Home > Philosophy of Religion Articles > Incarnation
Incarnation: "Literally, 'enfleshment' or 'embodiment.' In Christian theology this term refers to the act whereby God became human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The incarnation is logically tied to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is God the Son—the second person of the Trinity—who 'emptied himself' and became human. The incarnation received a classical formulation at the Council of Chalcedon (451), which said that in becoming human God the Son remained 'one person' but had 'two natures' (divine and human)."
Evans, C. (2002) Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
On the IncarnationClassic treatise arguing that Jesus was both God and man. Foreward by C.S. Lewis.
The Inclusion Model of the Incarnation: Problems and Prospects"Thomas Morris and Richard Swinburne have recently defended what they call the 'two-minds' model of the Incarnation. This model, which I refer to as the 'inclusion model' or 'inclusionism', claims that Christ had two consciousnesses, a human and a divine consciousness, with the former consciousness contained within the latter one. I begin by exploring the motivation for, and structure of, inclusionism. I then develop a variety of objections to it: some philosophical, others theological in nature. Finally, I sketch a variant of inclusionism which I call 'restricted inclusionism' (RI); RI can evade many, but not all, of the objections to standard inclusionism."
Christ: Unum vel duo? Esse, Union, and the Incarnation in St. Thomas"Does Christ have, in addition to the ‘supposital’ or unqualified esse of the Son of God, a second ‘non-supposital’ and qualified esse that accrues to Him because of His assumed human nature (the not-so-easy question)? Concomitantly, are there any ordinary models that can help us understand, either positively or negatively, the union of the Son of God with His assumed human nature?...St. Thomas gives two different and incompatible answers to question...The first and positive answer suggests the relation between a substance and its accidents as (a defective but not altogether misleading) model for the union of the Son of God with His assumed human nature; the second and negative answer uses the relation between a whole and its parts — more specifically, the organic integral parts of living substances — as a model for this union. Each of the answers can be set out in such a way as to preserve doctrinal orthodoxy..."