I began this study with the question of the relation between the various christologies of the early fifth-century Church, and I argued that one's evaluation of these depends to a great degree on one's assessment of what the central issue of the controversy was. If one were to consider the primary question to be whether a given christology maintains that there is in Christ one person but two realities or natures, then one could argue that the theological differences between the major parties involved in the Nestorian controversy were not significant. If one were to consider christology largely in formulaic terms and to ask whether a given writer began with duality or unity in Christ, then one could perhaps regard Cassian's thought as closer to that of Nestorius than to Cyril's. However, if one considers christology to be the expression of grace, as I have done in this study, one will recognize that there was a fundamental contrast between two concepts of what God gives to humanity in grace through Christ, of how redemption is achieved, and therefore of who Christ must be (and is) in order to accomplish this salvation. As I conclude this study, I will summarize briefly what I have claimed concerning these two patterns of grace and christology, and I will then suggest what I believe these findings imply concerning the christology of the early Church as a whole.
I have attempted to show that for Theodore, Christ is a graced man, the one who is both the supreme example and the unique recipient of the Logos' co-operative assistance. As such he is the mediator of grace to us, the one who has received divine aid from