Faith and Philosophy 7 (2):149-164 (1990)
In this paper I present and defend two arguments which purport to show that the doctrines of timelessness and the Incarnation are incompatible. An argument similar to the first argument I consider is briefly discussed by Stump and Kretzmann in their paper "Eternity." I argue that their treatment of this type of objection is inadequate. The second argument I present is, as far as I know, original; it depends on a certain subtlety in the doctrine of the Incarnation, viz., that the Son took on or assumed a human nature. It seems that there is no way to understand what it is for the Son to take on a human nature that doesn’t entail his mutability; and mutability entails temporality. Thus, since Christ is said to take on a human nature, an orthodox Christology must maintain that the Son is temporal. I conclude by considering whether the Son’s temporality entails the temporality of the Godhead
|Keywords||Contemporary Philosophy Philosophy and Religion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Human Nature, Potency and the Incarnation.Alfred J. Freddoso - 1986 - Faith and Philosophy 3 (1):27-53.
Incarnation, Timelessness, and Leibniz's Law Problems.Thomas D. Senor - 2002 - In Gregory E. Ganssle & David M. Woodruff (eds.), God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature. Oxford University Press.
Anselm on the Necessity of the Incarnation.Brian Leftow - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (2):167 - 185.
Peter Abelard's Metaphysics of the Incarnation.Jonathan Hill - 2010 - Philosophy and Theology 22 (1/2):27-48.
The Metaphysics of the Incarnation.Anna Marmodoro & Jonathan Hill (eds.) - 2011 - Oxford University Press USA.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads27 ( #185,030 of 2,152,240 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #281,219 of 2,152,240 )
How can I increase my downloads?