Abstract

How good a theory is depends on how well it meets the goals of its inquiry.  Thus, for example, theories in the natural sciences are better if in addition to stating truths, they also impart a kind of understanding.  Recent proposals—such as Jc Beall’s Contradictory Christology—to set Christian theology within non-classical logic  should be judged in a like manner:  according to how well they meet the goals of Christology.  This paper examines some of the effects of changing the logic of Christology on meeting the proposed goals of that inquiry.  The paraconsistent logic Beall favors has (FDE) features that inhibit increasing our understanding of the Incarnation.  Of course, there is good reason to think understanding is not the goal of Christological inquiry, that its goals are (for lack of a better word) devotional.  But FDE’s features don’t foster these goals either—raising questions about how much of a theological advance proposals like Beall’s could be. [NOTE: The published version has some formatting errors, specifically with respect to block quotes. Please cite the published version, but if you are confused, consult the correctly formatted version on PhilArchive]