Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:15:53.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kenosis, omniscience, and the Anselmian concept of divinity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2017

JOEL ARCHER
JOEL ARCHER*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Saint Louis University, 3800 Lindell Blvd, Saint Louis, MO, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The canonical gospels often portray Christ as limited in various ways, for example, with respect to knowledge. But how could Christ be divine yet fail to know certain true propositions? One prominent answer is known as kenoticism, the view that upon becoming incarnate Christ ‘emptied’ himself of certain divine properties, including omniscience. A powerful objection to kenoticism, however, is that it conflicts with Anselmian intuitions about divinity. Specifically, kenoticism implies that Christ was not the greatest conceivable being. I articulate a modified version of kenoticism that avoids this powerful objection while remaining faithful to the depiction of Christ found in the gospels.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 201 - 213
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Audi, R. (1994) ‘Dispositional beliefs and dispositions to believe’, Noûs, 28, 419–434.Google Scholar
Cullison, A. (2006) ‘Omniscience as a dispositional state’, Philosophia Christi, 8, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, S. T. (1983) Logic and the Nature of God (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.).Google Scholar
Davis, S. T. (2006) ‘Is kenosis orthodox?’, in Evans, C. S. (ed.) Exploring Kenotic Christology (New York: Oxford University Press), 112–138.Google Scholar
Davis, S. T. (2011) ‘The metaphysics of kenosis’, in Marmodoro, A. & Hill, J. (eds) The Metaphysics of the Incarnation (New York: Oxford University Press), 114–133.Google Scholar
Evans, C. S. (2002) ‘Self-emptying love: some thoughts on kenotic Christology’, in Davis, S., Kendall, D., & O'Collins, G. (eds) The Incarnation (New York: Oxford University Press), 246–272.Google Scholar
Feenstra, R. (2006) ‘A kenotic Christology of the divine attributes’, in Evans, C. S. (ed.) Exploring Kenotic Christology (New York: Oxford University Press), 139–164.Google Scholar
Forrest, P. (2000) ‘The Incarnation: a philosophical case for kenosis’, Religious Studies, 36, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, R. (1978) ‘Inferential justification and the infinite regress’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 311–316.Google Scholar
Geach, P. (1977) Providence and Evil: The Stanton Lectures 1971-2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1970) Theory of Human Action (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
Hick, J. (1988) ‘Critiques’, in Davis, S. T. (ed.) Encountering Jesus (Atlanta GA: John Knox Press), 59–68.Google Scholar
Hunt, D. P. (1995) ‘Dispositional omniscience’, Philosophical Studies, 80, 243–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, T. (2001) The Logic of God Incarnate (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock Pub).Google Scholar
Pawl, T. (2016) In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Senor, T. (2011) ‘Drawing on many traditions: an ecumenical kenotic Christology’, in Marmodoro, A. & Hill, J. (eds) The Metaphysics of the Incarnation (New York: Oxford University Press), 88–113.Google Scholar
Stump, E. (2002) ‘Aquinas’ metaphysics of the Incarnation’, in Davis, S., Kendall, D., & O'Collins, G. (eds) The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 197–218.Google Scholar
Stump, E. (2003) Aquinas (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2011) ‘The coherence of the Chalcedonian definition of the Incarnation’, in Marmodoro, A. & Hill, J. (eds) The Metaphysics of the Incarnation (New York: Oxford University Press), 153–167.Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (2016) The Coherence of Theism: Second Edition (2nd ed.) (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierenga, E. R. (1989) The Nature of God: An Inquiry into Divine Attributes (New York: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar