Incarnation, Divine Timelessness, and Modality
A central part of the Christian doctrine of the incarnation is that the Son of God ‘becomes' incarnate. Furthermore, according to classical theism, God is timeless: He exists ‘outside' of time, and His life has no temporal stages. A consequence of this ‘atemporalist' view is that a ti...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Collaborateurs: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Université Catholique de Louvain
[2019]
|
| Dans: |
TheoLogica
Année: 2019, Volume: 3, Numéro: 1, Pages: 88-112 |
| RelBib Classification: | NBC Dieu NBF Christologie VA Philosophie |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Incarnation
B Divine Freedom B Atemporality B Son of God B Modality |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | A central part of the Christian doctrine of the incarnation is that the Son of God ‘becomes' incarnate. Furthermore, according to classical theism, God is timeless: He exists ‘outside' of time, and His life has no temporal stages. A consequence of this ‘atemporalist' view is that a timeless being cannot undergo intrinsic change—for this requires the being to be one way at one time, and a different way at a later time. How, then, can we understand the central Christian claim that the Son of God ‘becomes' human? This paper examines one such explanation, drawn from a brief remark by Brian Leftow: the Word takes on flesh by exhibiting modal variation with regards to the incarnation. On this account, a timeless God ‘becomes' incarnate simply due to variation across logical space: at some possible worlds He is incarnate and at others He is not. Modal variation need not, therefore, require temporality: it only requires variation across (static) possible worlds. I draw out the problems with Leftow's modal claim under the heads of Ersatzism and Genuine Modal Realism about possible worlds, respectively. I argue that in both instances, Leftow's desired cross-worldly variation of the Son's incarnation cannot be achieved. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2593-0265 |
| Référence: | Kritik in "On Emily Paul on Brian Leftow (2019)"
|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: TheoLogica
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.14428/thl.v2i3.2283 |