Somehow I missed this when it came out back in July. Our friend the Tentative Apologist Randal Rauser has a podcast (itunes) now, and he’s done a substantial, no-bs interview of leading Reformed analytic theologian Oliver Crisp, of Fuller Seminary.
Listen to it at Randal’s blog here.
Crisp does a good job presenting and giving a basic defense of the coherence of the traditional catholic Incarnation theory, as articulated by recent philosophers like Richard Swinburne. He avoids as much as possible technical lingo like “hypostatic union” and “suppositum.” He takes what is standardly call the “two minds” approach.
Rauser asks him some tough questions, including, wasn’t Jesus ignorant of some truths (so, he can’t be God, who knows all), and isn’t it wrong to say (as the catholic tradition requires) that Jesus was “man” but not a man, or in other words, that that Jesus is self, and human, but not a human self? And, shouldn’t we assume that Jesus, as a 1st c. Jewish boy, had quite a few false beliefs, like, ones that were assumed in that day?
Give it a listen, and comment on the blog post page there. Do you find Crisp’s answers compelling? Why or why not?
Rauser doesn’t tip his hand much (which is OK – he’s the interviewer) – but I would guess he would take a pretty strong mysterian line, perhaps even eschewing a lot of the traditional language.
I say Boo to mysterianism (sorry Randal), but Hooray to honest, clear, to the point theological conversation! Excellent job, gents.