A paradox adapted from the well-known 'paradox of increase ' has been formulated against composite Christology in recent literature. I argue that concrete -composite Christologists can reply by denying the premise that the pre-incarnate divine nature = the Second Person of the Trinity. This denial can be made by modifying a hylomorphic theory of individuals. Using an analogy from material coinciding objects, this modified theory provides an illuminating account of how a person can gain parts over time but remain numerically (...) identical, and it demonstrates that concrete nature and person are not the same thing. (shrink)

SummaryIn 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. (shrink)