• 1
    See the recent collection of essays in Anna Marmodoro and Jonathan Hill , eds., The Metaphysics of the Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
  • 2
    Gerald O'Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); Richard Cross, ‘Incarnation’, in Thomas Flint and Michael Rea , eds., The Oxford handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 246247; Richard Sturch, The Word and the Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), ch.10; Thomas Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986); Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).
  • 3
    Millard Erickson, The Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1991); William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), ch. 29; Tim Bayne, ‘The Inclusion Model of the Incarnation: Problems and Prospects’, Religious Studies 37(2001), pp. 138139; Keith Yandell, ‘A Gross and Palpable Contradiction?: Incarnation and Consistency’, Sophia 33(1994), pp. 3045; Garrett DeWeese, ‘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); Andrew Cullison, ‘Omniscience as a Dispositional StatePhilosophia Christi 8 (2006), pp. 151160; Joseph Jedwab, ‘The Incarnation and Unity of Consciousness’, in Anna Marmodoro and Jonathan Hill (eds.), The Metaphysics of the Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Andrew Loke, ‘On the Coherence of the Incarnation: the Divine Preconscious Model,’ Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 51 (2009), pp. 5062.
  • 4
    William Sanday, Christologies Ancient and Modern (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).
  • 5
    See, for example, A.R. Vine, ‘Important Hypotheses Reconsidered’, The Expository Times 67(1955), p. 51.
  • 6
    Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate, p. 102n.20.
  • 7
    G. L. Prestige, Fathers and Heretics (London: SPCK, 1940), p. 228.
  • 8
    H. M. Relton, A Study in Christology: The Problem of the Relation of the Two Natures in the Person of Christ (London: SPCK, 1917), p. 210.
  • 9
    Ivor Davidson, ‘Not My Will but Yours be Done: The Ontological Dynamics of Incarnational Intention’, International Journal of Systematic Theology, 7(2005), p. 200.
  • 10
    John Hick, private correspondence, 15/1/09.
  • 11
    See the literature cited in footnotes 1 to 3.
  • 12
    Katherin Rogers, Perfect Being Theology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000), p. 16.
  • 13
    Ibid, pp. 1718, citing Duns Scotus, Oxford Commentary on the Four books of the Sentences, Book I, Distinction III, Questions 1 and 2.
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
    Colin Gunton, Act and Being: Towards a Theology of the Divine Attributes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). See especially pp. 11, 36, 38, 47, 49, 66, 97.
  • 17
    William Alston, ‘Religious language’, in W. J. Wainwright , ed., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 234242.
  • 18
    Ibid, pp. 236237, 239–240.
  • 19
    Ibid, pp. 235236. For further details, see William Alston, Divine Nature and Human Language: Essays in Philosophical Theology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), Ch. 3–4.
  • 20
    Sallie McFague, Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), p. 194.
  • 21
    Alston, Divine 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 ( Michael Scott, ‘Religious Language’, Philosophy Compass 5(2010), section 5.1).
  • 22
    Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, p. 559.
  • 23
    For recent discussions, see Cross, ‘Incarnation’, and Marilyn Adams , Christ and Horrors: The Coherence of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), ch. 5.
  • 24
    Marmodoro and Hill , eds., The Metaphysics of the Incarnation, pp. 56.
  • 25
    For the incarnation as paradox, see D.M. Baillie, God was in Christ; An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement (New York, C. Scribner's Sons, 1948); James Anderson, Paradox in Christian Theology (London: Paternoster, 2007).
  • 26
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Lectures on Christology (London: Collins, 1978), Introduction.
  • 27
    This point is made in Loke, ‘On the Coherence of the Incarnation’, pp. 5152.
  • 28
    See, for example, David Thomas, Early Muslim polemic against Christianity: Abu ‘Isa al-Warraq's ‘Against the Incarnation’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 231.
  • 29
    Anderson, Paradox in Christian Theology, pp. 297306.
  • 30
    Ibid, pp. 300–302.
  • 31
    Cf. Peter Geach, ‘Omnipotence’, Philosophy 48 (1973), pp. 720, with respect to Universal Possibilism.
  • 32
    Anderson, Paradox 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’.
  • 33
    This point is adapted from Thomas Morris' point about Universal Possibilism in Thomas Morris, Our Idea of God (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), pp. 6667.
  • 34
    This point concerning actual model and the need for possible models is made in Loke, ‘On the Coherence of the Incarnation’, pp. 5152.
  • 35
    William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000), pp. 2122.
  • 36
    Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), pp. 301302.
  • 37
    I would like to thank Professor Alister McGrath and Mary Lim for helpful comments.