Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Metaphysics of the Incarnation$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Anna Marmodoro and Jonathan Hill

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199583164

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199583164.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 02 December 2020

Drawing on many traditions: an ecumenical kenotic christology

Drawing on many traditions: an ecumenical kenotic christology

Chapter:
(p.88) 5 Drawing on many traditions: an ecumenical kenotic christology
Source:
The Metaphysics of the Incarnation
Author(s):

Thomas Senor

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199583164.003.0005

The doctrine of the incarnation is the second most puzzling doctrine in ecumenical traditional Christianity (coming in just behind the doctrine of the Trinity). In order to construct a philosophical account of the incarnation one must be able to explain how one and the same being can count as both divine and human. One general approach to solving the metaphysical problems of the doctrine of the incarnation is kenoticism—the idea that God the Son set aside certain aspects of divinity in order to take on humanity. However, this general model faces some daunting challenges of its own. It must explain how God the Son can divest himself of divine properties during the incarnation while maintaining his divinity. It must allow for an acceptable doctrine of immutability. And it must be combined with a kind of Trinitarian view that leaves someone to mind the store. This chapter sketches an account of the incarnation that is able to satisfy the incarnational desiderata and the requirements of an adequate kenotic view. The price to be paid for this is that the divine kind essence cannot be equated with the exemplification of the standard ‘omni properties’ that are generally thought to compose the divine nature. Along the way the chapter discusses the views of Thomas Morris, Brian Leftow, Eleonore Stump, Stephen Davis, and Ronald Feenstra.

Keywords:   kenoticism, compositionalism, Thomas Morris, two-minds, Aquinas, Brian Leftow, natural kinds, Nestorianism, embeddedness

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .