No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
The motivation for taking a fresh look at Donald Baillie's christology as outlined in God Was In Christ, apart from the continuing intrinsic value of his work as compared to many contemporary incarnational theories, is found in the fact that Baillie's christology continues to surface in many contemporary works on christology. Moreover these discussions of Baillie's work offer a sufficiently diverse range of interpretations as to the value and nature of Baillie's christological theory so as to suggest that a deeper examination of Baillie's work might prove worthwhile. The sheer number of scholars who take the trouble to treat Baillie's work is sufficient to demonstrate his continuing relevance. Even if the intention is often simply to ‘knock him down’ it would seem that Baillie is still at least worthy of refutation.
1 Davies, S. T. (Ed), Encountering Jesus: A Debate on Christology. John Knox Press, 1988.Google Scholar
2 Hick, J., ‘An Inspiration Christology’. Encountering Jesus, p. 22.Google Scholar
3 J. Hick, ibid. p. 21.
4 J. Hick, ibid. p. 22. Hick's reading of Baillie's work has not changed substantially from that offered in his first review of God Was In Christ in ‘The Christology of D. M. Baillie’. The Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 11, 1958, p. 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, it would be true to say that Hick's estimation of its value has changed significantly reflecting Hick's own theological pilgrimage. See his recent book The Metaphor of God Incarnate, SCM 1994, p. 106/107 for confirmation.Google Scholar
5 Davies, S. T., ‘Jesus Christ Saviour or Guru’. Encounteringjesus, p. 75/76Google Scholar. That Baillie continues to play an important role in contemporary discussion is evidenced by the recurring mentions of his approach throughout this work. Cf. p. 27f. J. M. Robinson in his response to Hick's article argues that Baillie's picture of Christ is a recognisably N.T. picture. Robinson perhaps overpraises Baillie's book when he suggests that Barth's Church Dogmatics has been overtaken in importance by God Was In Christ. Simialrly, Baillie's rejection of Kenoticism, anhypostasia and his views on the Trinity are criticised in Feenstra, R. J. & Plantinga, C. (Ed.), Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement, op. cit. p. 4f.Google Scholar
6 Brown, D., The Divine Trinity, Duckworth, 1985, p. 236.Google Scholar
7 Theodore, , ‘On the Incarnation’ Book VII Fragment 2, cited in The Christological Controversy, (Ed.) Norris, R. A., Fortress Press, 1980, p. 114.Google Scholar
8 Theodore ibid. p. 114.
9 Theodore ibid. p. 115.
10 Theodore ibid. p. 115.
11 Theodore ibid. p. 116.
12 Theodore ibid. p. 116–117.
13 Cited in Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines. A. & C. Black 1985, p. 307Google Scholar, cf. Theodore Book V Fragment 1 op cit. p. 113.
14 Norris, R. A., Manhood and Christ. Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 216f.Google Scholar
15 R. A. Norris ibid. p. 222.
16 R. A. Norris ibid. p. 222/223.
17 Baillie, D. M., God Was in Christ. Faber & Faber 1948Google Scholar Like Theodore, Donald Baillie draws his analogy of the ‘paradox of grace’ from the realm of human religious experience. God Was in Christ, p. 114. Baillie may have been influenced in this direction by the work of Schleiermacher who also argues that if the believer acknowledges the possibility of the divine encountering the human in his own life, in terms of his own experience of the Holy Spirit, then there could be no impossibility of the same encountering taking place in the life of Christ although to an absolutely different degree. Cited in Clements, K. W., Friedrich Schleiermacher, Collins 1987, p. 203.Google Scholar
18 D. M. Baillie ibid. p. 114.
19 D. M. Baillie ibid.1 p. 117.
20 D. M. Baillie ibid. p. 117.
21 D. M. Baillie ibid. p. 130.
22 D. M. Baillie ibid. p. 131.
23 D. M. Baillie ibid. p. 131.
24 D. M. Baillie ibid., p. 129
25 Norris, R. A., Manhood and Christ, p. 238.Google Scholar
26 For the characterisation of Donald Baillie's theory as essentially Antiochene and in agreement with Theodore see Pittenger, W. N., The Word Incarnate. James Nisbet and Company 1959, p. 197Google Scholar. Pittenger is expressly developing a theory in relation to Theodore's account of the incarnation and his criticism of Baillie is that he has insufficiently attended to the ontological grounding of Cod's presence in Robinson, Christ. J. in The Human Face of God, SCM Press, 1973, p. 206Google Scholar argues that 'Theodore grounds the incarnation in the personal purpose of God without sacrificing either the distinctiveness of Christ or his continuity with other men. He would have agreed with Augustine when he boldly said ‘Every man, from the commencement of his faith, becomes a Christian by the same grace by which that man from his formation became Christ.”’ Robinson acknowledges that this quote is at the heart of Baillie's position. See also Hanson, A. T., The Image of the Invisible God. SCM Press, 1982, p. 21.Google Scholar
27 D. Brown op. cit. p. 235.
28 D. M. Baillie op. cit. p. 90.
29 D. M. Baillie ibid., citing Augustine p. 118.
30 D. M. Baillie, ‘Unpublished lecture notes on christology and draft version of God was in Christ’, Envelope 28A Archive Material, University of St. Andrews Library.
31 D. M. Baillie, ‘Unpublished lecture notes on christology’. Archive department, University of St Andrews.
32 Harnack, A., History of Dogma (E.T.) (Trs) Millar, J. 1898 p. 129Google Scholar
33 McGuckin, J., ‘Did Augustine's Christology depend on Theodore of Mopsuestia?’ Heythrop Journal 31 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 J. McGuckin ibid. p. 40.
35 Cited in J. McGukin ibid. p. 46.
36 J. McGuckin ibid. p. 45/46.
37 J. McGuckin ibid. p. 45.
38 Cited in J. McGuckin ibid. p. 48.
39 J. McGuckin ibid. p. 48.
40 Cited in J. McGukin ibid. p. 48.
41 D. Brown op. cit. p. 235.
42 D. Brown ibid. p. 264f.
43 D. Brown ibid. p. 264f.
44 D. Brown ibid. p. 266.
45 D. M. Baillie op. cit. p. 20.
46 McIntyre, J., The Shape of Christology, 1966 p. 140Google Scholar McIntyre regards both Pittenger and Baillie as exponents of what he terms a psychological model of christology. Whilst recognising his intention it is important to note that Baillie explicitly thought that he was seeking to offer, not a psychological explanation of God's presence in Christ, but a deeper and more ultimate analysis. Baillie, D. M.God Was In Christ p. 20.Google Scholar
47 McIntyre, J., ‘A Tale of Two exchanges: the Christology of D. M. Baillie’. In Divers Manners, (Ed) Shaw, D. W. D.St Mary's College 1990 p. 159Google Scholar. McIntyre pertinently asks if Baillie has addressed the central question raised by Chalcedon and the theory of anhypostasia, namely, who is the subject of the experiences which we describe as having a divine and human nature. Since Baillie does not address this adequately McIntyre suggests that he does not solve the main problems raised by Chalcedon. p. 152/153.
48 J. McIntyre ibid. p. 159.
49 Mackie, J. L., ‘Evil and Omnipotence’. God and Evil, (Ed) Pike, N., p. 56Google Scholar. Mackie's article first appeared in Mind Vol LXIV No 254. For a discussion of the implications of this argument see my ‘Evil and the Logic of Freedom: Tensions Unresolved’. The Scottish Journal of Religious Studies Vol. XI No. 2 Autumn 1990 University of Stirling.Google Scholar