In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay

by Timothy J. Pawl

This work presents a historically informed, systematic exposition of the Christology of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of undivided Christendom, from the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD. Assuming the truth of Conciliar Christology for the sake of argument, Timothy Pawl considers whether there are good philosophical arguments that show a contradiction or incoherence in that doctrine. He presents the definitions of important terms in the debate and a helpful metaphysics for understanding the incarnation.

In Defense of Conciliar Christology discusses three types of philosophical objections to Conciliar Christology. Firstly, it highlights the fundamental philosophical problem facing Christology-how can one thing be both God and man, when anything deserving to be called "God" must have certain attributes, and yet it seems that nothing that can aptly be called "man" can have those same attributes? It then considers the argument that if the Second Person of the Holy Trinity were immutable or atemporal, as Conciliar Christology requires, then that Person could not become anything, and thus could not become man. Finally, Pawl addresses the objection that if there is a single Christ then there is a single nature or will in Christ. However, if that conditional is true, then Conciliar Christology is false, since it affirms the antecedent of the conditional to be true, but denies the truth of the consequent. Pawl defends Conciliar Christology against these charges, arguing that all three
philosophical objections fail to show Conciliar Christology inconsistent or incoherent.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology

268 pages, Hardcover

First published May 10, 2016

Reviews

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

9/10

[Jacob Samuel Raju · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best philosophical defenses of the claims of Conciliar Christology. It is a hard read for beginners in this genre. However, the terms and categories used are well-defined and explained that if you can take the time to study it carefully, it is worth the effort.

Conciliar Christology for Pawl is "the Christology put forward by the first seven ecumenical councils of Christendom," and he attempts to demonstrate that "no extant philosophical objection to Conciliar Christology is successful in showing that conjunction to be incoherent or internally inconsistent."
He first sets forth the claims of Conciliar Christology, then sets forth clearly what is called 'the Fundamental Problem' of Conciliar Christology--that contradictory properties are predicated on the same subject. He then proceeds to analyze the various "unsatisfactory ways" of addressing/ resolving the Fundamental Problem.
Pawl's own solution to the Fundamental Problem is to revise the truth conditions for the aptness of the predicates said of Christ. Consider the statement that Christ is both passible and impassible. What entails a contradiction is the definition of these terms as “being able to suffer” and “not being able to suffer.” Pawl proposes the theory of predication that these contradictory predicates need to be revised such that “Christ is impassible” means that “Christ has a nature that is not passible,” whereas “Christ is passible” means that “Christ has a nature that is passible.”
Following his solution to the Fundamental Problem, Pawl provides rebuttals to the various objections to his proposed solution. He then adds a section where he examines further complications to Conciliar Christology pertaining to the attributes of immutability, impassibility, and atemporality.
Pawl thus defends Conciliar Christology from all known charges of incoherence. He accomplishes what he proposed at the beginning: to demonstrate that “there are no extant philosophical objections to Conciliar Christology that show it to be inconsistent or incoherent.”

[Jaden A · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, author Timothy Pawl labors to develop an account whereby the dual predications made of the person of Christ (e.g., passible and impassible, mutable and immutable, etc.) are coherent. In the process, he rebuts arguments against what he labels as 'Conciliar Christology' (Christological teaching according to the first seven church councils), showcasing that there are no good philosophical arguments that demonstrate the falsity of such teaching.

Traditionally, dual predication or what has traditionally been referred to as ‘communicatio idiomatum’ has it that ‘qua’ his divine nature, Christ is immutable. In like manner, ‘qua’ human nature, Christ is mutable. However, this paradigm still does not solve a lingering question. Namely, on face value it would seem that Christ’s being both mutable and immutable is a contradiction. How is one to understand this and maintain rational belief?

The crux of the book is a treatment of dual predication. For example, if the truth conditions of passibility and impassibility are such that:

Passible: s is passible just in case it is possible that at least one other thing causally affect s.

Impassible: s is impassible just in case it is not the case that it is possible that at least one other thing causally affect s. (p. 190)

. . . then we run into a problem because if both of these things are true of Christ we run into a contradiction. On the other hand, if the truth conditions of the predications are revised such that:

Passible: s is passible just in case s has a concrete nature that it is possible for some other thing to causally affect.

Impassible: s is impassible just in case s has a concrete nature that it is impossible for some other thing to causally affect. (p. 190)

. . .then the contradiction is resolved. By revising our understanding of the truth conditions for passibility and impassibility, we find that Christ (by virtue of having two natures), both predications are apt of his person, without contradiction.

[K. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would give this book a higher rating, but I found it a slog to read. Only tackle this if you are already familiar with the positions he is critiquing.

[Kyle Kowalczyk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best book of this genre I've ever read! Be sure to read the footnotes, they're real gems!

[Tynan Brooks]

I cannot make myself enjoy reading analytic psychology, but Pawl's argumentation is clear. Wish there was more of a speculative metaphysical case, though; a solid defense, but not much positive here.