Blogging Thru The Incarnation Four Views: Divine Preconscious Model (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

This is part of a series of posts exploring each of the views presented in The Incarnation Four Views edited by Andrew Hollingsworth and R.T. Mullins. In part one we explored the Narrow Scope Negation model. 

View 2: Divine Preconscious Model
Andrew Loke is an Associate Professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Hong Kong Baptist University. Among his published works is A Kryptic Model of the Incarnation.

In building a model of the Incarnation, Andrew Loke has a different set of starting premises than Timothy Pawl. He isn’t trying to fit classical theism into his model nor does he accept the authority of the councils. One of the major concerns that Pawl raises against this model is its novelty and theological cost.1

Loke makes a valuable observation about any model that is proposed for the Incarnation.

in order to make meaningful statements about Jesus in accordance with the Scriptures and to rebut the charge of incoherence, it would be helpful if the Christian can suggest a possible model to show how concepts like omniscience and apparent limitation in knowledge can be affirmed of Jesus in such a way that no contradiction results. It is not required that the Christian come up with the actual model of the incarnation. Rather, all that is required is that he or she suggests a possible model to show how contradictions do not result. (emphasis in original) 2

C. Stephen Evans, in his critique, agrees with this idea suggesting he would “be happy if it turns out to be the case that there are other models which accomplish the same goal: providing an account of how God might become incarnate that is logically coherent and possible.” 3

There was a consistent observation highlighted in the responses of each contributor about the Divine Preconscious Model (DPM) model. It is very complex and difficult to understand.4 A notion that Loke does not back away from, noting that “On the other hand, “a great level of complexity of the model of the incarnation is only to be expected given the sheer difficulty of the idea that a person could at the same time be a human as well as the Maker of the universe.” 5

What follows is an overview of DPM.

Continue reading →

Blogging Thru The Incarnation Four Views: Narrow Scope Negation (Part 1)

Posted on by
Reply

This summer I have been reading more about the Trinity and Christology. I was excited to see the newly published book that explores four different views on the Incarnation. It was edited by Andrew Hollingsworth and R.T. Mullins. I was unfamiliar with the four main contributors and was interested in seeing the different approaches each would take. This short blog series will cover each view with some of my thoughts.

Having read through the first entry and the responses I have a few observations regarding the book. Understanding that the authors were given a limited amount of space to make their points, they need to be judicious in describing their view. However, that should not have resulted in skipping defining key terms in detail. In addition, readers should know that when they crack the cover they are dropped into the middle of a rather deep philosophical discussion between the contributors. It can take some effort to get oriented. Finally, prior familiarity with the concepts that are part of the Trinitarian and Christological discussion is highly recommended.

View 1: Conciliar Narrow Scope Negation
Dr. Timothy Pawl is the first to present his view. He is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas and is noted for publishing two books on Conciliar Christology. Pawl argues that a Conciliar Christology is the foundation upon which any model of Christology should be built.

Continue reading →

A Tale of Two Brothers: the fate of Esau

Posted on by
Reply

When Abraham’s son Isaac becomes a father, it is over twin boys. The older boy is named Esau, who was a skilled hunter and outdoorsman. Jacob, the younger boy, was a herdsman. 1 These two sons would not only be very different in their temperaments and skillsets but also in the roles they would play within the story of the nation of Israel. A story that is told throughout the books of the Old Testament.

Jacob, who will later be given the name Israel, is the one through whom God often identifies Himself.

The Lord [is] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob2

It is through the line of Jacob that the nation of Israel would be established and the physical lineage of the Messiah would be traced.3

But what happened to Esau? Did the man who traded away his birthright, was cheated out of his blessing and founded the nation of Edom also end up unrepentant and eternally lost as many suppose? After all we find God telling us it was “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated.” 4

To answer that question we must start at the beginning. Isaac’s wife Rebekah is pregnant. And before the twins were born God tells her that:

Giovanni Maria Bottala: Meeting between Esau and Jacob

Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples will be separated from within you.
One people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger5

This is widely understood as God informing Rebekah about the larger destinies of her two children and the nations that they will found.

Part of this prophetic word encompasses the promise God made to Abraham telling him that he would be “the father of a multitude of nations.” 6 This promise would primarily be centered on the nation of Israel though the line of Jacob 7. But it also includes the nation(s) founded by Ishmael, his older son through Hagar, and the nation of Edom founded by Esau, the older son of Isaac.8

Not only is God telling Rebekah that each of her sons will found a separate nation. It is also commonly understood that the Lord is also disclosing to her that it is through Jacob, not Esau, that He will fulfill the promises made to Abraham.9 It is the nation of Israel that will be the “apple of his eye” and His special possession. 10 Paul reminds us that this decision was made “before they were born or had done anything good or bad.”11

Continue reading →