On the Incarnation

While WLC’s incarnation model allows for him to solve the problem of how Jesus of Nazareth in his flesh did not constitute a second person alongside the Son of God (thereby handily avoiding Nestorianism), it nevertheless introduces problems regarding how an infinite mind can be ignorant and grow in knowledge.  Introducing ignorance, subconsciousness, growth, and so on to a divine mind seems to threaten classical theism. Craig’s model involves a weakening of God’s omniscience, subjecting it to a subconscious.  

But God, given perfect being theology, not only has all perfect properties, he has them perfectly--he has immediately accessible omniscience.  WLC’s model is still trending towards Kenoticism in this sense, then.  

Enhypostasia avoids Nestorianism, and Craig’s Neo-Apollinarianism provides a justification for accepting enhypostasia.  That's a great benefit to the model.  But Neo-Apollinarianism's costs are too high due to its need to posit a complex divine psychology to explain the biblical data of Jesus's apparent ignorance.  It’s better to just bite the bullet on the enhypostasia and just hold that the human nature of Jesus was complete, soul and all, apart from any elements injected from the divine nature, and that this human nature was somehow not constitutive of a separate person.