Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:33:20.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Religion

Entailment, Contradiction, and Christian Theism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2023

Jc Beall  and
Michael DeVito
Jc Beall
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Michael DeVito
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham

Summary

Apparent contradiction is common in traditional monotheism, and perhaps especially so in standard Christian theology given central doctrines such as the incarnation and trinity. This Element aims to chart out a very elementary but abstract framework through which such contradictions may be approached. This Element does not attempt to address the many options for thinking about contradictions in the face of logical entailment; it charts only a few salient abstract options.
Get access

Keywords

christian theismcontradictionglutsincarnationtrinity
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Religion
Online ISBN: 9781108995788
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 30 March 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, James (2007). Paradoxes in Christian Theology. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster.Google Scholar
Asenjo, F. G. (1966). A calculus of antinomies. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 7(1), 103–5.Google Scholar
Beall, Jc (2013). A simple approach towards recapturing consistent theories in paraconsistent settings. Review of Symbolic Logic, 6(4), 755–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beall, Jc (2015). Free of detachment: Logic, rationality, and gluts. Noûs, 49(2), 410–423.Google Scholar
Beall, Jc (2021). The Contradictory Christ. Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beall, Jc (2022). Review of Paradoxes and Inconsistent Mathematics, by Zach Weber, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/paradoxes-and-inconsistent-mathematics/.Google Scholar
Beall, Jc (2023). Divine Contradiction. Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beall, Jc and Cotnoir, A. J. (2017). God of the gaps: A neglected reply to God’s stone problem. Analysis, 77(4), 681–9.Google Scholar
Coakley, Sarah (2002). What Chalcedon solved and didn’t solve. In The Incarnation (ed. Davis, S. T., Kendall, S. Daniel, and O’Collins, S. Gerald ), pp. 143–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coakley, Sarah (2013). Sexuality and the Self: An Essay ‘On the Trinity’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotnoir, A. J. (2018). Theism and dialetheism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96(3), 592–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Oliver D. and Sanders, Fred (ed.) (2014). Advancing the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics. Los Angeles Theology Conference Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic.Google Scholar
Cross, Richard (2011). The incarnation. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (ed. Flint, T. P. and Rea), M.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahms, John V. (1978). How reliable is logic? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 21(4), 369–80.Google Scholar
DeVito, Michael (2021). Divine foreknowledge and human freedom: Exploring a glut-theoretic account. Religions, 12(9). www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. Michael (1966). The algebra of intensional logics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. Michael (1976). Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and ‘coupled trees’. Philosophical Studies, 29, 149–68.Google Scholar
Dawn, Eschenauer Chow (2018). The passibility of God. Faith and Philosophy, 35(4), 389–407.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry (1977). Descartes on the creation of the eternal truths. Philosophical Review, 86(1), 36–57.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter (1980). Reference and Generality (3rd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. First edition published 1962.Google Scholar
Hasker, William (2013). Metaphysics and the Tri-personal God. Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Joshua and Rosenkrantz, Gary (2022). Omnipotence. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring ed.) (ed. E. N. Zalta). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jedwab, Joseph (2015). Against the Geachian theory of the Trinity and incarnation. Faith and Philosophy, 32(2), 125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Helmut T. (ed.) (1971). Luther’s Works: Word and Sacrament, Vol. 4. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
Martinich, A. P. (1978). Identity and trinity. Journal of Religion, 58(2), 169–81.Google Scholar
Martinich, A. P. (1979). God, emperor, and relative identity. Franciscan Studies, 39, 180–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mawson, Tim (2018). The Divine Attributes. Elements in Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, Thomas (2015). An Invitation to Analytic Christian Theology. InterVarsity Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCall, Thomas (2010). Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism?: Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans.Google Scholar
McCall, Thomas (2019). Doctrinal orthodoxy and philosophical heresy: A theologian’s reflections on Beall’s proposal. Journal of Analytic Theology, 7, 473–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, Thomas (2021). Analytic Christology and the Theological Interpretation of the New Testament. Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCall, Thomas and Rea, Michael C. (ed.) (2009). Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Chris (1995). Inconsistent Mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Yujin (2008). A new defence of Anselmian theism. Philosophical Quarterly, 58(233), 577–96.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Yujin (2017). Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Omori, Hitoshi and Wansing, Heinrich (2017). 40 years of FDE: An introductory overview. Studia Logica, 105(6), 1021–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omori, Hitoshi and Wansing, Heinrich (2019). New Essays on Belnap-Dunn Logic. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Page, Meghan D. (2021). Detachment issues: A dilemma for Beall’s contradictory Christology. Journal of Analytic Theology, 9, 201–4.Google Scholar
Pawl, Timothy (2016). In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawl, Timothy (2019). In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawl, Timothy (2020). Incarnation. Elements in Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, Kenneth L. (2011). Omnipotence. In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Fieser, James and Dowden), Bradley. https://iep.utm.edu/eds/.Google Scholar
Pike, Nelson (1969). Omnipotence and God’s ability to sin. American Philosophical Quarterly, 6(3), 208–16.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1978). God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Priest, Graham (2006). In Contradiction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. First printed by Martinus Nijhoff in 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, Graham (2014). One: Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of Its Parts, Including the Singular Object Which Is Nothingness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rea, Michael C. (2003). Relative identity and the doctrine of the Trinity. Philosophia Christi, 5(2), 431–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rea, Michael C. (2009). The Trinity. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (ed. Thomas P., Flint and Michael C., Rea ), pp. 403–29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Restall, Greg (1997). Paraconsistent logics! Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 26(3), 156–63.Google Scholar
Restall, Greg (2004). Laws of non-contradiction, laws of the excluded middle and logics. In The Law of Non-contradiction (ed. Graham, Priest, Beall, J. C., and Armour-Garb, B. ), pp. 73–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Routley, Richard and Meyer, Robert K. (1976). Dialectical logic, classical logic, and the consistency of the world. Studies in East European Thought, 16(1–2), 1–25.Google Scholar
Senor, Thomas D. (2002). Incarnation, timelessness, and Leibniz’s Law problems. In God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature (ed. Ganssle, G. E. and Woodruff, D. M. ), pp. 220–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tooley, Michael (2019). The Problem of Evil. Elements in the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Heijenoort, Jean (1967). From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter (1988). And yet they are not three gods but one god. In Philosophy and the Christian Faith (ed. Morris, T. V. ), Vol. 5 of Notre Dame Studies in the Philosophy of Religion, pp. 241–78. Notre Dame, IL: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter (1994). Not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. In Reason and the Christian Religion: Essays in Honour of Richard Swinburne (ed. Swinburne, R. and Padgett, A. G. ), pp. 201–6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Zach (2019). Atheism and dialetheism; or, ‘Why I am not a (paraconsistent) Christian’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97(2), 401–7.Google Scholar
Weber, Zach (2021). Paradoxes and Inconsistent Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Entailment, Contradiction, and Christian Theism
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Entailment, Contradiction, and Christian Theism
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Entailment, Contradiction, and Christian Theism
Available formats
×