Does God Have Faith?

[Stylites]

I was recently in a discussion with my brother about miraculous healing, and he said that Jesus cured people because His faith was so strong. I had countered that Jesus being God has no faith, that He cured by looking upon a cripple and declaring that he was not a cripple, that being the Way/Truth/Life whatsoever He uttered became the new reality because creation is subordinate to the Creator.

While God is faithful (i.e., steadfast), was I wrong to say that omniscient God has no faith?

 

[FCEGM]

I was recently in a discussion with my brother about miraculous healing, and he said that Jesus cured people because His faith was so strong. I had countered that Jesus being God has no faith, that He cured by looking upon a cripple and declaring that he was not a cripple, that being the Way/Truth/Life whatsoever He uttered became the new reality because creation is subordinate to the Creator.

While God is faithful (i.e., steadfast), was I wrong to say that omniscient God has no faith?

St. Thomas Aquinas would give you an “A”:

(From the Summa, Tertia Pars, Q.7)

I answer that, As was said above (II-II, 1, 4), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God’s Essence fully, as will be made clear (34, 1). Hence there could be no faith in Him.

Reply to Objection 1. Faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, seeing that it has to do with nobler matter; nevertheless, it implies a certain defect with regard to that matter; and this defect was not in Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him, although the moral virtues were in Him, since in their nature they imply no defect with regard to their matter.

Reply to Objection 2. The merit of faith consists in this–that man through obedience assents to what things he does not see, according to Romans 1:5: “For obedience to the faith in all nations for His name.” Now Christ had most perfect obedience to God, according to Philippians 2:8: “Becoming obedient unto death.” And hence He taught nothing pertaining to merit which He did not fulfil more perfectly Himself.

Reply to Objection 3. As a gloss says in the same place, faith is that “whereby such things as are not seen are believed.” But faith in things seen is improperly so called, and only after a certain similitude with regard to the certainty and firmness of the assent.

newadvent.org/summa/4007.htm#article3

 

[Cluny]

But in His human nature, of course Jesus had faith.

 

[Orogeny]

I think that Jesus is a difficult case when it comes to questions like that since he was both fully human and fully God. To the question of faith, I think both answers given are correct. When it comes to the claim that he cured people because of his strong faith, I would disagree. He healed people not because of his faith but because of their faith in him as God, even if that was not the precise understanding at the time.

Peace

Tim

 

[thedavidwilson]

But in His human nature, of course Jesus had faith.

Wrong. Jesus acted out the Jewish faith to be an example for us and to fulfill his role as a human being. Jesus is God. God is Omnipotent. Jesus is Omnipotent therefore he does not need faith, which is reserved for creatures who do not have infinite knowledge, like us.

 

[RobNY]

But in His human nature, of course Jesus had faith.

Jesus had a direct and intuitive vision of the divine nature, i.e. the beatific vision. He did not have faith.

For everyone interested, read section V. on the self-consciousness of Jesus in the Jon Sobrino correction from the CDF.

the unique singularity of the filial relationship of Jesus with the Father; indeed they tend to exclude it. Considering the whole of the New Testament it is not possible to sustain that Jesus was “a believer like ourselves”. The Gospel of John speaks of Jesus’ “vision” of the Father: “Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father”.[20] This unique and singular intimacy between Jesus and the Father is equally evident in the Synoptic Gospels.[21]

"The filial and messianic consciousness of Jesus is the direct consequence of his ontology as Son of God made man. If Jesus were a believer like ourselves, albeit in an exemplary manner, he would not be able to be the true Revealer showing us the face of the Father… in fact, the unique character of the mediation and revelation of Jesus disappears: he is thus reduced to the condition of “revealer” that we can attribute to the prophets and mystics.

Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God, enjoys an intimate and immediate knowledge of his Father, a “vision” that certainly goes beyond the vision of faith. The hypostatic union and Jesus’ mission of revelation and redemption require the vision of the Father and the knowledge of his plan of salvation. This is what is indicated in the Gospel texts cited above.

Various recent magisterial texts have expressed this doctrine: “But the knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all that the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision”.[22 Pius IX, Mystici Corporis]

Though in somewhat different terminology, Pope John Paul II insists on this vision of the Father: “His [Jesus’] eyes remain fixed on the Father. Precisely because of the knowledge and experience of the Father which he alone has, even at this moment of darkness he sees clearly the gravity of sin and suffers because of it. He alone, who sees the Father and rejoices fully in him, can understand completely what it means to resist the Father’s love by sin”.[23]

Likewise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the immediate knowledge which Jesus has of the Father: “Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father”.[24] “By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal”.[25]

The relationship between Jesus and God is not correctly expressed by saying Jesus was a believer like us. On the contrary, it is precisely the intimacy and the direct and immediate knowledge which he has of the Father that allows Jesus to reveal to men the mystery of divine love. Only in this way can Jesus bring us into divine love.

It is generally the conclusion of Thomistic theologians that Jesus had the beatific vision. See, for instance, Francois Dreyfus in “Did Jesus Know He Was God?”

God bless,
Rob

 

[bpbasilphx]

Jesus had a direct and intuitive vision of the divine nature, i.e. the beatific vision. He did not have faith.

.

1. Jesus said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and still believed.”
2. Jesus saw, therefore did not believe.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not blessed.

Would you like to try again?

 

[thedavidwilson]

.

1. Jesus said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and still believed.”
2. Jesus saw, therefore did not believe.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not blessed.

Would you like to try again?

Why kind of logic is that?

1. We are not the same as Jesus.
2. Jesus did not NEED to believe since He knew.
3. So are those in heaven not blessed? They see God. Do they not believe?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Would this be the same thing as asking if God can doubt his own existance?

 

[RobNY]

.

1. Jesus said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and still believed.”
2. Jesus saw, therefore did not believe.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not blessed.

Would you like to try again?

This is poor reasoning.

Let:

p= you have not seen and you believe

q= you are blessed

If (you have not seen, and believe), then (you are blessed).
Not (you have not seen and believe).
Therefore, not (you are blessed).

Formally:

If p then q.
Not p.
Therefore, not q.

This is a logical fallacy called “denying the antecedent.”

The only valid inferences from a conditional are denying the consequent and inferring the antecedent. It must necessarily follow that if the consequent is false that the antecedent is not true. It also must necessarily follow in a conditional that if the antecedent is true that the consequent is true (simply by definition of what a conditional is). But denying the antecedent in nowise means that the consequent does not obtain unless it is a biconditional.

Consider:

If it does not rain, I will not get wet.
It does not rain.
Therefore, I will not get wet.

Which is identical in form to your argument.

Which is countered with: “If I jump in the pool, I will get wet.”

Why kind of logic is that?

1. We are not the same as Jesus.
2. Jesus did not NEED to believe since He knew.
3. So are those in heaven not blessed? They see God. Do they not believe?

Number (3) is a good point. By definition those in heaven are “the blessed,” and yet by necessity they see God by sight and not by faith. Very good observation.

God bless all,
Rob

 

[Stylites]

Would this be the same thing as asking if God can doubt his own existance?

Hehehe. Or it would be like saying: “God has opinions” which He doesn’t.

 

[NeedImprovement]

It can become a little complicated when we consider Christ’s two natures; even so, his obeying His divine will with His human will is seen as an act of obedience, though some could easily confuse it as an act of faith.

Within the context of “miraculous healing” Stylites , as FCEGM says …

Sometimes an opinion like your brother’s can happen because we keep hearing, “Your faith has healed you”, or “Your faith has made you whole”.

Concerning miraculous healings, an easy way to avoid many erroneous assumptions is to define faith from the outset, and this contrasted against the backdrop of authority.

Jesus is God. Jesus is Saviour. He is omnipotent and has full authority/power to heal and to save.

Faith is not that power itself, but rather the belief or trust in that power/authority. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says faith is an “authentically human act” of placing our trust in God.

It becomes all the more evident when we consdier some examples from scripture (bolds are mine):

When Jesus forgave and healed the paralytic…
Mark 2: 10-11 NAB
But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth"–
he said to the paralytic, “I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home.”

When the woman with the hemorrhage was healed…
Mark 5:30 NAB

Jesus, aware at once that power had gone out from him, turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who has touched my clothes?”

When the two blind men were healed…
Matt 9: 28-29 NAB

When he entered the house, the blind men approached him and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that** I can **do this?” “Yes, Lord,” they said to him.
Then he touched their eyes and said, “Let it be done for you according to your faith.”

(He didn’t ask, “Do you believe that I believe I can do this?” )

It is interesting how faith so often precedes the miracle, but that faith is in the power of Jesus …not that power itself…rather the trust/belief in that power.

That being said, a friend once told me his mother sometimes repeated to him :“Never stop believing in God, because God believes in you.”

 

[Leonius]

God/Jesus cannot have Faith because He knows with certainty all there is to know.

 

[EasterJoy]

IMHO, the OP and his friend are both wrong.

Jesus did not know all things, for he said himself: “As to the exact day or hour, no one knows it, neither the angels in heaven nor even the Son, but only the Father.” Mark 13:32

This is because Jesus willingly took on the limitations of human nature:
“Though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men…” Phil. 2: 6-7

If this were not so, then Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, that is, his prayer that the cup of his Passion might pass him by, would have been nonsensical. If he knew the future with certainty, after all, how could he pray, “*If *it is your will, let this cup pass me by…” There would have been no “if” about it. In that prayer, Jesus was in his continuous contact with the Father, by which he knew the Father’s will. He didn’t get the Father’s will in a packet when his feet hit the world, like the team of Mission Impossible. He knew the Father’s will in each moment by a relationship that was never neglected for a moment. For surely, Jesus did pray always. This is how we are also to know God’s will: by a life of constant prayer, a life in which our ears and eyes are always open to what God is doing in any given moment.

In his love for the Father, in his constant contact with the Father, Jesus knew the Father’s will, trusted that the Father’s will was unfailingly the right course, and was unfailingly obedient to the Father’s will. This is how he was able to heal: “I solemnly assure you, the Son cannot do anything by himself–he can only do what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise…I cannot do anything of myself. I judge as I hear, and my judgement is honest because I am not seeking my own will, but the will of him who sent me.” John 5:19,30

Faith is not, however, a belief in that which we don’t know. Faith is, rather “the evidence of things not seen.” (from Heb. 11:1) It is knowledge rooted in certain trust in God’s promises, rather than in other outside evidence. Therefore, Jesus was able to heal because he did have the certainty, because of his faith, that his prayer would be heard. For instance, consider the prayer he used *before *raising Lazarus from the dead: “Father, I thank you for having heard me. I know that you always hear me but I have said this for the sake of the crowd, that they may believe that you sent me.” John 11:42

… by the way, why is this particular question posted in the “traditional” forum?

 

[Rogerteder]

But in His human nature, of course Jesus had faith.

even in His human nature Jesus did not have faith–his human and divine natures are united, but distinct. Jesus was not a human person, but a Divine Person thus how could he have faith? He was/is God. He knew all things past present and future, and had the beatific vision here on earth, thus the virtues of faith and hope are not possible. That is traditional Catholic teaching.

 

[Shin]

IMHO, the OP and his friend are both wrong.

If this were not so, then Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, that is, his prayer that the cup of his Passion might pass him by, would have been nonsensical. If he knew the future with certainty, after all, how could he pray, “*If *it is your will, let this cup pass me by…”
?

Jesus prayed that prayer by way of example to us, so to show us that in suffering we may ask for it to be relieved. He did many things by way of example. He knew the entire future of His life, from the moment He was born. He knew who He was, and He knew all the mysteries of Creation…

The only things He grew in knowledge were in the direct experiences of what He knew would occur. When He says, the Son does not know, He means it in the sense of experience, it is a deeply mystical passage.

 

[NeedImprovement]

According to what Our Blessed Lord told St. Faustina, it was on account of lukewarm and indifferent souls that he prayed, “'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass Me by…”

ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/novena.htm

*Jesus asked that the Feast of the Divine Mercy be preceded by a Novena to the Divine Mercy which would begin on Good Friday. He gave St. Faustina an intention to pray for on each day of the Novena, saving for the last day the most difficult intention of all, the lukewarm and indifferent of whom He said:

“These souls cause Me more suffering than any others; it was from such souls that My soul felt the most revulsion in the Garden of Olives. It was on their account that I said: ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass Me by.’ The last hope of salvation for them is to flee to My Mercy.” *

---

With his two natures united in the one person, Jesus has both a divine will and a human will. If we read the completion of his words to the Father, he adds, “…;yet not my will but yours be done.”

This prayer demonstrates that with His human will Our Lord Jesus obeyed His divine will.

---

Here’s an excerpt from Pope Leo XIII’s SATIS COGNITUM (On the Unity of the Church) which might be of interest:
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13SATIS.HTM

1. Although God can do by His own power all that is effected by created natures, nevertheless in the counsels of His loving Providence He has preferred to help men by the instrumentality of men. And, as in the natural order He does not usually give full perfection except by means of man’s work and action, so also He makes use of human aid for that which lies beyond the limits of nature, that is to say, for the sanctification and salvation of souls. But it is obvious that nothing can be communicated amongst men save by means of external things which the senses can perceive. For this reason the Son of God assumed human nature—“who being in the form of God… emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man” (Philipp. ii., 6,7)—and thus living on earth He taught his doctrine and gave His laws, conversing with men.

 

[EasterJoy]

Jesus prayed that prayer by way of example to us, so to show us that in suffering we may ask for it to be relieved. He did many things by way of example. He knew the entire future of His life, from the moment He was born. He knew who He was, and He knew all the mysteries of Creation…

The only things He grew in knowledge were in the direct experiences of what He knew would occur. When He says, the Son does not know, He means it in the sense of experience, it is a deeply mystical passage.

Even if the point were granted in the case of Gethsemane, that is an odd way to interpret the “day nor the hour” quote. The 13th Chapter of Mark is full of things that Jesus said he knew about the end of the world that no one else knew. Why would he say that neither the angels nor even the Son knew the day nor the hour, after going into such detail concerning all he did know that other people did not know? In this case, it could not be in order to set an example about how to look at the future. After that litany of what he knew, there has to be some sense, even some mystical sense, in which the Son did not know the day nor the hour. Some amount of contrast must have existed between the way in which the Son knew while on earth and the way in which the Father knows. Otherwise, his assertion would be false, which is impossible.

Well, it could be as you say, could it not: that is, that the direct experience of the day and hour remained before him? That not what would unfold but how he would experience them remained before him, and so he could ask, in that sense, not that his Passion be escaped, but that a particular version of it not be the one God willed…meaning, not that he wanted to escape the Passion as he knew it as God, but as he imagined in his human mind’s eye, but was yet to experience?

Let us return, then, to the more important point here: thing known by faith *are not *those things that we don’t know! *They are things known in the absence of direct sense experience or evidence! *They are things known by revelation alone. They are, if you want to put it that way, things known purely by mystical means.

If you go back to the fifth chapter of John, you will read that this is the evidence that Jesus pointed out was given in his behalf: the testimony of John (revelation via the Holy Spirit, who speaks through the prophets), Jesus’ own works (done because Jesus was obedient in acting on what he knew purely by faith), and the voice of the Father himself (more divine revelation). All evidence known by faith alone. Even the works are evidence only if the reality of their cause is believed.

While on earth, there were things the Son knew only by revelation, by virtue of trust in that which he knew purely outside of humanly-accessible sense experience, and by the works he was able to do because of his faith. The things he knew by faith were the things he knew purely by virtue of being the Second Person of the Trinity, and by no other means. Do not think this a small thing! For how did Satan attempt to tempt him? “* If you are the Son of God…*” The devil attempted to move Jesus’ will from acting on what he knew by faith alone over to what he knew by human means, such as reasoning from known facts, setting up and testing a hypothesis, and so on. It is the exact method the devil used on Eve. For Adam and Eve also had an unsullied relationship with God, by which they could know his will. Up until the Fall, they lived entirely in accordance with whatever God had revealed to them. Like Adam and Eve, Jesus had a human will that was free to choose to accept revelation as the most indisputable form of knowledge. If not, not even temptation would be possible.

Let us also not speak about God as if there were no difference between the Persons of the Trinity, confusing equality with sameness. Jesus himself said, “For the Father loves the Son and everything the Father does he shows to him…” (John 5:20) “Indeed, just as the Father possesses life in himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26) The Son proceeds from the Father, not the Father from the Son. It is the Son who is obedient to the Father. It is the Son who emptied himself, taking the form of a slave. The Father knows, and shows, and the Son is shown, and knows.

 

[prodigalson12]

Jesus was limited within the confines of human existance, as man, as on earth, with mans frailties, limitations, and the whole gambit. For him to be anything more “or” less while he walked this earth would defeat the whole purpose of him becoming man, and indeed he could have skipped the entire step of becoming flesh based upon that logic if that was not the case. Yes he had faith, a faith all of us should strive to emulate, he did many things that you and I can do within it, within these confines as we exist here and now, if we had enough faith as he stated over and over again, there is a good reason he states “Ye of little faith”… Now, of course, he has been transformed without those same frailties, his work was completed, his body itself became immortal and that includes all that comes with it including knowledge.

 

[Shin]

Jesus was limited within the confines of human existance, as man, as on earth, with mans frailties, limitations, and the whole gambit. For him to be anything more “or” less while he walked this earth would defeat the whole purpose of him becoming man, and indeed he could have skipped the entire step of becoming flesh based upon that logic if that was not the case. Yes he had faith, a faith all of us should strive to emulate, he did many things that you and I can do within it, within these confines as we exist here and now, if we had enough faith as he stated over and over again, there is a good reason he states “Ye of little faith”… Now, of course, he has been transformed without those same frailties, his work was completed, his body itself became immortal and that includes all that comes with it including knowledge.

Let me list some dogmatic facts.

God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence. (De fide.)

God knows all real things in the past, the present, and the future. (De fide.)

‘Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.’ (John 6,65)

By the knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)

Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence. (Sent. certa.)

Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Sent. certa.)

Christ’s freedom from ignorance was denied by the Arians, the Nestorians, and the Agnoetes, they all appealed to ‘But of the day, and hour no one knoweth’

Christ calls Himself the Word, the Truth, the Teacher, He knows about happenings that occur far away (John 1, 48), sees through the heart of man (John 1,47; 2,24 etc.)

In explanation of the scriptural passage Mk. 13,32… Reading Ludwig Ott, he states against the mystic interpretation with ‘the Body of Christ’ and that the Fathers have two answers:

1. The ignorance of the day of the General Judgement “It is not for you to know the times or the moments, which the Father hath put in His own power,” is a so-called economic ignorance that is founded on God’s decree, or a scientia noncommunicanda, that is, Christ should not, in accordance with the will of the Father, reveal the moment of the General Judgement to mankind. “It was no part of His teaching duty to make it known to us.” St. Augustine
2. In consequence of His innermost connection with the Logos, Christ as man knew the day of the General Judgement indeed, but He did not have this knowledge from His human nature (Pope St. Gregory the Great)

The intrinsic reason for the impossibility of error in Christ lies in the Hypostatic Union.

So this is what Ott has to say. So while Christ in His human nature knew the time, He knew it from His divine nature, not from His nature as Son of Man, and/or He was not free to reveal it to us. ‘Neither the day nor the hour.’

From the beginning of Christ’s life, His soul possessed infused knowledge. (Sent communis.)

According to the teachings of St. Thomas, Christ’s scientia infusa extends, on the one hand to all which can be the natural object of human cognition and on the other hand, to all which is communicated through supernatural Revelation from God to man. The rest of His knowledge comes not through infused knowledge, comes from the scientia beata.

To bring this short before I go on and on… In other words there are different divine ways of knowing, and human ways of knowing. He knew all, but in certain human ways though he knew all in some senses, in others he gained the ‘direct experience’, such as thinking humanly for the first time about these matters, as a human would who was so perfectly in union with his divine nature yet still a baby, child, then adult man. How would a human think with the hypostatic union and such knowledge… ?

Well I don’t know. I have work and meditation to do on it. I can only say the parameters we have to work with, and that includes that He knew in His humanity, all He could possibly know in most senses of ‘knowing’ except experience.

Perhaps my interpretation is off a little on some areas, but the dogma you do have to work with and around.

Christ has a human nature, and a divine nature – but He is a divine person.

There are some sermons below that go deeper into this. It is a matter that can give one subject for meditation for years, but one must be extremely careful in what one believes and assumes about so intimate a matter as the nature of God.