May 17, 2026—Defenders · Reasonable Faith

Doctrine of Christ Part 5: A Possible Model — Plank One

Key Points

01The model is offered as a possible Incarnation — a coherent and biblically faithful account, not the only one. Even one coherent possibility defeats objections that the doctrine is logically incoherent.
02Plank One: with Chalcedon, postulate one person exemplifying two distinct and complete natures, one human and one divine. The "natures" of Chalcedon are kind-essences (natural kinds), not individual essences — Christ belongs to two natural kinds (deity and humanity), where ordinary people belong to one (humanity).
03The Logos possesses the divine nature essentially but the human nature contingently. There was a time when the Logos had no human nature (before the virginal conception), and there are possible worlds in which the Incarnation never occurs.
04Plank One rules out radical Kenoticism: if the Logos divested himself of any attribute essential to deity, he ceased to be God in the Incarnation — which is incompatible with the biblical witness that Christ remained fully God throughout his earthly ministry.
05The Incarnation is addition, not subtraction. The Logos did not turn himself into a human being; he assumed a human nature in addition to the divine nature he already possessed.
06Certain divine attributes cannot logically be surrendered even temporarily — necessity, aseity (self-existence), and eternality are such that if you ever have them you always have them. A Kenoticist who concedes these are retained "in the divine nature but not the human" has abandoned Kenoticism and returned to Chalcedon.
07Craig finds the Kenotic concept of deity "far too thin to be theologically acceptable." A being no more powerful, no more knowing, no more spatially unlimited than an ordinary human is not worthy of worship and so cannot be God.
08Philippians 2 ("he emptied himself") is best read not as divestiture of attributes but as a change of status — from the pre-incarnate state of glory into the state of humiliation that begins with the virginal conception and ends with the resurrection.
09Reduplicative predication — predicating properties of Christ with respect to one nature or the other — handles the apparent contradictions: Christ is omnipresent with respect to his divine nature but spatially located with respect to his human nature; he died with respect to his human nature but not his divine nature; he learned obedience and grew in moral excellence with respect to his human nature but not his divine.

Watch the Full Discussion

Summary

Having surveyed the historical controversies, Dr. William Lane Craig begins constructing his own proposed model of the Incarnation. He emphasizes from the outset that the model is offered as a possibility, not a definitive explanation — but a coherent possibility is enough to defeat the Muslim, secularist, or cultist objection that the Incarnation is logically impossible. The model has three planks; this session lays down the first: with the Council of Chalcedon, postulate one person who exemplifies two distinct and complete natures — one human, one divine. Craig clarifies that the "natures" of Chalcedon are kind-essences (natural kinds), not individual essences. Christ belongs to two natural kinds, divinity and humanity. The divine nature belongs to the Logos essentially; the human nature he assumes contingently in the Virgin’s womb. Craig then turns the full weight of his argument against radical Kenoticism. To divest the Logos of essential divine attributes is to make him cease to be God; on Kenoticism the post-incarnation Christ would be the same person but no longer divine. Worse, certain attributes — necessity, aseity, eternality — cannot, by their very logic, be temporarily surrendered: if you ever have them, you always have them. Craig argues the Kenotic concept of God is "far too thin to be theologically acceptable" — a being who is no more powerful, no more knowing, and no more spatially unlimited than an ordinary human is not worthy of worship. The Incarnation is addition, not subtraction. Class discussion presses the model with sharp test cases: Christ’s peccability and the nature of free will; the apparent conflict between bodily location and omnipresence; the proper reading of Philippians 2 ("emptied himself") as a change of status — from glory to humiliation — rather than divestiture of attributes; the device of reduplicative predication ("Christ died with respect to his human nature, but not in his divine nature"); and the question of male/female embodiment in the resurrection body.

Scripture References

Detailed Outline

I. The Project — A Possible Model

Craig presents his proposed Christology as one possible model — not the only one and not a claim to penetrate the mystery.
But a coherent possible model is enough to defeat the objection (raised by Muslims, secularists, and cultists) that the Incarnation is logically incoherent. A possible model shows the doctrine is at least consistent.
The model has three planks. This session covers the first.

II. Plank One — Chalcedonian Two-Natures

Postulate, with the Council of Chalcedon, that in Christ there is one person who exemplifies two distinct and complete natures — one human and one divine.
The framers of Chalcedon were not speaking of individual essences (what makes you uniquely you) but kind essences (natural kinds). Christ belongs to two natural kinds: God and man.
Each of us belongs to one natural kind — humanity. Christ belongs to two — possessing all the properties that go to constitute humanity and all those that go to make up deity.
The Logos possesses the divine nature essentially (he could not exist without it). The Logos possesses his human nature contingently — there was a time when the Logos lacked a human nature (before the virginal conception), and there are possible worlds in which the Incarnation never occurs.

III. Plank One Rejects Radical Kenoticism

On radical Kenoticism, the Logos divested himself of certain divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence) in order to become truly human. Craig rejects this outright.
The Incarnation is addition, not subtraction. God did not turn himself into a human being. The Logos retained the divine nature he already had and acquired a human nature in addition.
On Kenoticism, the Logos is the same person before and after the kenosis — but that person is no longer God, because deity is determined by one’s nature, not one’s personal identity.
Typical members of natural kinds are plausibly taken to be essentially members of that kind: a horse is essentially a horse; a human is essentially a human. Christ, as a typical member of the natural kind "deity," cannot cease to be God without ceasing to exist. But God cannot cease to exist (he is necessary and eternal). So the Kenotic divestiture is incoherent.

IV. The Concept of God Is Too Thin on Kenoticism

The Kenoticist will reply: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are not essential to deity but contingent. They can be given up while remaining God.
Craig answers that this gives a concept of God far too thin to be theologically acceptable. On Kenoticism, there is a possible world in which a being exists who is no more powerful, no more intelligent, no more spatially unlimited, no less contingent than any ordinary human, and yet is God and worthy of worship. Incredible.
Worse, certain attributes — necessity, aseity (self-existence), and eternality — cannot, by their very logical nature, be given up temporarily. If you ever have them, you always have them.
The Kenoticist who concedes necessity/aseity/eternality were retained "in the divine nature but not in the human nature" has, in effect, abandoned Kenoticism and returned to Chalcedon. Why not say the same about omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence?

V. Class Discussion — Peccability and the Will

A student presses Craig on whether Christ had the capacity to sin. Adam was sinless before the Fall but had the capacity to sin; can Christ be fully human without that capacity?
Craig: sinfulness is not essential to human nature (Adam and Eve before the Fall were sinless humans). What is essential is freedom of the will. Christ had genuine freedom and freely resisted Satan’s temptations.
A deeper philosophical question lurks: does freedom require the capacity to do otherwise? Craig holds no — one can freely do A even without the capacity to do not-A. So the absence of peccability does not undermine Christ’s humanity.

VI. Class Discussion — Bodily Location and Omnipresence

A student raises the apparent conflict: omnipresence seems essential to deity; spatial localization in a body seems essential to humanity. Are these not in direct contradiction?
Craig: think of omnipresence as being cognizant of and causally active at every point in space. The Logos can be cognizant of and causally active everywhere even while his human body occupies a finite location in Palestine.

VII. The Resurrection Body

Christ died with respect to his human nature — the earthly body died on the cross.
But the resurrection body is not a second, distinct body waiting for him in a heavenly closet. It is the same body, transformed: this corruptible put on incorruption, this mortal put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15).
When Christ returns, believers alive at that time will be changed in the twinkling of an eye to resemble Christ in his resurrection body. The resurrection is not exchange but transformation.
On gender in the resurrection body: Jesus appeared male after the resurrection. The lack of marriage in the afterlife (Matt. 22:30) does not imply sexlessness or loss of gender.

VIII. Reduplicative Predication

A student frames the key device: properties are predicated of Christ with respect to one nature or the other. Christ died with respect to his human nature, but not in his divine nature. Christ is omnipresent with respect to his divine nature, but not in his human nature.
Craig endorses this strongly: reduplicative predication will go a long way toward removing the apparent inconsistencies of the two-natures doctrine.
Applied to Hebrews 5:8 ("Jesus learned obedience from what he suffered"): Christ does not grow in moral excellence with respect to his divine nature, but he was disciplined, perfected, and learned obedience with respect to his human nature.
Applied to Luke 2:52 ("Jesus grew in wisdom"): Christ’s human consciousness genuinely grew, even as the Logos retained omniscience in his divine nature.

IX. Reading Philippians 2 Without Kenoticism

If radical Kenoticism is wrong, how should "he emptied himself" be read?
Craig: it is a change of status, not divestiture of attributes. Christ in his pre-incarnate state was in glory, worshipped by the angels. In the Incarnation he humbled himself, took the form of a servant, became obedient — moving from the state of glory into the state of humiliation.
Classical theologians distinguish two states of Christ: the state of humiliation (from virginal conception through burial) and the state of exaltation (beginning with the descent into hell and the resurrection, in which Christ is restored to the glory he had with the Father before the Incarnation).
Paul still worships Christ as God throughout. He does not believe God turned himself into a mortal man. So kenosis = humiliation in status, not surrender of deity.

More Weekly Discussions

May 24, 2026