Friday, November 20, 2020

Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on Whether Jesus was Free from Committing Error in Mortality and Why He Would Ask Questions If He was All-Knowing

Addressing the question, from a Latin Trinitarian perspective, whether Jesus, in mortality, could make any mistakes, Dominican theologian Garrigou-Lagrange, commenting on the work of Thomas Aquinas wrote:

 

. . . it is de fide that Christ never erred, that He even could not err, or in other words, that He was already infallible in this life. It is at least the commonly accepted and theologically certain doctrine that Christ’s soul was free from ignorance . . .  it is recorded that Christ is the Word of God made flesh, “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). That Christ was infallible, as we have seen, not only in the doctrine He delivered, and the events affirmed by Him, but this also follows as universally established by reason of the hypostatic union. The Word, indeed, assumed the complete human nature, but free from error and sin, for as sin is evil of the will, error is evil of the intellect; and as it is absolutely repugnant, as will be stated father on, that the Word incarnate sinned or even was able to sin, so it was repugnant that He erred or even was able to err. For error would reflect on the very person of the Word in accordance with the adage: actions are attributed to the supposita. Hence error and sin cannot be attributed to the Word of God, who is essentially truth and holiness. That it is commonly said to be de fide that Christ, as man, the founder of the Church, was infallible. To show the truth of this discursion by the explanatory method suffices, namely, an explanation of the terms of revelation, for an objectively illative method of reasoning is not necessary, namely, on by which a new truth is acquired that is not in itself revealed.

 

It is at least commonly accepted and theologically certain doctrine that Christ’s knowledge was absolutely exempt from all ignorance and not only from error.

 

St. Thomas proves this, presupposing that Christ had both beatific knowledge and infused knowledge (cf. [Summa Theologica] IIIa, q. 10, a. 2; a.II, a. I). But it is first fitting to manifest the truth of this assertion from Sacred Scripture and tradition, so that by a quasi a posterori method it may afterward be clearly seen how it befitted Him to have this beatific knowledge even in this life. (Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Christ the Savior: A Commentary on the Third Part of St. Thomas’ Theological Summa [trans. Dom Bede Rose; London: B. Herder Book Company, 1950, 1957], 344, 345-46)

 

Addressing the objection as to why Jesus would ask questions if he was, even in mortality, all-knowing, we read:

 

Third objection. Some, too, have proposed the difficulty that the Gospel records that Christ often asked questions of men, such as, what they thought of Him, where the body of Lazarus was laid, and other such questions. They say that He even expressed amazement, for example, as the faith of the centurion and the incredulity of the people..

 

Reply. It is evident from the Gospel narrative that Christ asked questions in a human way, and likewise, expressed admiration, but this was not from lack of knowledge, for the Evangelist says: “He needed not that any should give testimony of men; for He knew what was in men” (John 2:25).

 

It is therefore clearly established from all these texts that Christ was exempt from all error, which is de fide, and from all ignorance, which is at least theologically certain. Thus we gain a clearer understanding why the question is put about whether Christ already in this life enjoyed the beatific vision. (Ibid., 350)

 

One was reminded of the following from D. Charles Pyle’s response to Marian Bodine. In response to Bodine’s objection: “Throughout Ether chapter 2, we find the God of the Book of Mormon needs to be given instructions and corrections, for his instructions are foolish. See Job 38-40, for God’s reaction to anyone who might try to instruct Him,” Pyle responded:

 

Anti-Mormons never cease to amaze me, especially when they clutch at straws, and, in the process, unknowingly attack the Bible. What is fascinating about the last two historical events just mentioned, is that one could certainly say the same thing about the God of the Bible, that Ms. Bodine says about the God of the Book of Mormon! In these two events, the LORD desires to destroy the Israelites and tells Moses to stand back while he consumes them.

 

In first account (Exodus 32:7-14), Moses stops the LORD and tells him about what the Egyptians would say about it. He then, seemingly, demands that the LORD turn from his wrath and change his mind concerning what he was about to do (32:10-12). For good measure, Moses also reminds the LORD of the Abrahamic covenant (32:13). The LORD then changes his mind (32:14).

 

In the second account (Numbers 14:10-37), the LORD becomes angry with Israel because of their disbelief, and states that he is about to destroy Israel. Moses tells the LORD what the Egyptians would say, and speaks of the gossip that would pass from nation to nation (14:11-14). The nations would say that God annihilated Israel because of his inability to bring the Israelites into their promised land (14:15-16). Moses reminds the LORD of his great mercy, and begs him to pardon the people (14:17-19). Again, the LORD pardons them according to Moses' word (14:20) and changes his course of action (14:21-37).

 

To summarize both events (using Ms. Bodine's reasoning):

 

First, the LORD is about to wipe Israel out of mortal existence because he is angry. Moses then says, "Uh, LORD, that's a bad idea. What do you think the other nations are going to say? They're going to say that you weren't able to live up to your promises, so you killed them in the wilderness! They'll make you look bad! Don't do this! Please, forgive them."

Finally, the LORD changes his mind. In other words, the God of the Bible needs to be given instructions and corrections, for his instructions are foolish.

 

I suppose Moses could have benefited from Ms. Bodine's suggested reading assignment of Job, chapters 38-40. If we were to follow Ms. Bodine's logic, the Bible would not stand a chance! CRI's answer would probably be that it was not really the LORD's intention to destroy Israel. He just wanted to test Moses! Let us have no double standards here! What is good for the goose is good for the gander, as the saying goes! The Lord just wanted the brother of Jared to use his brain a little. The Lord's wisdom is infinite. Often times, he allows us opportunities to do things for ourselves before he helps us, as a test of our faith. In reading the story of the fall of man (Genesis 3:1-13), one might get the impression that God did not know where Adam was hiding (3:9-10), or who told him he was naked (3:11). God knows all. He knew that Adam had eaten the fruit, and he knew where Adam was hiding. Yet, God gave him the opportunity to confess his sin and test him. Shame on Ms. Bodine for attacking the Book of Mormon for the same type of thing that occurs in the Bible! Why does CRI wish to operate upon a principle of double-standard?