RT Article
T1 On Emily Paul on Brian Leftow
JF TheoLogica
VO 3
IS 2
SP 140
OP 151
A1 Collier, Matthew James
A2 Paul, Emily
LA English
YR 2019
UL https://ixtheo.de/Record/1696285178
AB Emily Paul has recently argued that Brian Leftow's account of why the import of God's becoming Incarnate is not temporal but modal fails. She argues that Leftow's required modal variation is not satisfied. That is, we do not have the required variation across logical space concerning the Incarnation. Paul examines her argument on two possible worlds theories: theistic ersatzism and (what I call) Lewisian theism. She thinks that both possible worlds theories face difficulties. I argue that Paul fails to provide a compelling argument against Leftow because, firstly, her defence of one her premises fails, and, secondly, she misjudges what is required for some of Leftow's claims to be true. I also argue that some of the problematic consequences that Paul raises for theistic ersatzism and Lewisian theism either are not problematic or can be avoided.
K1 Incarnation
K1 Lewisian theism
K1 Libertarian freedom
K1 the Son
K1 theistic ersatzism
DO 10.14428/thl.v3i2.20543