Does God Have Faith?

[prodigalson12]

Let me list some dogmatic facts.

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

• He was still man at the time, so limited at that period while living as a mortal.

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

• refer to the above statement

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

• refer to the above statement

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

• redundant above

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

• vision of God as he wanted him to be, it was still up to him to choose it, ie. the reason Satan still thought he could tempt him and get him to change the plan.

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

• The very concept of faith, being free from ignorance

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

• ya see, limited while he walked among us as a mortal

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.)

• He does so knowing his words will travel and transcend all of time, it holds weight through it.

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:

• this means what relevent to the discussion?

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

• If we knew God’s exact plan, we would likely screw it up trying to help (short interpretation)

1. 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)

• You just posted he did not, sorry St. Gregory

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

• That is your opinion

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.’

• Hmm… can you please at least take a side upon your debate?

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

• All of ours do believe it or not, we just tend to forget it, the more modern we get

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.

• It comes from the Holy Spirit, not fancy words…

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… ?

• Human knowing is futile and limited, yet functional to simply survive, spiritual knowledge leads to life eternal when taken to true heart.

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.

• I pray your meditations enlighten you.

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

• We all are on different levels of understanding, each should help strengthen the others that need it.

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

He was, is and always will be!

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.

We as man can only trust in the nature of God as loving us individually, without compromise, without precedence, without limit.

Yours in Christ, Brian

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Remember what Jesus pointed out: that God revealed to little children things that the wise didn’t know. Perhaps this is because little children will accept revelation as evidence, while the “wise” expect the same kind of evidence from God that they expect from other humans. God is not usually inclined to give evidence of that kind, since revelation is the superior means of knowing. His revealing and our acceptance of what he reveals is a direct act of love between God to us. Even faith in signs requires the willingness to accept that grace was the source of the signs. That is why there was no sign that would have been sufficient for the Jesus’ enemies. He could have come down from the Cross, and those bent on disbelief would not have believed.

By his divine nature, Jesus knew all things. In his human nature, everything he knew by reason of his divine nature was a revelation he had to act on in faith. In other words, in his human nature he had to be obedient to what his divine nature made manifest. When tempted to do so by the devil, Jesus rejected the fallen human tendency to give human reasoning pre-eminence over those things known by faith; that is, known because God made a thing known by direct communication. As you and I both know, being given the knowledge is only the first part of the battle. We still have to choose to know what we know, to act on it. That is what faith is.

Therefore, it is not only possible for Jesus to have known and yet to have healed by faith, but it is necessary to know by faith before one can heal by faith. Peter walked on water, because he obeyed what faith gave him to know was possible. He sank because his human frailty began to want evidence other than the evidence which faith alone provided.

 

[RobNY]

By his divine nature, Jesus knew all things. In his human nature, everything he knew by reason of his divine nature was a revelation he had to act on in faith. In other words, in his human nature he had to be obedient to what his divine nature made manifest. When tempted to do so by the devil, Jesus rejected the fallen human tendency to give human reasoning pre-eminence over those things known by faith; that is, known because God made a thing known by direct communication. As you and I both know, being given the knowledge is only the first part of the battle. We still have to choose to know what we know, to act on it. That is what faith is.

I think there’s somewhat of an equivocation going on with “revelation.” Certainly we must grant that Jesus knew the Last Day by means of His divine nature, and not from His human nature. But what sense does it mean to say that “everything he knew by reason of his divine nature was a revelation he had to act on in faith?”

Well, you seem to clarify by saying, “in his human nature he had to be obedient to what his divine nature made manifest.” Ok-- if that’s the sense of “revelation,” i.e., what God has made manifest, then perhaps I can accept that usage in this context. But it doesn’t follow that therefore Jesus had faith in this ‘revelation.’

Faith is holding something to be true based on authority, and not on personal, first hand knowledge. Faith leaves our intellects in a “darkness” because we hold that X is true, and know that X is true, but we fail to see the reasons why X is true. In Aristotelian terms, the intellect does not grasp the form. But Jesus didn’t know the divine realities merely by the dark knowing of faith. Rather, Jesus saw the divine realities by the means of His hypostatic union and the beatific vision. Once we understand this distinction, we see why we can’t grant the conclusion that,

1. Because Jesus knew divine realities by means of His divine nature, He accepted them in faith according to His human nature.

Because faith isn’t merely knowing something by means of the divine. Consider the blessed (the saints in heaven). The saints in heaven know the divine realities. But they don’t have “faith.” They have knowledge, they have sight. If the principle which justifies conclusion (1) were true, then even the blessed would still have faith, not sight, in heaven. But that is absurd.

Rather, we must grant that Jesus had true knowledge of the divine realities, which is not faith.

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.

This prayer exhibits a conflict in Jesus’ lower appetites and His will, not an ignorance of the Father’s will or an opposition to the Father’s will, as your interpretation implies.

We know that Jesus is God, and that He was always perfectly united with the Father’s will. Indeed, it is by His obedience that we are made righteous. To claim that Jesus was either truly ignorant, or not completely on board with the Father’s will ultimately (1) undermines the divine unity (the Trinity does not will anything apart from itself) and (2) obviates our salvation (which, as Paul said, is by one man’s obedience).

Rather, we must interpret this verse in this way: Jesus’ prayer expresses the repulsion of His lower appetites at the prospect of His suffering and death, i.e., the great fear which He felt, and the sickness and anguish with which He contemplated His suffering, because of the real humanity of His body. It does not represent any willed, conscious opposition to God’s will.

This is completely corroborated by a parallel verse in the Gospel of John. During His priestly discourse to the Father, He says:

27 “I am troubled now. Yet what should I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But it was for this purpose that I came to this hour.
28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it and will glorify it again.” (John 12 27-28)

Your interpretation of the prayer at Gethsemane is equal to “Father, save me from this hour.” But John wrote this, I believe, precisely to combat such a false understanding. When Jesus is praying, “If it is your will… let this cup pass…” He does not mean Father, save me from this hour. No indeed. That would be foolish and pointless because “it was for this purpose that [He] came to this hour.”

Since the Gospel of John, and sure theological considerations, keep us from your interpretation of the prayer at Gethsemane, we shouldn’t conclude that Jesus was ignorant or that He had faith.

God bless,
Rob

 

[EasterJoy]

I think there’s somewhat of an equivocation going on with “revelation.” Certainly we must grant that Jesus knew the Last Day by means of His divine nature, and not from His human nature. But what sense does it mean to say that “everything he knew by reason of his divine nature was a revelation he had to act on in faith?”

Well, you seem to clarify by saying, “in his human nature he had to be obedient to what his divine nature made manifest.” Ok-- if that’s the sense of “revelation,” i.e., what God has made manifest, then perhaps I can accept that usage in this context. But it doesn’t follow that therefore Jesus had faith in this ‘revelation.’

Faith is holding something to be true based on authority, and not on personal, first hand knowledge. Faith leaves our intellects in a “darkness” because we hold that X is true, and know that X is true, but we fail to see the reasons why X is true. In Aristotelian terms, the intellect does not grasp the form. But Jesus didn’t know the divine realities merely by the dark knowing of faith. Rather, Jesus saw the divine realities by the means of His hypostatic union and the beatific vision. Once we understand this distinction, we see why we can’t grant the conclusion that,

1. Because Jesus knew divine realities by means of His divine nature, He accepted them in faith according to His human nature.

Because faith isn’t merely knowing something by means of the divine. Consider the blessed (the saints in heaven). The saints in heaven know the divine realities. But they don’t have “faith.” They have knowledge, they have sight. If the principle which justifies conclusion (1) were true, then even the blessed would still have faith, not sight, in heaven. But that is absurd.

Rather, we must grant that Jesus had true knowledge of the divine realities, which is not faith.

This prayer exhibits a conflict in Jesus’ lower appetites and His will, not an ignorance of the Father’s will or an opposition to the Father’s will, as your interpretation implies.

We know that Jesus is God, and that He was always perfectly united with the Father’s will. Indeed, it is by His obedience that we are made righteous. To claim that Jesus was either truly ignorant, or not completely on board with the Father’s will ultimately (1) undermines the divine unity (the Trinity does not will anything apart from itself) and (2) obviates our salvation (which, as Paul said, is by one man’s obedience).

Rather, we must interpret this verse in this way: Jesus’ prayer expresses the repulsion of His lower appetites at the prospect of His suffering and death, i.e., the great fear which He felt, and the sickness and anguish with which He contemplated His suffering, because of the real humanity of His body. It does not represent any willed, conscious opposition to God’s will.

This is completely corroborated by a parallel verse in the Gospel of John. During His priestly discourse to the Father, He says:

Your interpretation of the prayer at Gethsemane is equal to “Father, save me from this hour.” But John wrote this, I believe, precisely to combat such a false understanding. When Jesus is praying, “If it is your will… let this cup pass…” He does not mean Father, save me from this hour. No indeed. That would be foolish and pointless because “it was for this purpose that [He] came to this hour.”

Since the Gospel of John, and sure theological considerations, keep us from your interpretation of the prayer at Gethsemane, we shouldn’t conclude that Jesus was ignorant or that He had faith.

God bless,
Rob

I did not write it so well, but my sentiments are more along the lines of how you put it. Perhaps “revelation” was not the right word to use. Nevertheless, there is a conflict between the what he knew by virtue of his divine nature and union with the Father and the demands his human nature would have tried to make in terms of acting on that evidence. In that sense, Jesus heals by faith: that is, entirely reliant on the Father and not relying on the promptings of his own human nature which, if not put entirely at the disposal of the Father, would have been liable to sin, rather that just liable to temptation.

Put another way: Jesus’ human nature was nothing without God, but that was of no account, for he was never without God, was never not God, never acted except according to his divine nature. By his will, and not by repressing the experiences of human nature, his human nature was made subordinate to his divine nature. But yes, his power and knowledge was of another order than that of, say, Mary, because the union that existed in him between the human and the divine was of another order than hers.

 

[Shin]

Christ always knew He was God, in both His human and divine knowledge.

So – No faith. Faith is in what is unseen, not what is seen.

 

[EasterJoy]

Christ always knew He was God, in both His human and divine knowledge.

So – No faith. Faith is in what is unseen, not what is seen.

Is it your position, then, that Jesus did not have to place any trust in the Father at all? Do you hold that the knowledge held by the Son was so complete and so compelling that in spite of all the promptings of his human passions, the insistence of his senses, the pressure of his family and peers, or any other temptation, that Jesus needed no trust in the Father, but only his own willpower: that the concept of trust did not apply to the Son?

In other words, was Mary the only soul who ever completely trusted in God, since Jesus never had to?

I maintain that, while the nature of Jesus’ relationship with God and his knowledge was fundamentally different than Mary’s, that Jesus still, in his human nature, willingly placed his trust in entirely the will of the Father. That is what I mean by “faith.”

I will grant that in submitting to his Incarnation and Passion, Jesus did not vacate his power as God. I still believe that he did choose in obedience to vacate direct use of his power as God, and relied instead on trusting in the will of the Father and the power of the Holy Spirit, an act within Jesus’ human nature. In that sense of the word “faith”, I would maintain that Jesus did heal by faith, regardless of his divine knowledge and power, and that from the beginning of his Incarnation to the final breath of his Passion that Jesus’ life was the truest and most ultimate act of faith ever performed.