Steven Davis

In this chapter, C.S. Lewis’ famous trilemma argument in favor of the divinity of Christ is developed, and a version of it is defended. The crux of the argument is the assertion that Jesus himself implicitly claimed to be divine. This assertion is buttressed by the notion that prayers and worship were addressed to Jesus, that he forgave sins, that he addressed God as Abba, that he spoke with authority and even in places overthrew the law, and that he declared that one’s relationship to him would determine one’s eternal fate. The trilemma argument is also defended against objections.

The present essay is a response to Keith Ward’s recent book, Christ and the Cosmos. While deeply appreciative of this fine book, I raise two criticisms of it: Ward’s claim that we can know nothing of the divine essence has disturbing implications, the main one of which is that there may be large disjunctions between what God has revealed to us about the divine nature and the divine nature in itself. Ward’s criticisms of the social theory of the Trinity are not compelling and indeed edge his own view close to modalism.

Human beings face two great problems: guilt and death. Although disembodied existence is in some sense possible, it would be an attenuated existence since we are normally embodied beings, and complete and ideal existence for us is embodied. Matter is not evil because it was created by God, who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good. We are redeemed from guilt and death by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Despite Catholic and Protestant differences at this point, Christians largely agree that we are justified by faith in Christ. Two different scenarios for the general resurrection are discussed, as well as the beatific vision.

Catholics and Protestants differ on the issue of theological authority, with Catholics opting for “Scripture and Tradition” and Protestants preferring “Scripture alone”. Different interpretations of these slogans are discussed, and a plausible version of the second is presented. The second is said to be preferable to the first, although an important place for tradition must be preserved; tradition is necessary, but scripture must take priority. Four objections to the theory expounded here are answered.

This chapter argues that when Mary Magdalene, Peter, and others saw the risen Jesus, their “seeing” was a case of a normal vision. This is the natural way to read the New Testament accounts, especially given the physical detail contained in many of them. Six possible arguments in favor of objective vision are discussed. Two arguments in favor of normal seeing are presented: that the early church interpreted the “seeing” as normal vision, and that it is theologically significant that the “seeing” was normal. It underscores the reality of the incarnation, and places the church in a strong apologetic position.

Although not a believer in the doctrine of divine simplicity, in the present paper I do not argue that it is incoherent or even false. I instead ague that it is unnecessary to protect what Christians want to say about God. It seems to me that three main considerations motivate the doctrine. First, if there is any complexity in God, there must also be potentiality in God, which is unacceptable. Second, the doctrine is designed to ensure logical consistency with other things classical Christians want to say about God. Third, the doctrine is designed to protect the divine transcendence over all of creation. I argue against these three points.

This interdisciplinary study follows an international and ecumenical meeting of twenty-four scholars held in New York at Easter 2000: the Incarnation Summit. After an opening chapter, which summarizes and evaluates twelve major questions concerning the Incarnation, five chapters are dedicated to the biblical roots of this central Christian doctrine. A patristic and medieval section corrects misinterpretations and retrieves for today the significance of the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) and its aftermath, as well as clarifying Aquinas' enduring metaphysical interpretation of the Incarnation. The volume then moves to theological and philosophical debates: three scholars take up such systematic issues as belief in the Incarnation, the self-emptying that it involves, and its compatibility with divine timelessness. The remaining four essays consider the place of the doctrine of the Incarnation in literature, ethics, art, and preaching. There is a fruitful dialogue between experts in a wide range of areas and the international reputation of the participants reflects and guarantees the high quality of this joint work. The result is a well researched, skilfully argued, and, at times, provocative volume on the central Christian belief: the Incarnation of the Son of God.