Search

Two doctrines (or axioms) of christian theology sharply distinguish christian monotheism from its traditional monotheistic siblings (viz. jewish and islamic monotheism): the incarnation of God and the triunity of God. Both doctrines, as many have long observed, face a conspicuous so-called logical problem – namely, apparent contradiction. How should the strong appearance of such fundamental contradiction be explained? Beall's answer: the incarnation and trinity appear to be contradictory because God is a contradictory being – a being of whom some contradictions are true. The full truth of God is expressed only via contradiction, which is why the fundamental axioms of christian theology have long appeared to be contradictory. Divine Contradiction presents the target contradictory account of the trinity; its predecessor The Contradictory Christ presents the contradictory account of the incarnation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a collection of replies to critics of Divine Contradiction, each critic a symposiast in the Religious Studies symposium on said book. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to advance a very natural and very simple glut-theoretic response to the problem of evil – or at least the target, 'logical' problem of evil. At the very least, the given account rebuts the frequent claim – even by glut theorists (including me until recently) – that gluts are entirely irrelevant to the problem of evil even if otherwise involved in the true theology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A longstanding problem confronting Christian theology and its doctrine of incarnation is the apparent contradiction that it faces. For example, to be divine, in the relevant sense, is to have the limitlessness of God. To be human, in the relevant sense, is to have the limitations of humans. The incarnation (in the person of Jesus per Christian doctrine) is to be both divine and human. Many theologians and sympathetic philosophers have attempted to 'consistentize' (i.e., make consistent) incarnation. Timothy Pawl has been one of the latest to do so. In this paper, I concisely note a dilemma for Pawl's approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]