Here is my first attempt at revising an argument given by McDowell in support of the premise that Jesus claimed to be God:
2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.
I have objected that McDowell failed to provide relevant evidence to support premise (3a), and it is unclear whether this premise is true.
Another problem is that this argument is about what Jesus believed, but the premise of the Trilemma that needs support is about what Jesus claimed. So, I will make another attempt at reconstructing McDowell's reasoning.
Since McDowell does specifically talk about Jesus claiming to be able to forgive sins, that would probably be a better initial premise:
2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.
The conclusion, in order to provide relevant support to the Trilemma, must also be about what Jesus claimed:
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.
The question is, how do we bridge the logical gap between (2b) and (4b)?
I think a couple of generic premises about the context of (2b) will work, at least as logical place holders:
2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.
5. Jesus made the claim that he could forgive sins, and he did so in a context of type X.
6. The claim that one can forgive sins, when made in a context of type X, carries the implication that one is God.
Therefore,
7. Jesus asserted a claim that in the particular context carried the implication that Jesus was God.
Therefore,
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.
Since premise (5) presupposes the truth of premise (2b), we can drop (2b) without impacting the logic of the argument.
This reconstruction of McDowell's thinking appears to avoid the problems of the previous arguments. Premise (5) is an empirical and historical claim (at least it will be if we can properly fill in the blank to define "a context of type X").
Premise (6) might not be an empirical claim, but it is a claim about the meaning or use of the expression "I have the power to forgive sins" (and similar expressions). This is a conceptual claim and there are commonly accepted ways of evaluating such claims--no need to appeal to divine revelation or mystical experience to settle this question. Finally, the conclusion is one of the premises of the Trilemma, so there is no question about the relevance of this argument to the Trilemma.
The trick here is to define what is meant by "a context of type X" in such a way that the conceptual claim in (6) is true or plausible, while at the same time there is adequate historical evidence available to support (5), given the clarification.
The possibilities and permutations that one could think up to fill in the blank here are too numerous to ever allow for a complete refutation of the general form of the argument above. So, I will have to content myself with looking at just a few possibilities for defining "a context of type X".
One possibility comes to mind. What if the people who were listening to Jesus when he made the claim to be able to forgive sins were people who believed that only God could forgive sins? In such a context, making the claim to be able to forgive sins might carry additional significance, especially if we contrast this context with one in which the people listening held the contrary belief that all (or many) human beings had the power to forgive sins.
Definition 1: Some person P makes a claim C in a context of type X if and only if P makes a claim C to a group of people who believe that only God can forgive sins.
Does the above argument work if we fill in the blank using Definition 1 (hereafter: D1)?
On (D1) claim (6) is subject to the following counterexample:
Jesus did not believe that only God can forgive sins, and he made it plain to other people around him that he did not believe this.
In this situation, even though people around him might take the content of Jesus' claim to logically imply that Jesus was God (i.e. they would believe that "If Jesus truly can forgive sins, then Jesus must be God."), those people would not attribute such a belief or inference to Jesus, and thus they would not interpret Jesus as intending to assert or imply that he was God. They would understand that from Jesus' point of view, the ability to forgive sins is no big deal, that from Jesus' point of view this does not carry the implication that Jesus was divine.
Another problem, a problem that might well plague all attempts to fill in the blank, is that we don't have solid historical evidence about the beliefs of the people that were gathered around Jesus at the time he (allegedly) made the claim to be able to forgive sins. Thus, once we use (D1) to clarify the empirical premise (5), we would not be able to determine whether (5) was true or not. It might be true, but it might not be.
Certainly some of the people around Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins, at least according to the Gospel account. But did all of the people around Jesus believe this? If only a few people believed this, and others disbelieved it, then how could the claim be reasonably interpreted to carry the implication that Jesus was God?
To be continued...
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 10
In More than a Carpenter, McDowell makes four key points based on passages from the synoptic Gospels in support of his Trilemma argument. I am now focusing on the first point:
...Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins. (MTC, p.18)
I have considered and rejected one argument that McDowell presents relating to this point:
1. Jesus forgave sins.
Therefore,
2. Jesus can forgive sins.
3. Only God can forgive sins.
Therefore,
4. Jesus is God.
This will not work as an apologetic argument, because the two main premises (1) and (3) are controversial theological claims that are not subject to empirical or historical evaluation.
I have suggested a modification of this argument to try to get around the objection concerning the use of controversial theological claims as premises in an apologetic argument:
2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.
Premises (2a) and (3a) are not controversial theological claims, and they are both subject to empirical and historical evaluation. What Jesus believed or did not believe is an empirical question. It might be difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion on this matter, but there is relevant historical data that can be examined and that might either support or disconfirm specific claims about what Jesus taught and/or believed.
It should be noted that the inference from (2a) and (3a) to (4a) is not a valid deductive inference. It is logically possible for (2a) and (3a) to be true, and yet for (4a) to be false. However, the combination of (2a) and (3a) do constitute a good reason for accepting the conclusion (4a). They make the conclusion probably true.
It is a very simple and obvious inference to go from "I can forgive sins" and "Only God can forgive sins" to "I am God". So, if we assume that Jesus held the first two beliefs, it would be reasonable to conclude that he put two and two together and drew the obvious inference that he was God. So, although this modified argument is not a valid deductive argument, the reasoning is good enough to make the conclusion probable, given the truth of the premises.
The passage McDowell cites from the Gospel of Mark certainly provides some evidence in support of premise (2a). How strong this evidence is will require both a general evaluation of the historical reliability of the Gospel of Mark and also a more specific historical evaluation of the passage in question.
Premise (3a), however, is not supported by appropriate evidence, and it is not at all clear whether this claim is true. McDowell briefly argues for the belief that "Only God could forgive sins":
By Jewish law this was something only God could do; Isaiah 43:25 restricts this perogative to God alone. (MTC, p. 18)
But here McDowell is trying to defend a controversial theological belief. What is at issue is not whether this belief is true, but whether Jesus had this belief. The latter issue is one that is subject to empirical and historical investigation. Quotations from Isaiah or from the Old Testament do not provide strong evidence for what Jesus believed, particularly on such a fine point of theology. Instead, McDowell needs to present some Gospel evidence about the words and teachings of Jesus. That is how one supports a claim about what the historical Jesus did or did not believe.
Perhaps McDowell was thinking along these lines:
5. Jesus believed each and every theological claim taught by the Old Testament.
6. The Old Testament teaches the theological claim that "Only God could forgive sins".
Therefore,
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Although premise (6) could be challenged, the main problem here is premise (5). Why should we assume that Jesus would believe each and every theological claim taught by the OT?
McDowell, and other Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that the OT was inspired by God, so it would make sense from that point of view to assume that Jesus was familiar with each and every theological claim made by the OT. But such clearly Christian assumptions beg the question in the context of an apologetic argument, which is an attempt to rationally persuade a skeptic of some basic Christian belief. Such assumptions are legitimate for in-house discussions between Christian believers and theologians, but they have no place in an apologetic argument.
...Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins. (MTC, p.18)
I have considered and rejected one argument that McDowell presents relating to this point:
1. Jesus forgave sins.
Therefore,
2. Jesus can forgive sins.
3. Only God can forgive sins.
Therefore,
4. Jesus is God.
This will not work as an apologetic argument, because the two main premises (1) and (3) are controversial theological claims that are not subject to empirical or historical evaluation.
I have suggested a modification of this argument to try to get around the objection concerning the use of controversial theological claims as premises in an apologetic argument:
2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.
Premises (2a) and (3a) are not controversial theological claims, and they are both subject to empirical and historical evaluation. What Jesus believed or did not believe is an empirical question. It might be difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion on this matter, but there is relevant historical data that can be examined and that might either support or disconfirm specific claims about what Jesus taught and/or believed.
It should be noted that the inference from (2a) and (3a) to (4a) is not a valid deductive inference. It is logically possible for (2a) and (3a) to be true, and yet for (4a) to be false. However, the combination of (2a) and (3a) do constitute a good reason for accepting the conclusion (4a). They make the conclusion probably true.
It is a very simple and obvious inference to go from "I can forgive sins" and "Only God can forgive sins" to "I am God". So, if we assume that Jesus held the first two beliefs, it would be reasonable to conclude that he put two and two together and drew the obvious inference that he was God. So, although this modified argument is not a valid deductive argument, the reasoning is good enough to make the conclusion probable, given the truth of the premises.
The passage McDowell cites from the Gospel of Mark certainly provides some evidence in support of premise (2a). How strong this evidence is will require both a general evaluation of the historical reliability of the Gospel of Mark and also a more specific historical evaluation of the passage in question.
Premise (3a), however, is not supported by appropriate evidence, and it is not at all clear whether this claim is true. McDowell briefly argues for the belief that "Only God could forgive sins":
By Jewish law this was something only God could do; Isaiah 43:25 restricts this perogative to God alone. (MTC, p. 18)
But here McDowell is trying to defend a controversial theological belief. What is at issue is not whether this belief is true, but whether Jesus had this belief. The latter issue is one that is subject to empirical and historical investigation. Quotations from Isaiah or from the Old Testament do not provide strong evidence for what Jesus believed, particularly on such a fine point of theology. Instead, McDowell needs to present some Gospel evidence about the words and teachings of Jesus. That is how one supports a claim about what the historical Jesus did or did not believe.
Perhaps McDowell was thinking along these lines:
5. Jesus believed each and every theological claim taught by the Old Testament.
6. The Old Testament teaches the theological claim that "Only God could forgive sins".
Therefore,
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Although premise (6) could be challenged, the main problem here is premise (5). Why should we assume that Jesus would believe each and every theological claim taught by the OT?
McDowell, and other Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that the OT was inspired by God, so it would make sense from that point of view to assume that Jesus was familiar with each and every theological claim made by the OT. But such clearly Christian assumptions beg the question in the context of an apologetic argument, which is an attempt to rationally persuade a skeptic of some basic Christian belief. Such assumptions are legitimate for in-house discussions between Christian believers and theologians, but they have no place in an apologetic argument.
Monday, September 21, 2009
McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 9
In More than a Carpenter, McDowell makes four key points based on passages from the synoptic Gospels:
1. "...Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins." (MTC, p.18)
2. "...Jesus received worship as God." (MTC, p.12)
3. "Jesus responded to Peter's confession...by acknowledging its validity..." (MTC, p.12)
4. Jesus "confessed his divinity" at the trial before the high priest. (MTC, p.23)
Let's take a closer look at the first point. McDowell quotes an argument from Systematic Theology by Lewis Sperry Chafer:
"Since none but God can forgive sins, it is conclusively demonstrated that Christ, since he forgave sins, is God."
(MTC, p. 19)
Here is the argument in standard format:
1. Jesus forgave sins.
Therefore,
2. Jesus can forgive sins.
3. Only God can forgive sins.
Therefore,
4. Jesus is God.
The logic is good. This is a valid deductive argument. Although the logic is good, this is a lousy argument, and I think understanding why this argument fails will help to clarify our thinking on this issue.
The inference from (1) to (2) is valid, because if Jesus did in fact forgive somebody's sins, that proves that he can forgive sins. We might want to add temporal qualifications here, since that fact that "A did X at time T1" does not imply that "A can do X at time T2". The fact that I did 100 sit ups in less than two minutes when I was in high school does not prove that I can do that now (some thrity years later). Thus, if it were a fact that Jesus forgave sins of one person two thousand years ago, this would only show that Jesus had that power/ability two thousand years ago, not that he has that power/ability today.
But if we interpret (2) narrowly, as only implying that Jesus at one point had the power/ability to forgive sins, the logic of the argument still works. If God is the only being who ever at anytime had (or will have) the power/ability to forgive sins, then the fact that Jesus had this power/ability at one point in time is sufficient to show that Jesus is God.
The problem with this argument is that both of the basic premises are theological claims, claims that cannot be empirically verified or falsified in any straightforward way. A logical positivist would say that both basic premises were cognitively meaningless, because they are not subject to verification by empirical observation:
1. Jesus forgave sins.
3. Only God can forgive sins.
The alleged activities and powers of God are not subject to empirical verification or falsification. God is supposed to be invisible and intangible and bodiless, so we cannot watch God, see God in a telescope, find God on radar, capture his activity on video, etc. Premise (3) is a controversial theological claim that is inappropriate for use in an apologetic argument aimed at rationally persuading a skeptic.
Jesus, of course, had the power to utter sentences like "I forgive you." and "I forgive your sins." and "Your sins are forgiven." But simply saying these words does not mean that the intended change has been accomplished. Anybody who can talk, can utter those sentences, but that does not mean that anybody can forgive sins.
To actually establish that the intended change happened requires that one must first observe that there is some sort of emnity or separation between a particular person and God, and after the uttering of the words of forgiveness (e.g. "Your sins are forgiven."), one would have to then observe that the previous emnity or separation between that person and God had gone away. Finally, some additional evidence would be needed to confirm that the association between these events was more than just a coincidence. One would need some additional reason to believe that the first event caused or brought about the second event.
None of this is something that is a matter of straightforward emprical observation. One cannot literally see a "gap" between some particular person and God. One cannot literally see God at all, since God has no body, and thus God does not reflect or absorb visible light. Any conclusion that a particular person currently is spiritually separated from God must be grounded either in some sort of "spiritual" experience (unacceptable as evidence to a skeptic) or else grounded in more ordinary experience but interpreted in terms of some specific theological theory or system that allows for translation between ordinary observations and theological conclusions (also unacceptable as evidence to a skeptic). Thus, premise (1) is not subject to empirical or historical evaluation.
The argument from Lewis Sperry Chafer will not work as an apologetic argument. It must be modified so that the premises are subject to empirical and historical evaluation. Here is my first attempt at such a modification of this argument:
2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.
I think this is much closer to the argument that McDowell had in mind. In the next installment, I will examine and evaluate this modified argument.
1. "...Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins." (MTC, p.18)
2. "...Jesus received worship as God." (MTC, p.12)
3. "Jesus responded to Peter's confession...by acknowledging its validity..." (MTC, p.12)
4. Jesus "confessed his divinity" at the trial before the high priest. (MTC, p.23)
Let's take a closer look at the first point. McDowell quotes an argument from Systematic Theology by Lewis Sperry Chafer:
"Since none but God can forgive sins, it is conclusively demonstrated that Christ, since he forgave sins, is God."
(MTC, p. 19)
Here is the argument in standard format:
1. Jesus forgave sins.
Therefore,
2. Jesus can forgive sins.
3. Only God can forgive sins.
Therefore,
4. Jesus is God.
The logic is good. This is a valid deductive argument. Although the logic is good, this is a lousy argument, and I think understanding why this argument fails will help to clarify our thinking on this issue.
The inference from (1) to (2) is valid, because if Jesus did in fact forgive somebody's sins, that proves that he can forgive sins. We might want to add temporal qualifications here, since that fact that "A did X at time T1" does not imply that "A can do X at time T2". The fact that I did 100 sit ups in less than two minutes when I was in high school does not prove that I can do that now (some thrity years later). Thus, if it were a fact that Jesus forgave sins of one person two thousand years ago, this would only show that Jesus had that power/ability two thousand years ago, not that he has that power/ability today.
But if we interpret (2) narrowly, as only implying that Jesus at one point had the power/ability to forgive sins, the logic of the argument still works. If God is the only being who ever at anytime had (or will have) the power/ability to forgive sins, then the fact that Jesus had this power/ability at one point in time is sufficient to show that Jesus is God.
The problem with this argument is that both of the basic premises are theological claims, claims that cannot be empirically verified or falsified in any straightforward way. A logical positivist would say that both basic premises were cognitively meaningless, because they are not subject to verification by empirical observation:
1. Jesus forgave sins.
3. Only God can forgive sins.
The alleged activities and powers of God are not subject to empirical verification or falsification. God is supposed to be invisible and intangible and bodiless, so we cannot watch God, see God in a telescope, find God on radar, capture his activity on video, etc. Premise (3) is a controversial theological claim that is inappropriate for use in an apologetic argument aimed at rationally persuading a skeptic.
Jesus, of course, had the power to utter sentences like "I forgive you." and "I forgive your sins." and "Your sins are forgiven." But simply saying these words does not mean that the intended change has been accomplished. Anybody who can talk, can utter those sentences, but that does not mean that anybody can forgive sins.
To actually establish that the intended change happened requires that one must first observe that there is some sort of emnity or separation between a particular person and God, and after the uttering of the words of forgiveness (e.g. "Your sins are forgiven."), one would have to then observe that the previous emnity or separation between that person and God had gone away. Finally, some additional evidence would be needed to confirm that the association between these events was more than just a coincidence. One would need some additional reason to believe that the first event caused or brought about the second event.
None of this is something that is a matter of straightforward emprical observation. One cannot literally see a "gap" between some particular person and God. One cannot literally see God at all, since God has no body, and thus God does not reflect or absorb visible light. Any conclusion that a particular person currently is spiritually separated from God must be grounded either in some sort of "spiritual" experience (unacceptable as evidence to a skeptic) or else grounded in more ordinary experience but interpreted in terms of some specific theological theory or system that allows for translation between ordinary observations and theological conclusions (also unacceptable as evidence to a skeptic). Thus, premise (1) is not subject to empirical or historical evaluation.
The argument from Lewis Sperry Chafer will not work as an apologetic argument. It must be modified so that the premises are subject to empirical and historical evaluation. Here is my first attempt at such a modification of this argument:
2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.
I think this is much closer to the argument that McDowell had in mind. In the next installment, I will examine and evaluate this modified argument.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
McDowell's Trilemma Argument - Part 8
Josh McDowell's Trilemma includes the following key premise:
Jesus claimed to be God. (EDV, p.104).
McDowell's Trilemma argument is weak because it depends heavily on quotations of Jesus from the Gospel of John and on the following assumption:
(ROJ) The Fourth Gospel is a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus.
In previous posts, I have shown that this assumption has been rejected by most of the leading Jesus scholars in our time. For this reason, we can safely ignore about 90% of the evidence presented by McDowell in support of a key premise of the Trilemma.
However, McDowell recognizes that there are objections to his use of the gospel of John as a source of the words and teachings of Jesus, so he also presents some evidence from the synoptic gospels:
When I was lecturing in a literature class at the University of West Virginia, a professor interrupted me and said that the only Gospel in which Jesus claimed to be God was John's Gospel and it was the latest one written. He then asserted that Mark, the earliest Gospel, never once mentioned Jesus' claiming to be God. It was obvious this man hadn't read Mark--or hadn't paid much attention to what he read. (MTC, p.18)
So, McDowell's argument cannot be dismissed until we examine the evidence he points out from the synoptics.
In More than a Carpenter, McDowell makes four key points based on passages from the synoptic Gospels:
1. "...Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins." (MTC, p.18)
2. "...Jesus received worship as God." (MTC, p.12)
3. "Jesus responded to Peter's confession...by acknowledging its validity..." (MTC, p.12)
4. Jesus "confessed his divinity" at the trial before the high priest. (MTC, p.23)
Questions that a critical thinker needs to consider about each of these points:
Q1. Are there reasonable doubts about whether the general event in the synoptic passage is an historical event?
Q2. Are there reasonable doubts about whether key details in the synoptic passage are historical?
Q3. Are there reasonable alternative interpretations of the synoptic passage or event that do not involve Jesus viewing himself as being God?
Jesus claimed to be God. (EDV, p.104).
McDowell's Trilemma argument is weak because it depends heavily on quotations of Jesus from the Gospel of John and on the following assumption:
(ROJ) The Fourth Gospel is a reliable source of the words and teachings of Jesus.
In previous posts, I have shown that this assumption has been rejected by most of the leading Jesus scholars in our time. For this reason, we can safely ignore about 90% of the evidence presented by McDowell in support of a key premise of the Trilemma.
However, McDowell recognizes that there are objections to his use of the gospel of John as a source of the words and teachings of Jesus, so he also presents some evidence from the synoptic gospels:
When I was lecturing in a literature class at the University of West Virginia, a professor interrupted me and said that the only Gospel in which Jesus claimed to be God was John's Gospel and it was the latest one written. He then asserted that Mark, the earliest Gospel, never once mentioned Jesus' claiming to be God. It was obvious this man hadn't read Mark--or hadn't paid much attention to what he read. (MTC, p.18)
So, McDowell's argument cannot be dismissed until we examine the evidence he points out from the synoptics.
In More than a Carpenter, McDowell makes four key points based on passages from the synoptic Gospels:
1. "...Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins." (MTC, p.18)
2. "...Jesus received worship as God." (MTC, p.12)
3. "Jesus responded to Peter's confession...by acknowledging its validity..." (MTC, p.12)
4. Jesus "confessed his divinity" at the trial before the high priest. (MTC, p.23)
Questions that a critical thinker needs to consider about each of these points:
Q1. Are there reasonable doubts about whether the general event in the synoptic passage is an historical event?
Q2. Are there reasonable doubts about whether key details in the synoptic passage are historical?
Q3. Are there reasonable alternative interpretations of the synoptic passage or event that do not involve Jesus viewing himself as being God?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Future Topics
It is difficult to find the time to think about and write about all of the interesting topics related to the questions "Is Christianity true?" and "Is the Christian worldview reasonable and defensible?" So, in order to make some progress on these very large and important questions, I'm going to try to constrain myself to focus on just three key topics for the rest of this year:
The Trilemma Argument for the Divinity of Jesus
The Resurrection Argument for the Divinity of Jesus
Moral Objections to Belief in the Divinity of Jesus
At some point this year, or early next year, I expect to finish up my discussion of the Trilemma, and move on to examine the argument from fulfilled prophecy for the divinity of Jesus. When I have exhausted my ideas on (or interest in) moral objections to belief in the divinity of Jesus, I will start working on factual errors in the Bible, as an objection to belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
