Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:23:53.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Logic of God Incarnate–Two Recent Metaphysical Principles Examined

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Michael Durrant
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University College, Cardiff, Wales

Extract

In his recent work Professor Morris writes: ‘I am suggesting that, armed with a couple of fairly simple metaphysical distinctions we can begin to see how the doctrine of the Incarnation can possibly be true.’

What are these ‘metaphysical distinctions’ and do they stand up to critical examination? My answer to the latter part of this question in regard to the first distinction is a reserved ‘Yes’; in regard to the second distinction a definite ‘No’. If my criticism of the second distinction holds good, then Morris's defence of the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation fails, for his defence crucially relies on the validity of that distinction.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

page 121 note 1 The Logic of God Incarnate, Thomas W. Morris, Cornell University Press, 1986.

page 121 note 2 I should add that should my argument hold good it is even so a matter of regret to me since in my view this book presents a brilliant defence of traditional orthodoxy and the most outstanding contribution to incarnational logic and theology since the introduction of Kenotic Christology in the last century.

page 121 note 3 Pp. 63 ff.

page 123 note 1 Cf. bottom of p. 63.

page 126 note 1 My italics.

page 126 note 2 My italics.