Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If the Son is homoousios with the Father yet genuinely material and temporal in the Incarnation, divine immateriality cannot be an essential divine attribute.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The Son's divine nature remained immaterial; only the human nature assumed materiality—these are distinct natures united.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Essential attributes apply to the divine nature qua divine, not to composite human-divine states or temporary modes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Immateriality describes God's transcendence and aseity, which cannot be genuinely altered without ceasing to be God.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The Incarnation involved genuine assumption of material body and temporal succession, not mere appearance or phantom form.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Essential divine attributes cannot be temporarily suspended or absent without compromising divine nature itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If the Son truly became material while remaining divine, immateriality was not necessary to His divinity during Incarnation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.