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

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.