Blog Posts

Is the Whole Trinity Omni-, or just each Person?

11/11/2011

William Lane Craigs writes: The question I have been wrestling with is if it is better to think primarily of the God-head possessing the relevant omni-attributes, or if it is better to think of each individual person as possessing the omni-attributes. In fact, it seems that it might not be possible for all three persons to have the atrribute of omnipotence. Philosophers like Richard Swinburne have argued for monotheism on the grounds that there cannot be a plurality of omnipotent beings because they could come into conflict with each other and so would limit each other’s power. Wouldn't this objection apply to the Trinity? Possibly, each person of the Trinity could limit each others power, and hence, there couldn't be a God composed of three persons where each person has the property of omnipotence.

The way out of this puzzle is to realize that possibly, persons who are essentially harmonious because they share the same knowledge, love, and volition would not fall into the alleged logical impossiblity proposed above by Richard Swinburne. This just so happens to be the very model of the Trinity that Christians have, and in virtue of their essential harmony of wills, the Chrisitian can continue to rationally affirm the doctrine of the Trinity.

Moreover, it seems that when we turn to a consideration of properties like timelessness, aseity, necessity, omnipotence, and the like, it makes the most sense to speak of these properties as being had primarliy by the essence of the Godhead, and only derivately by the persons of the Godhead. While it is true that only one God can be omnipotent, it doesn't follow that there cannot be a plurality of persons within that the one essence of the Godhead whom are omnipotent.

A better argument for there being at most one omnipotent God is that any other being that exists must be within the power of God to create or not. But then the existence of that being depends asymmetrically upon God. So God has power over it, while it lacks this power over God. So there can be at most one omnipotent God

If Jesus Couldn't Sin then was he really tempted, and was he really free?

11/11/2011

The argument for Christ's impeccability can be formulated as follows:

1) God, as an essentially perfect being, cannot sin.

2) Jesus is God.

3) Therefore, Jesus cannot sin.

Someone clever might protest that just as Jesus was omnipotent with respect to his divine nature, but limited in power with respect to his human nature, that the same applies in the case of moral perfection. Jesus was sinless with respect to his divine nature, but not necessarily with respect to his human nature. Two responses: 1) This objection is based on a false analogy since sinning is something a person does, and the human nature of Christ, although limited, is not itself a person. 2) A more radical view, and one that I wouldn't recommend, is to bite the bullett and say that Jesus could have sinned, but God created Him in the circumstances with the right set of true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom such that God knew through His middle knowledge that Christ would not sin, even though He could.

But then the question remains: How could Jesus actually be tempted if He couldn't and wouldn't sin?

This question has an implicit argument and central premise contained within it that would be something like the following: In order to be truly tempted by something, then you must actually be able to act on that temptation. However, though intuitive, this premise is false. To give a realistic example, consider waking up in the middle of the night and craving a midnight snack (i.e. a chocalate cake in the fridge downstairs). Now, you are sorely tempted to go downstairs and munch out, but you are also on a diet plan that doesn't permit eating midnight snacks. With much struggle, you overcome the temptation, and go back to bed. However, little did you know that your son had already gotten up slightly before you in the middle of the night and eaten the rest of the chocolate cake that you were tempted to eat. So, even though you couldn't act on your temptation, you nonetheless were actually tempted and had to genuinely struggle to overcome that temptation.

I'm sure you noticed that this illustration only works if we assume a certain degree of cognitive limitation being in place for Jesus just as it was for the person who didn't know that the cake was no longer in the fridge. But of course, it isn't at all implausible to think that Jesus had an ordinary human consciousness and knowledge that allowed him to grow in wisdom, maturity, and the rest such that he could also be unaware of his impeccability and genuinely struggle with temptation.

Lastly, someone may ask: If Jesus was incapable of sinning, then how is this compatible with our ordinary understanding of freedom as the ability to choose between opposites (i.e. good and evil).

Very simple, libertarian freedom DOES NOT require the notion of contra-possibility. Here is a famous thought experiment proposed by Harry Frankfurt wherein it is demonstrated that all that is required for libertarian freedom is that a person be the ultimate source of their decisions without any external causal conditions determining their choice:

‘Imagine a man with electrodes secretly implanted in his brain who is presented with a choice of doing either A or B [for our purposes, we’ll let A stand for good and B stand for evil]. The electrodes are inactive so long as the man chooses A; but if he were going to choose B, then the electrodes would switch on and force him to choose A. If the electrodes fire, causing him to choose A, his choice of A is clearly not a free choice. But supposed that the man really wants to do A and chooses it of his own volition. In that case his choosing A is entirely free, even though the man is literally unable to choose B, since the electrodes do not function at all and have no effect on his choice of A. What makes his choice free is the absence of any causally determining factors of his choosing A. This conception of libertarian freedom has the advantage of explaining how it is that God’s choosing to do good is free, even though it is impossible for God to choose sin, namely, His choosing is undetermined by external causal constraints. Thus, libertarian freedom of the will does not require the ability to choose other than as one chooses.’

In the case of Jesus, he could freely resist temptation and be morally responsible for it if we understand libertarian free will in the manner above.

How Can God be both Limited and Unlimited in the Incarnation?

11/11/2011

the_birth_of_god.docx
File Size:	25 kb
File Type:	docx

Here, the empirical findings of depth psychology can offer a viable model of how it is that Jesus could be ignorant, grow in knowledge, etc., but also remain all of His omni-attributes.

Historically, depth psychology, from a German term (Tiefenpsychologie) coined by Eugen Bleuler, has come to refer to the ongoing development of theories and therapies pioneered by Pierre Janet, William James, C. G. Jung, Sigmund Freud, and Alfred Adler. Depth psychology explores the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious and includes both psychoanalysis and Jungian psychology.

According to depth psychology, the human psyche (the forces that influence thought, behavior, and personality) is not exhausted by its conscious elements such as sight, memory, reasoning, and the like. The human psyche also contains a well-spring that constantly influences and interacts with our conscious, known as the unconscious. The unconscious contains thoughts that are not directly accessible to ordinary introspection, but are supposed to be capable of being "tapped" and "interpreted" by the conscious mind.

Thus, Jesus was fully divine, (omniscient, omnipotent, and the like with respect to the unconscious part of His psyche; this was the emptying, or kenosis of God); but with respect to Jesus' conscious waking life, (H)he was fully human in intellect, temptation, will, reasoning, and like; and thus capable of being ignorant, growing in knowledge, etc. The beauty of this model of the incarnation is that it allows us to make sense of how it is Jesus could have a divine self-understanding (know He was God), without sacrificing the reality of (H)his human vocation as prophet, Messiah, and personal embodiment of YHWH. That is, Jesus' unconscious was incapable of being accessed by introspection, but (H)his unconscious was "tapped," or "interpreted" by (H)his conscious mind without turning the incarnation into a farce.

This idea is largely borrowed from the work of William Lane Craig (Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview).

Why Did Jesus Have to Die and How Does His Death Justly Take Away Our Sins?

11/11/2011

Consider the following argument against the concept of God:

1) If God is all-merciful, then he must forgive all sins.
2) If God is all-just, then he must punish all sins.
3) There is no way for God to simultaneously punish and forgive all sins.
4) Therefore, either no all-merciful or all-just, or neither an all-merciful and all-forgiving god exists.

I actually find this argument to be persuasive for all forms of theism except Christian theism wherein God's justice and mercy meet at the cross. Let me explain.

atonement_2.docx
File Size:	38 kb
File Type:	docx

One could also question the underlying assumptiong here that retributive punishment makes sense or is morally permissible. Specifically, unless we have libertarian freedom (or if determinism is true), then the goals of punishment might only be deterrence and rehabilitation (perhaps a weak form of retribution, but that is controversial) . If so, then the following theory of the atonement is what would do the job:

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Philosophical%20Theology/Atonement/Incarnational%20Theory%20of%20Atonement%2010-2-09%20version.doc

Can a Hitler Slip through the Cracks of Justice?

6/17/2011

Taken from Kenneth Einar Himma's article in Faith and Philosophy: The Problem of Unresolved Wrong-Doing, 405.

Many Christians believe that, because of divine grace, any person who repents of sin, accepts Christianity, and has genuinely authentic faith in God is forgiven for her sins and spared completely of the torments of hell. Even the most evil person can be saved, getting nothing by way of divine punishment. Indeed, a genuine conversion occurring during a person's dying breaths is sufficient, on the traditional view, to be spared of divine punishment and enjoy the infinite benefits of salvation. However, the violation of an obligation creates a moral debt that requires correction by compensation, punishment, and/or forgiveness; a wrong that is never punished, compensated, or forgiven perpetuates a continuing injustice by leaving a debt unpaid. If it is true that one person's forgiveness cannot release the wrongdoer of a moral debt owed to someone else, then God's forgivenesss cannot release a wrongdoer from the moral debts she owes to human victims of her wrongs. Something must be done, as a moral matter, to deal with those existing moral debts before a saved sinner can enjoy eternal bliss promised to the faithful.

Empirical Theology: Making Sense of Original Sin in light of Evolution, and Evolutionary Psychology

6/17/2011

The following link is to a great article by Robin Collins that develops a coherent and up to date model of original sin on the basis of science, scripture, church history, personal experience, and theology:

evolution_and_original_sin.doc
File Size:	147 kb
File Type:	doc

The Sanctification Paradox Resolved

6/15/2011

Borrowed from Justin D. Barnard, Purgatory and the Dilemma of Sanctification, Faith and Philosophy, 311-328:

The Paradox: According to Protestant Theology, a sufficient condition for entering eternal life is saving faith. However, a saving faith is not identical to a morally perfected nature because a morally perfect nature comes about through the process of sanctification. While a saving faith is a sufficient condition for eventually entering into eternal fellowship with God, it is not by itself sufficient for the possessions of a fully sanctified nature. When you add to this the orthodox position that the inhabitants of heaven are incapable of sin, and that the almost everybody, if anybody, never completely finishes the sanctification process before dying on Earth, a dilemma arises. Since the majority of people do not achieve moral perfection before dying, it would seem that either heaven is full of people who are still going to sin, or that saving faith is not a sufficient condition for eternal union with God.

Can a Loving God send people to Hell?

6/6/2011

Here is an audio link to a great debate between Ray Bradley and William Lane Craig on this question:

transcript.docx
File Size:	103 kb
File Type:	docx

What about those who have never heard the Gospel?

6/6/2011

Here is a link to a great article by William Lane Craig answering this question:

how_can_christ_be_the_only_way_to_god.docx
File Size:	29 kb
File Type:	docx

How can we be free in heaven, and not sin? / Could God Have Created Heaven From The Beginning

6/5/2011

Here is a link to a great article by Kevin Timpe and Timothy Pawl answering both of these questions:

heavenly_freedom.pdf
File Size:	339 kb
File Type:	pdf

Articles defending the virtue ethics in light of empirical studies that have been used to defend Situationism

virtue_ethics_paper.pdf
File Size:	278 kb
File Type:	pdf

sreenivasan.pdf
File Size:	5747 kb
File Type:	pdf

virtuecharactersituation.pdf
File Size:	280 kb
File Type:	pdf