A part of me wonders why unitarians churn out painfully incompetent videos like this:
1. A problem many atheists have when attacking Christianity is that because they hold it in such intellectual contempt, they are unable to take it seriously even for the sake of argument. But this means their attacks on Christianity are sophomoric. By the same token, the unitarians who made this video lack the intellectual patience to acknowledge and engage Christian responses to their half-baked critique. They can't be bothered to consider the implications of the two-natures of Christ. That's because they don't believe in the two-natures of Christ. But if they're going to say the Incarnation is contradictory, they have to show it's contradictory on the model they reject. If, say, a Christian theologian operates with a two-minds Christology, then it's not contradictory for Jesus to be tempted in reference to his human mind but not his divine mind. The unitarians who produced this video are too jejune to distinguish between what they think is factually true and what they think is logically consistent.
2. I'd add that quoting passages which say Jesus was "tempted" is not very informative inasmuch as temptation can mean more than one thing. On the one hand, it can mean exposure to an external inducement. On the other hand, it can mean to feel the appeal of something. The second kind of temptation is psychological. But it's possible to be exposed to something intended to be tempting, which some people find tempting, which others may not find attractive, or may even find repellant.
I once read about a failed attempt by Ava Gardner to seduce Anthony Perkins. Gardner was one of the all-time great Hollywood beauties, but as she quickly discovered, Perkins wasn't wired like a normal man, so he didn't find her overtures tempting. Her effort was future from the start.
My immediate point is not to determine in which sense Jesus could be tempted, but to point out that just seizing on the word "tempted" doesn't settle the issue because the concept is ambiguous. We're apt to read into it more than the word itself implies.
It's like when Unitarians say: Can God die? It's so peurile. It shows that they don't even understand the concept of the incarnation.
ReplyDeleteWell, I've been meaning to ask you about this topic but not in reference of the Trinity. I was discussing impeccability with some friends and this issue was brought up and I'd like your thoughts on the issue:
ReplyDeletehttp://spirited-tech.com/COG/2020/04/07/impeccability-and-temptation/
I'm a Unitarian and I don't understand your first point. You say the video ignores the implications of the two natures model in offering its critique. However to me it seems the two natures model is the very thing the video is critiquing, so the implications are not being ignored. If you grant God isn't tempted and Jesus is tempted in the same sense of the word tempted, then the two nature's model is falsified. A person can't be tempted and not tempted, in the same sense of the word tempted, at the same time. The solution on the two natures view has to be to use different senses of the word tempted. For example, being tempted in a divine nature must mean something different to being tempted in a human nature. If they both mean same thing then two natures doesn't help, you need two beings (two things that exist concretely)
ReplyDeleteNo.
Delete1. My first point is that the word "tempted" is equivocal. I draw that distinction under #2. So just to quote passages that say Jesus was tempted is uninformative about his psychological experience.
2. In addition, it can have the same meaning on a two-minds model. It's just that God isn't susceptible to temptation, and that extends of the human mind inasmuch as the divine mind controls the human. So even if the human mind feels tempted to commit sin, that's not overpowering.
It's not contradictory to say Jesus could be tempted by virtue of his mind human but not be tempted by virtue of his human mind in union with his divine mind. That adds a condition.
DeleteIt's not contradictory to say I'm a world-class poker player but I lost my last game because I just broke up with my girlfriend, so my mind wasn't in the game.
I don't understand how two natures solves the issue of contradiction if there is no equivocation. Consider this argument:
Delete1. There are different kinds of 'temptation'. Let's assign each kind a letter: temptation-A, temptation-B, etc.
2. Jesus experienced temptation-A.
3. Therefore it is false that Jesus did not experience temptation-A.
For your two natures solution to work, you need to deny 3. How do you do this?
If we relax the non equivocation constraint, one could do this:
1. Jesus experienced temptation-A.
2. Jesus did not experience temptation-B.
That seems like a valid solution which would work with or without two natures.
Alternatively one can do this:
1. The term Jesus refers to two different beings. Let's can them Jesus-A and Jesus-B.
2. Jesus-A experienced temptation-A
3. Jesus-B did not experience temptation-A.
That doesn't make much sense in two natures unless one adopts a Nestorian view and says the natures are different beings.
Could you explain your two natures solution using logical premises without equivocation?
There are several ambiguities regarding the temptation of Jesus.
Deletei) As I pointed out before, the mere word "was tempted" is ambiguous. That can refer to something the target of temptation finds tempting or else an external inducement which has the intention to be tempting, but may not correspond to what the targt of temptation finds attractive. Take my example of Eva Gardner's ill-fated effort to seduce Anthony Perkins. Because he wasn't straight, Gardner had no sex appeal for him. There was no hook.
ii) Then there's the category of second-order temptations. I may naturally dislike the flavor of whiskey. So I don't find whiskey tempting. But whiskey can become an acquired taste. Indeed, I can become an alcoholic. To say, without qualification, that Jesus was tempted by everything men find tempting would have to mean Jesus was an addict. That Jesus was liable to second-order temptations, like compulsive gambling and alcohol abuse. But in that event he was already a sinner. So to say that Jesus was tempted in all things is hyperbolic.
iii) There's nothing contradictory about saying something might be possible in one respect but impossible in another respect. Suppose it's possible, considered in isolation, for the human nature of Christ to commit sin. If, however, that's restrained by union with the divine nature, that's not a logical contradiction, because that introduces an additional condition or constraint. It's possible to feel the pull of temptation, but not give into temptation due to overriding factors.
To take a comparison, it's not naturally possible for a human being to know the future. If, however, God disloses the future to the individual, then he can know the future. That's not logically contradictory.
iv) There's nothing "Nestorian" about saying the divine and human natures are different. The problem is when Nestorianism treats them as separate rather than in union.
v) As I pointed out before, this isn't unique to Incarnational theology. Unitarians must also explain what makes Jesus uniquely sinless. And they must explain why the saints in heaven are impeccable.
I think we're at cross purposes.
DeleteI think I misunderstood your original point. I thought you were claiming that it's possible for Jesus to be both tempted and not tempted in the same sense of the word.
This is what I though you were claiming:
1. Jesus experienced temptation in his human nature.
2. Therefore Jesus was tempted.
3. Jesus did not experience the same type of temptation (or in the same sense of the word) in his divine nature.
4. Therefore Jesus was not tempted.
2 and 4 contradict. Appealing to different senses of the word temptation won't help because the argument stipulates it's the same sense.
But now I don't think you're making the above argument. I think you're saying Jesus was tempted in one sense, but was not tempted in a different sense. Is that right? I agree there's no contradiction if the senses of the word are different.
Incidentally I think you may have misunderstood my point about Nestorianism. I was not claiming that the two natures view is Nestorian.