Chalcedonian Christology and beyond: Luther's understanding of the <i>Communicatio Idiomatum</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Luther, Zwingli and Calvin are in full accord with the Chalcedonian definition of Christ as one person in two natures, which are united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly and inseparably. The main point of disagreement among them concerns the usage of the so‐called communicatio idiomatum . Luther refers to this mainly in his disputes with other theologians such as Nestorius and Zwingli, whereas when he engages in constructive theology or in biblical interpretation, it seems that he does not use it. He could use it because he found it to be in harmony with his own Christological thinking which, he believed, was rooted in the Bible. The doctrine is, for him, an ontological deduction from the cross and the incarnation. The primary purpose of this article is to see how Luther understood the Christological predication, and only in a limited scope bring him in conversation with Zwingli's and Calvin's understanding. Although the traditional interpretation, that the properties of Christ's two natures are communicated to the concretum of his person, predominates in Luther's thought, he went beyond it, affirming a real communication between the two natures. The logic of his usage of the doctrine of the communication of properties enables Luther to move beyond Chalcedonian understanding of Christology, and also sets him apart from the Reformed tradition. Special attention will be given to Luther's usage of the doctrine in relation to the passibility motif, demonstrating that the human idiomatum of suffering and dying belong to God's very being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it