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?
