PhilArchive
open access
An Atonement Problem for Contradictory Christology
Recently, Jc Beall has advanced a model of the incarnation according to which one can reconcile the apparently incompatible attributes attributed to Christ by taking them as true contradictions. In this paper, I argue that Contradictory Christology proves incompatible with a central class of atonement theories. I begin by expositing Beall’s model in contrast to two models operating upon the assumption of classical logic. Next, I demonstrate the incompatibility between Beall’s theory and theories of the atonement on which Christ’s suffering was a necessary condition of salvation. Finally, provide a brief survey of three prominent atonement theories, highlighting their endorsement of this principle.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Contradictory Christ Without Contradictory Christology#70976
- Narrative and Atonement: The Ministry of Reconciliation in the Work of James H. Cone#98178
- Repentance, Atonement, and Aquinas#75479
- Graham Greene’s Fiction: through the tropes of the Suffering Servant and Paul’s Hymn to Love#111687
- Aquinas on Blameworthiness and the Virtue of Faith#759452
Record · ID 723032
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive