Tag Archives: The Incarnation Four Views

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 →