Kenosis, omniscience, and the Anselmian concept of divinity

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.

Kenoticism and essential divine properties

“…Another option is to claim that Christ does not actually give up the divine properties but instead merely gives up a mode or way of having those properties. For example, Archer (2018) suggests that in the incarnation, Christ is omniscient insofar as he dispositionally knows all true propositions, but Christ is not omniscient insofar as he does not occurrently know all true propositions. Under this account, Christ does not actually give up being omniscient but only gives up a way of being omniscient; in particular he gives up occurrently knowing all true propositions.…”

On Beall’s contradictory Christology and beyond

“…On this tradiciton, He has one nature at some period and the other at different period. See, for example,Archer (2017) andCrisp (2007, chapter 5).…”