How would you respond to a charge that the doctrine of Christ has contradictions?

[pbc561]

Christianity as the Worship of Self-Contradiction
Christianity is, if nothing more, the worship of Jesus. According to orthodox Christianity, Jesus is the god of the Old Testament come down to the earth, incarnated in the flesh of a human being, and so-called "king of kings," even though his only crown was assembled from thorns which corrupted his flesh.

In evangelizing, many adherents to Christianity carry on as if they were really concerned about the presence of contradictions in one’s worldview. While pretending that their worldview is wholly consistent and free of any contradiction whatsoever, Christianity's apologists roam about like lions seeking whom they may devour on the charge of contradiction and fallacy. What’s often overlooked by both the apologists themselves and unsuspecting non-believers, is that Christianity reduces quite literally to worship of a walking contradiction. This is not hard to see, but it is impossible for apologists to distangle.

The Athanasian Creed makes this unmistakably clear when it affirms that Jesus is “both God and Man,” that he is "fully God, fully man," that is, both wholly divine and wholly human.

But herein lies a long list of contradictions, for God is not a man, and man is not a god. The Athanasian Creed is essentially saying that Jesus is both A and not A. Observe the following 20 essential qualities attributed to the Christian god which man does not share with it:

* God is uncreated, but man is not uncreated
* God is divine, but man is not divine
* God is supernatural, but man is not supernatural
* God is perfect, but man is not perfect
* God is immutable, but man is not immutable
* God is almighty, but man is not almighty
* God is sovereign, but man is not sovereign
* God is omniscient, but man is not omniscient
* God is omnipotent, but man is not omnipotent
* God is omnipresent, but man is not omnipresence
* God is omnibenevolent, but man is not omnibenevolent
* God is infallible, but man is not infallible
* God is infinite, but man is not infinite
* God is eternal, but man is not eternal
* God is immortal, but man is not immortal
* God is incorporeal, but man is not incorporeal
* God is non-physical, but man is not non-physical
* God is immaterial, but man is not immaterial
* God is incorruptible, but man is not incorruptible
* God is indestructible, but man is not indestructible

And even though only one of these would have to stick in order for there to be a real (as opposed to an "apparent") contradiction, we also note that man is biological in nature. But how could one say that the Christian god, which is said to lack a body, is biological? And while Christians say that their god is worthy of worship, would they say that human beings are worthy of worship? In fact, it is hard to find any quality ascribed to the Christian god by Christian sources that man has.

Since Christians worship Jesus, and Jesus is claimed to be both one thing and also its logical opposite, we can only conclude that Christians therefore literally worship a contradiction. And since they worship contradiction, how can they find the presence of contradictions (or supposed contradictions) in non-Christian worldviews objectionable? Perhaps their complaint is that non-Christian worldviews don’t have enough contradictions, or that non-Christian worldviews do not give contradictions enough respect. At any rate, if one is to avoid contradictions, this much is certain: one must abandon Christianity.

by Dawson Bethrick

How would you respond to this?

 

[pbc561]

I made a thread elsewhere regarding this. Tell me what you guys think: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/how...rge-doctrine-Christ-has-contradictions-70783/

 

[MW]

The Athanasian Creed is essentially saying that Jesus is both A and not A.

All that has been alleged basically comes down to this representation but it is clearly a misrepresentation of what the Creed teaches. First, the word "is" requires an equivocation. Jesus "is" God but He "assumed" human nature. A contradiction cannot be proved where an equivocation can be demonstrated. Secondly, what is called "non A" is not "non God." In assuming human nature He took it up into His divine person in what is called an hypostatical union. Now, the union itself is a mystery, that is, beyond the capacity of human reason to comprehend, but it is not a contradiction because it does not violate the laws of logic. There is an obvious difference between transcending and transgressing reason. Whatever validates the authority of reason must of necessity transcend reason itself; so there can be no legitimate argument against believing in something that is higher than reason.

 

[jwright82]

I made a thread elsewhere regarding this. Tell me what you guys think: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/how...rge-doctrine-Christ-has-contradictions-70783/

He's right! But he simply figured out what the church settled at Chalcedon, that the Monophysite position is wrong. This position holds that Christ is one person with one nature. If this is true than he is a walking contradiction like your quoted critic stated. But if we follow what actual christians believe than we confess that Christ is one person with two natures, one wholly divine the other wholly human. That is a mystery but not a contradiction. We confess that he is one in one respect, personhood, and two in another respect, natures. So A is not A non-A at the same time.

You see he is assuming that Christ has one nature which is why his argument is sound. If Christ has one nature that we say is at the same time both wholly human, which includes the attribute of not being God, and wholly Divine, which includes the attribute of not being human, than that is a valid contradiction. But that is not what we are saying as I said above. His argument is like trying to disprove Santa Claus by disproving the Easter Bunny, your can't because your talking about two different things.

This is a straw man argument that you could respond to by simply saying "Congradulations you are right, but I don't even need to respond because your not talking about the same person that I am". A person can disprove allah all day long and that has no bearing on whether or not the Christian exists.

A deeper logical error that he is making is that he is actually violating the type of argument he is trying to use, the reductio ad absurdem type. This essentially says that you assume a person's P.O.V. or beleif to be true and work out the logical consequences of it and reduce it to absurdity by showing that it leads to a contradiction. If Christ has one nature that is wholly human, or not-divine, and wholly dicvine, or not-human, than that is a contradiction. Hence the original beleif is wrong.

Now a crucial element to this form of argumentation is that you define the terms as the person holding the beleif defines them. That is the most important thing to remember. You cannot take the name Jesus that orthodox christians confess and change what that name means in your argument. For instance we define Christ as one person with two natures, so you cannot redefine Christ (under the radar of course) as being one person with one nature. That is called equivication, or changing the meaning of a word mid argument.

So when he redefines Christ in a way not defined or confessed by orthodox christians than he has invalidated his argument. I hope that helps. If anything I said is unclear or too confusing just point it out to me and I will do my best to clear it up.

 

[earl40]

First off I think that all he was refering to was basically a paradox and not a contradiction.

I addressed this a few years ago and met with an unhappy response. With trepidation I must say that CVT's "paradox" is presented as "contradiction" when it is understood that the "paradox" is only resolved in God Himself. In other words, the apparent contradiction remains unresolved to the subject knowing. Further, whereas traditional theology maintains the regula fidei and demands "categorical" distinctions, CVT taught a method of paradox and made fairly plain statements against classical distinctions. I think the problem can be traced back to a misunderstanding of the archetype/ectype distinction. CVT's paradox arises from the inability of the human mind to correspond ectypal and archetypal theology. This means he was making a leap from what can be known to what can't be known about God. Traditionally, ectypal theology corresponds to archetypal theology simply in virtue of the fact that it is God's revelation of Himself accommodated to human capacity. No correspondence needs to be attempted. The mysteries of the faith are beyond reason but not contrary to reason. What can't be known about God is simply off limits.

Rev. Witzer, in your opinion can we not uderstand the "paradox" of the ultimate end of all things as to that all things or events will glorify God? I used quotation marks because if we can understand the end this would not be a paradox.

 

[pbc561]

I made a thread elsewhere regarding this. Tell me what you guys think: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/how...rge-doctrine-Christ-has-contradictions-70783/

He's right! But he simply figured out what the church settled at Chalcedon, that the Monophysite position is wrong. This position holds that Christ is one person with one nature. If this is true than he is a walking contradiction like your quoted critic stated. But if we follow what actual christians believe than we confess that Christ is one person with two natures, one wholly divine the other wholly human. That is a mystery but not a contradiction. We confess that he is one in one respect, personhood, and two in another respect, natures. So A is not A non-A at the same time.

You see he is assuming that Christ has one nature which is why his argument is sound. If Christ has one nature that we say is at the same time both wholly human, which includes the attribute of not being God, and wholly Divine, which includes the attribute of not being human, than that is a valid contradiction. But that is not what we are saying as I said above. His argument is like trying to disprove Santa Claus by disproving the Easter Bunny, your can't because your talking about two different things.

This is a straw man argument that you could respond to by simply saying "Congradulations you are right, but I don't even need to respond because your not talking about the same person that I am". A person can disprove allah all day long and that has no bearing on whether or not the Christian exists.

A deeper logical error that he is making is that he is actually violating the type of argument he is trying to use, the reductio ad absurdem type. This essentially says that you assume a person's P.O.V. or beleif to be true and work out the logical consequences of it and reduce it to absurdity by showing that it leads to a contradiction. If Christ has one nature that is wholly human, or not-divine, and wholly dicvine, or not-human, than that is a contradiction. Hence the original beleif is wrong.

Now a crucial element to this form of argumentation is that you define the terms as the person holding the beleif defines them. That is the most important thing to remember. You cannot take the name Jesus that orthodox christians confess and change what that name means in your argument. For instance we define Christ as one person with two natures, so you cannot redefine Christ (under the radar of course) as being one person with one nature. That is called equivication, or changing the meaning of a word mid argument.

So when he redefines Christ in a way not defined or confessed by orthodox christians than he has invalidated his argument. I hope that helps. If anything I said is unclear or too confusing just point it out to me and I will do my best to clear it up.

I agree.

So how would you respond to a simple question like: Was Jesus all-knowing or not all-knowing while he was in the flesh?

Given omniscient verses like (cf. John 1:48; 2:25; 3:13), and non-omniscient verses such as (Matthew 24:36).

Gotquestions.org states that "After He was resurrected, Jesus resumed His full divine knowledge (cf. Matthew 28:18; Acts 1:7)" here. Is there any validity or explanation to this?

Thanks.

 

[pbc561]

The Athanasian Creed is essentially saying that Jesus is both A and not A.

All that has been alleged basically comes down to this representation but it is clearly a misrepresentation of what the Creed teaches. First, the word "is" requires an equivocation. Jesus "is" God but He "assumed" human nature. A contradiction cannot be proved where an equivocation can be demonstrated. Secondly, what is called "non A" is not "non God." In assuming human nature He took it up into His divine person in what is called an hypostatical union. Now, the union itself is a mystery, that is, beyond the capacity of human reason to comprehend, but it is not a contradiction because it does not violate the laws of logic. There is an obvious difference between transcending and transgressing reason. Whatever validates the authority of reason must of necessity transcend reason itself; so there can be no legitimate argument against believing in something that is higher than reason.

Thank you. I have two questions:

1) How are you defining "assumed"?

2) Can you explain what you mean by "transcending reason" and why it is necessary?

Thanks.

 

[ClayPot]

This person doesn't understand the doctrine of hypostatic union. His contradictions fall away with a proper understanding of what orthodox Christianity teaches about the deity and humanity of Jesus.

 

[jwright82]

I agree.

So how would you respond to a simple question like: Was Jesus all-knowing or not all-knowing while he was in the flesh?

Given omniscient verses like (cf. John 1:48; 2:25; 3:13), and non-omniscient verses such as (Matthew 24:36).

It is mysterious but not contradictory. According to his human nature he was finite but according to his Divine nature he was omniscient. Again the question assumes one person and one nature both wholly human and Divine at the same time equals contradiction. You have to keep pressing the presupositions of the question, if they are wrong than they are wrong.

Gotquestions.org states that "After He was resurrected, Jesus resumed His full divine knowledge (cf. Matthew 28:18; Acts 1:7)" here. Is there any validity or explanation to this?

Thanks.

I couldn't say, that is a little out of my league. Other more theologically minded people on this board might be better help to you, start a thread on it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

James,

The human nature of Christ was not omniscient. The divine nature of Christ never lost its divine attributes (to include omniscience). The questions being posed assume a heretical view of the hypostatic union of Christ. I would answer the "objector" that they ought to study the historic Christian doctrine of the nature of Christ prior to asking questions that have been answered and re-answered for centuries. The poser of the questions presents himself as having studied these issues when, clearly, he is just putting his ignorance on display.

 

[MW]

Rev. Witzer, in your opinion can we not uderstand the "paradox" of the ultimate end of all things as to that all things or events will glorify God? I used quotation marks because if we can understand the end this would not be a paradox.

I am sure God makes all things to serve His own glory, and the ultimate realisation of that fact will answer many complexities which we could not understand about life in this fallen world. Living by the light of His revealed will, however, it is our active duty to glorify Him; and this is simply impossible to do if we must live with contradictions which cannot be solved.

 

[MW]

1) How are you defining "assumed"?

He "took it up" into His person. It points to the fact that the divine person united with an impersonal human nature. Hence it is false to say that Jesus is non God. He was a divine person, is a divine person, and ever shall be a divine person.

2) Can you explain what you mean by "transcending reason" and why it is necessary?

Something that transcends reason is above reason or beyond the ability of reason to discover for itself. Why is the acceptance of the transcendent necessary? Simply because reason itself is inextricably bound to the truth, which is transcendent. Is truth immutable? Yes. Then reason, always developing and changing in man, acknowledges a transcendent quality which is beyond itself.

 

[jwright82]

James,

The human nature of Christ was not omniscient. The divine nature of Christ never lost its divine attributes (to include omniscience). The questions being posed assume a heretical view of the hypostatic union of Christ. I would answer the "objector" that they ought to study the historic Christian doctrine of the nature of Christ prior to asking questions that have been answered and re-answered for centuries. The poser of the questions presents himself as having studied these issues when, clearly, he is just putting his ignorance on display.

My choice in the word "finite" was misleading. What I meant was that according to his human nature he was not omniscient. I mean exactly what you mean. Yeah I agree that the questioner's mistake is that he is not talking about the Orthodox's confession of Christ. He is assuming one person with one nature. I was trying to go into more logical detail as to why he is wrong. Your suggestion is right in line with mine, I think at least.

 

[J. Dean]

This person doesn't understand the doctrine of hypostatic union. His contradictions fall away with a proper understanding of what orthodox Christianity teaches about the deity and humanity of Jesus.

And to be honest, more often than not a person who asks these questions doesn't want to understand it. I find that people who ask such questions usually (not always, but usually) are doing so to excuse their own unbelief.