According to Catholic Christology, is Dr. Craig’s view of Jesus’ knowledge heretical?

score:0

Accepted answer

St. Thomas Aquinas says "the soul of Christ knows all things in the Word", "whatsoever is, will be, or was done, said, or thought, by whomsoever and at any time" (Summa Theologica III q. 10 a. 2 co.). This includes the time of the Second Coming.

His soul does not know all things that "are in the Divine power alone"*, but it does know all that is "in the power of the creature", everything creatures can do or be. (ibid.)

*"For this would be to comprehend all that God could do, which would be to comprehend the Divine power, and, consequently, the Divine Essence."

Regarding Mark 13:32 ("But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father."), St. Thomas answers (Summa Theologica III q. 10 a. 2 ad 1):

He is said, therefore, [in Mark 13:32,] not to know the day and the hour of the Judgment, for that He does not make it known, since, on being asked by the apostles (Acts 1:7), He was unwilling to reveal it; and, on the contrary, we read (Gn. 22:12): "Now I know that thou fearest God," i.e. "Now I have made thee know." But the Father is said to know, because He imparted this knowledge to the Son.

So, the Son does not know the time of the Second Coming independently from the Father, Who "imparted this knowledge to the Son".

William Lane Craig's view is summarized @8:22 of this interview:

there can be things of which Jesus of Nazareth is ignorant and unaware, like the date of his second coming, even though this is known to the Logos.

But the Second Person of the Trinity is not ignorant of the time of His Second Coming. Christ "is not ignorant of anything that was made by Him" (Summa Theologica III q. 10 a. 2 ad 1).

Perhaps Craig means He did not know the time of the Second Coming independently of the Divine Essence? Still, Craig's assertion does have a Nestorian (that there are two persons in Christ, "Jesus of Nazareth" and the "Logos") or Modernist (that the historical Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth", is not the same as the object of faith, the "Logos") ring to it; Jesus of Nazereth = Son = Logos = Christ = Second Person of the Trinity.

Upvote:0

In addition to the hypostatic union, one must also consider Jesus in his state of humiliation or exinanition vs. his state of exaltation (Philippians 2:5-11). While the incarnate Son has all the divine knowledge of the Logos, in his state of humiliation he willingly gave up the full use of it (as well as of his omnipotence and other divine attributes). So Jesus, in his state of humiliation, did not know the time of the Second Coming, did not know whether a tree had any figs on it (Mark 11:13), grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52), etc. But in his state of exaltation, Jesus knows all things. WLC's statement is in line with traditional orthodox Christology, as long as by "Jesus of Nazareth" he is referring to the Incarnate Son in his state of exinination/humiliation, which is that period of time from his conception to his death and burial.

More post

Search Posts

Related post