Abstract
This article presents the concept of Conciliar Christology, the Christology taught at the first seven ecumenical councils of the Christian Church. It then discusses the motivations for considering Conciliar Christology when theorizing about the incarnation. These motivations include the historical groundedness one gains in theorizing in light of Conciliar Christology, the broad consensus of reception and authority that Conciliar Christology enjoys among Christians throughout the centuries, and the relevance Conciliar Christology has to the community of Christian believers. It next discusses the foundations of Conciliar Christology as they were taught by the ecumenical councils. Those councils themselves relied on multiple sources in their formation of doctrine, with their main two sources being scripture and tradition. Concerning traditional sources, the councils cite historical practice, previous conciliar teaching, and the texts of their opponents (as a sort of negative source of authority). After discussing the concept, the motivation, and the foundations for Conciliar Christology, the article summarizes the content of Conciliar Christology. According to Conciliar Christology: Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is one person who has two complete and distinct natures after the incarnation. One of these natures is the one and only divine nature, according to which the person of Christ is rightly considered immutable and impassible, and which he shares in no less when incarnate than he did otherwise. The other nature is a human nature. This nature either (1) is composed of a body ensouled by a rational soul, or (2) entails that the bearer, at least during life, has a body ensouled by a rational soul. According to this nature, Christ is like us in all ways – including having a created will – except sin. These two natures were united in a unique, ineffable manner that leaves the natures whole and intact. They are able to perform their own individual operations, which they perform in communion with one another. This union can aptly be characterized as similar to the union between a soul and the body it informs. Predications are true of the one person, Christ, according to his two natures. Sometimes these predications are true of him according to one nature but explicitly not true of him according to another. In fact, sometimes the natures make apparently incompatible predications true of the one Christ. In such circumstances, both expressions are true of the one God-man, though the predications need not be true of either or both natures of the God-man. Finally, given this conceptualization of Conciliar Christology, its motivations, foundations, and content, the article concludes with a discussion of the potential research trajectories for Conciliar Christology. These include scriptural investigations into the evidential relationship that scripture bears to the teachings of Conciliar Christology. These investigations include historical questions concerning which documents are authoritative for Conciliar Christology, how the concepts in those documents (e.g. nature) were understood by their authors, and how those documents were received historically. Potential research trajectories include philosophical investigations into the coherence of Conciliar Christology, the metaphysical models one might use to understand Conciliar Christology, and the philosophical anthropology one might need to explain how one person can have two wills. Finally, the potential research trajectories include systematic investigations into in what ways, and to what degree, the content of Conciliar Christology coheres with other theological theses, schools, or thinkers.