MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598077342 · doi:10.3138/tjt.2016-0013

The <i>Capax</i> in a New Key: Kierkegaard's Development of Classical Lutheran Christology

2017· article· en· W2598077342 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Boehmer

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicKierkegaardian Philosophy and Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristologyPhilosophyImmanenceHumanitySubjectivityDivinityDoctrineTranscendence (philosophy)TheologyEpistemologyExpression (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines Kierkegaard's relationship with classical Lutheran Christology. It does so in terms of the claim that the finite has the capacity for the infinite ( finitum capax infiniti—henceforth capax), a classical Lutheran claim according to which Christ's finite humanity completely grasps his infinite divinity. Though Kierkegaard's treatment of transcendence has tended to receive more attention, a doctrine of radical immanence also appears to permeate his thought—a doctrine reminiscent of the capax. Yet he writes at some distance from the claim's original framers. The question thus arises: is Kierkegaard's treatment of Christ in keeping with their expression of the capax? With special reference to Luther and the Lutheran scholastic Johann Gerhard, I argue the affirmative: that is—in their treatment of subjectivity—Kierkegaard's idea of Christ's incognito and his understanding of Christ as God's infinite redoubling represent developments concerning the essential logic of the capax. In Christ, God makes himself entirely present, yet hidden in order to preserve the subjectivity of his followers, and God preserves his own subjectivity as well, perfectly reproducing it in his human life. Understanding this creative development of the capax helps situate Kierkegaard with respect to the Lutheran tradition and sheds light on his ideas of redoubling, incognito, and the God–human being.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicKierkegaardian Philosophy and InfluenceFrench-language works237,207