Incarnation and Knowability

Jon: I agree with you that Morris's approach is the best defense for the traditional two nature christology (tho I prefer kenotic christology). It also seems that your argument is quite correct -- possible omniscience cannot be excluded from human nature if this approach is coherent.

Here is what I don't understand. It seems clear that any assertion that a human is, as a mortal, omniscient is nonsense. But that conclusion is based on experience. Like Morris's "first man on the moon" example, perhaps omniscience is not a common property, but it is essential to human nature that a human is possibly omniscient. However, it still may reduce the plausibility of the two nature christology if we must regard humans as potentially omniscient just as you argue. But why so?

Look at it this way. The Christ's human nature that is omniscient is not occurently omniscient, but merely potentially omniscient. However, it seems that only in Christ's glorified state is such omniscience actual. What is omniscient is not human nature simpliciter, but human nature-as-glorified in Christ. So it is implausible that humans, qua mortals, are omniscient. However, why should we regard it as implausible that humans glorified in Christ are omniscient?

Further, it seems pelludicly clear that Christianity accepts that God can impart knowledge to humans through revelation. Is there any reason to believe that there is some limit to what can be imparted? Perhaps it is not plausible that a mere mortal has the capacity to retain all knowledge that is imparted to him/her; but is there any reason to believe it is implausible that a human glorified in Christ could not have such capacities? I don't see why.