On the Use of Psychological Models in Christology
Version of Record online: 29 OCT 2012
© 2012 The Author. The Heythrop Journal © 2012 Trustees for Roman Catholic Purposes Registered
The Heythrop Journal
Volume 58, Issue 1, pages 44–50, January 2017
How to Cite
Ter Ern Loke, A. (2017), On the Use of Psychological Models in Christology. The Heythrop Journal, 58: 44–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2265.2012.00774.x
- Issue online: 9 DEC 2016
- Version of Record online: 29 OCT 2012
- 1See the recent collection of essays in Anna Marmodoro and Jonathan Hill , eds., The Metaphysics of the Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
- 2Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); , ‘Incarnation’, in Thomas Flint and Michael Rea , eds., The Oxford handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 246–247; , The Word and the Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), ch.10; The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986); , The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).,
- 3The Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1991); and , Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), ch. 29; , ‘The Inclusion Model of the Incarnation: Problems and Prospects’, Religious Studies 37(2001), pp. 138–139; Gross and Palpable Contradiction?: Incarnation and Consistency’, Sophia 33(1994), pp. 30–45; One Person, Two Natures: Two Metaphysical Models of the Incarnation’, in Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology (Nashville, B & H Academic, 2007); , ‘Omniscience as a Dispositional State’ Philosophia Christi 8 (2006), pp. 151–160; , ‘The Incarnation and Unity of Consciousness’, in Anna Marmodoro and Jonathan Hill (eds.), The Metaphysics of the Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); , ‘On the Coherence of the Incarnation: the Divine Preconscious Model,’ Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 51 (2009), pp. 50–62.,
- 4Christologies Ancient and Modern (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).,
- 5See, for example, Important Hypotheses Reconsidered’, The Expository Times 67(1955), p. 51., ‘
- 6The Logic of God Incarnate, p. 102n.20.,
- 7Fathers and Heretics (London: SPCK, 1940), p. 228.,
- 8A Study in Christology: The Problem of the Relation of the Two Natures in the Person of Christ (London: SPCK, 1917), p. 210.,
- 11See the literature cited in footnotes 1 to 3.
- 12Perfect Being Theology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000), p. 16.,
- 13Ibid, pp. 17–18, citing Duns Scotus, Oxford Commentary on the Four books of the Sentences, Book I, Distinction III, Questions 1 and 2.
- 16Act and Being: Towards a Theology of the Divine Attributes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). See especially pp. 11, 36, 38, 47, 49, 66, 97.,
- 17Religious language’, in W. J. Wainwright , ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 234–242., ‘
- 18Ibid, pp. 236–237, 239–240.
- 19Ibid, pp. 235–236. For further details, see , Divine Nature and Human Language: Essays in Philosophical Theology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), Ch. 3–4.
- 20Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), p. 194.,
- 21Divine Nature and Human Language, ch. 1–2. Scott points out that McFague seems to rely on introducing a non-standard understanding of ‘metaphor’, observing that, standard-ly, we can distinguish ‘God created the world’, where the speaker means what is said, from ‘The Lord is my shepherd’, where a speaker uses a (false) sentence to convey something else ( , ‘Religious Language’, Philosophy Compass 5(2010), section 5.1).,
- 22The Word Became Flesh, p. 559.,
- 23For recent discussions, see Incarnation’, and Marilyn Adams , Christ and Horrors: The Coherence of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), ch. 5., ‘
- 24Marmodoro and Hill , eds., The Metaphysics of the Incarnation, pp. 5–6.
- 25For the incarnation as paradox, see God was in Christ; An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement (New York, C. Scribner's Sons, 1948); , Paradox in Christian Theology (London: Paternoster, 2007).,
- 26Lectures on Christology (London: Collins, 1978), Introduction.,
- 27This point is made in Loke, ‘On the Coherence of the Incarnation’, pp. 51–52.
- 28See, for example, Early Muslim polemic against Christianity: Abu ‘Isa al-Warraq's ‘Against the Incarnation’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 231.,
- 29Paradox in Christian Theology, pp. 297–306.,
- 30Ibid, pp. 300–302.
- 31Cf. Omnipotence’, Philosophy 48 (1973), pp. 7–20, with respect to Universal Possibilism., ‘
- 32Paradox in Christian Theology, p. 303. Anderson explains our ability to conceive of something in a purely formal manner as our capacity to reflect on some proposed item or scenario, and to introduce it into the discourse so as to invite others to reflect on it, regardless of whether subsequent thought lead to the conclusion that the item or scenario in question is coherent or metaphysically possible. He gives the example of a ‘square circle’.,
- 33This point is adapted from Thomas Morris' point about Universal Possibilism in Our Idea of God (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), pp. 66–67.,
- 34This point concerning actual model and the need for possible models is made in Loke, ‘On the Coherence of the Incarnation’, pp. 51–52.
- 35Pastoral Epistles (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000), pp. 21–22.,
- 36Jesus: God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), pp. 301–302.,
- 37I would like to thank Professorand for helpful comments.