On how Chalcedonian Christology can be affirmed without the errors of Eutychianism and Nestorianism: A reply to Joshua Farris

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

In a recent article published in NZSTh, Joshua Farris follows up on the previous discussion between James Arcadi and myself concerning the abstractist/concretist Christological distinction. While affirming the significance of my Divine Preconscious Model (DPM) of the Incarnation, he argues that I either misunderstand the abstractist/concretist distinction or have a novel take on it, and that I seem to confuse the metaphysical abstract/concretist distinction with a semantic distinction. His constructive proposal is that I should take up an abstractist Christology. I respond to his criticisms and show that his proposal fails to note one of the most important contributions of DPM, viz. it demonstrates how Chalcedonian Christology can be affirmed without the error of Eutychianism on the one hand and Nestorianism on the other.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)110-121
Number of pages12
JournalNeue Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie
Volume63
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 26 Mar 2021

Scopus Subject Areas

  • Religious studies
  • Philosophy

User-Defined Keywords

  • abstract-nature
  • Apollinarianism
  • Chalcedonian Christology
  • Coherence of the Incarnation
  • concrete-nature
  • Divine Preconscious Model
  • Eutychianism
  • Nestorianism

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'On how Chalcedonian Christology can be affirmed without the errors of Eutychianism and Nestorianism: A reply to Joshua Farris'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this