but God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God and are all one. In the beginning was the word and the word was made flesh. God is Jesus, Jesus is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is God, the Holy Spirit is Jesus etc. That said, the "persons" of the Trinity also maintain a distinctness. God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.
3. The question implies a lack of omniscience of God. Yoda is much too smart to believe that God didn't know how all this was going to go down in the first place. God's plan for salvation predates the need for salvation. Why God created the world the way he did is something we don't know, but as Catholics we trust there is in fact a plan.
Now that those are out of the way, let me try to answer.
Does it make sense?
Not from a human perspective. If we were dealing with human fathers and human sons, it would not make sense at all. But we aren't are we?
God sent his Son/became man for this very purpose. It was his love for all mankind that he would suffer and die on the cross.
But this wasn't the foreshadowing incident of Abraham and Isaac. This is the real deal. God did not send an unwilling or unknowing participant to the slaughter. Rather God became the lamb himself, making Christ's sacrifice one he completely accepted.
So if you take the right understanding of the Trinity here, along with a proper understanding of God's omnibenevolence and love, you can see it does make sense.
Come back tomorrow when if I have time I'll tackle part 2 of Yoda's question which is really an extension of this one but I'm out of time.
Yoda feel free to respond via email and I'll share your response with the readers on here.
May the force be with you!
Yoda has responded:
ReplyDeleteThis is a very well articulated way to look at this question.
The mystery of the Trinity structure is a challenging one for many, especially newer Catholics such as myself. I am continually drawn back to scripture in which Jesus asks God for direction, a plea for help, meditates in prayer to God, etc., and I nearly always position the Son as …the Son…the Son who is separate, not God. The recent Easter reading of the passion reinforces this idea as we see Jesus converse with God the Father, and we believe we are seeing two separate beings interacting.
This is because of a limited human perspective we see in the wording of the question – that God brought forth and gave his only son – a separate entity, a separate being, a separate…dare we say soul? And yet John’s point, when we can fathom this, takes care of the issue – God was not sacrificing JUST his son, but HIMSELF to prove his “omnibenevolent”(I love that word) approach to his children.
Now, to a father with a son, this becomes clear. A father who loves his son will understand what it means to sacrifice himself for the love of his son. So the point, one can suppose, is that we need to always remember God as part of the Trinity, or as the old hymn goes, God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity.
Thanks and I look forward to the second question soon. A wise person you are!
There's literally such a tiny iota of difference between Arianism and Nicene Christianity. When I read about people poring over these extreme details that demarcate orthodox doctrine from horrible heresy and sin, I think to myself "Wow! Whatever valuable information Jesus wished to convey, you've certainly fumbled and fucked it up for everyone". Kind of a penny wise pound foolish type thing. My two cents, anyway.
ReplyDeleteDungy, the belief that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father is somewhat of a big deal.
ReplyDeleteJesus was not just a philosopher prophet here to teach us, he was the fulfillment of prophecy sent to save us. If in fact Jesus were just a man, or rather a demi-God/superhero created for this purpose, then what was gained by his death?
Yes God could have done things that way but it seems to make more sense to me based on what we have about Jesus in the Bible that he was God.
Take the Gospel on John's opening "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
That's pretty definitive for me. How could Christ have been "made" if through him all things were made?
I can see how it seems a petty debate from the outside, but it makes sense to me.
The Arians had their own notable quotables too.
ReplyDelete"Ye have heard how I said unto you, `I go away and come again unto you.' If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice because I said, `I go unto the Father,' for My Father is greater than I."
The personage of God is greater than the personage of Jesus, one is the "father" and one is the "son." There is no denying that. But both are one in the same God.
ReplyDeleteI know it's confusing, I don't know if anyone truly gets it as I think it's one of those things we call a mystery.
It's a strange mystery if you already claim certainty of the answer.
ReplyDeleteI know the doctrine of the Trinity well enough that the Godhead is greater than the 3 individual personages. However, I did not know that the Son is inferior to the Father. I thought that's part of what you were denying about the Arian heresy?
I'm not sure. I'll have to get back to you all on this.
ReplyDeleteWere you saying that the son is inferior to the father?
ReplyDeleteOk first, here is Catholic Encyclopedia on the matter of the Trinity.
ReplyDelete"In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. "
More specifically to our point, I think this next bit sums up what I meant.
"Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son."
See, this is exactly the kind of theological hair-splitting I was talking about.
ReplyDeleteArian doctrine says "The son was created by the father"
Catholic doctrine says "The son precedes from the father"
Theology is rhetoric by a different name. It's the art of using language playfully to persuade and shape thought.
Are you saying words have no meaning?
ReplyDeleteCreated implies a time of non-existence. Proceeds eternally implies the presence from the beginning (or rather infinite existence.)
You can argue whether the distinction matters, but you can't try to make it seem as if there is no distinction.
"Proceeds eternally implies the presence from the beginning (or rather infinite existence.)"
ReplyDeleteWell, OBVIOUSLY! ;)
To proceed is to move forward. "Proceeds eternally" are two words which, when combined mean what to a human being? It's almost a contradiction in terms, proceeds eternally. Or a paradox. It's clever language since it's invoking infinity at the same time that it's implying a kind of "creation", but not having to say creation because they say "proceeds".
It's rhetoric. In any situation otherwise you'd be choosing between two options, either he was created or he was equal to God. Which is kind of a rock & hard place situation, since there's scripture either way to support. So, the clever rhetorical solution is to use words to create a 3rd option that doesn't force you to sacrifice anything by choosing. Now you can have your cake and eat it too because Christ wasn't created, he "proceeds eternally" from the father. Like, duh!
Listen, what I'm writing isn't an argument, as such. It's really just my opinion, or my perception of what I'm reading. So, it's yours to take or leave, just like any other comment is. This is an instance where i'm less interested in proving something to you logically, and more interested in providing a dose of common sense, a counter-balance if you will, to the dogmatic doo-doo you're shoveling. For the readers (if they exist).
I was indicating that words sometimes have no meaning. Or have ambiguous meaning. Seductively ambiguous meaning. Meanings so murky and mysterious that it invites the reader to fill it in with what they personally need it to mean.
ReplyDeleteWords sometimes have deceptive meanings. Sometimes words lie.