# WCF and Nestorianism.



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

I was going through the children's catechism the other day with my kids and the question I have asked a thousand times "What is God?" answered by "God is a spirit, and does not have a body like we do" suddenly brought a chill to my bones.

How do those of you who are more zealous over these documents solve the apparent dillemma and rescue te catechism or WCF for that matter from Nestorianism ?



> I. There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, *a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions,* immutable, immense,
> eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that
> diligently seek Him; and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.


----------



## Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

It is speaking of His nature.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

I think that isn't the whole picture with Westminster:



> CHAPTER VIII.
> Of Christ the Mediator.
> 
> II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by he power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
> ...



Chalcedon Christianity means that Christ is a fully divine person that takes on another nature (hypostatic union). One mistake that many people make (i.e. Lutherans) is to ascribe divine properties to the human nature, thus contradicting chalcedon by changing the human nature to divine. I think Westminster strikes the balance correctly.



> The Definition of the
> Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)
> Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, *without change*, without division, without separation; *the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union*, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.



[Edited on 1-17-2006 by raderag]

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

You must admit though that the question in the children's catechism is dead wrong:

Q. 9. What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, and has not a body like men.


He does have a body like we do, but the natures remain distinct.
I am going to switch to the shorter catechism I think.

Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> You must admit though that the question in the children's catechism is dead wrong:
> 
> Q. 9. What is God?
> ...



Well, if you are teaching a 4 year old, then I doubt they understand the difference between nature and IS, but it is important. I think that most Christians tend towards Nestorianism, and that is why we must explain the incarnation to our children. 

One thing that really helped me to understand it was to wrap my mind around Mary being the mother of God.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> It is speaking of His nature.



Right. Christ's nature was divine. There is a popular evangelical apologists going around saying that Christ is a NOT a divine person, but a human person. He also says that Nestorius didn't hold to the heresy of Nestorianism, but was misunderstood. This guy is pretty well respected, even in reformed circles.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 17, 2006)

The question is set up asking "What" is God, not "Who" is God.
So it would seem that it is a question about God's nature, not about His personhood.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> The question is set up asking "What" is God, not "Who" is God.
> So it would seem that it is a question about God's nature, not about His personhood.



Very observant. You are correct.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

Scott,

Would you say Christ, in nature, is Spirit, or flesh, or both ?
I think the WCF is incomplete when it says God is without a body.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 17, 2006)

Mark,

The WCF does not begin with explaining the nature of Christ. It begins all the catechisms with God - the doctrine of God, or Theology Proper, not Christology.

WCF DoG in chapter 2 - 

There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9] eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;

WCF LC

Q7: What is God?
A7: God is a Spirit,[1] in and of himself infinite in being,[2] glory,[3] blessedness,[4] and perfection;[5] all-sufficient,[6] eternal,[7] unchangeable,[8] incomprehensible,[9] everywhere present,[10] almighty,[11] knowing all things,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most just,[15] most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.[16]

WCF SC

Q4: What is God? 
A4: God is a Spirit,[1] infinite,[2] eternal,[3] and unchangeable,[4] in his being,[5] wisdom,[6] power,[7] holiness,[8] justice, goodness, and truth.[9] 

Children's Catechism

What is God? God is spirit and does not have a body.

Now, in terms of Christology, you have to look furhter down the road:

The children's catechism covers that in questions 43-71

WCF chapter 8

The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature,[10] with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;[11] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance.[12] So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.[13] Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.[14]

WCF LC

Q39: Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?

A39: It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature,[1] perform obedience to the law,[2] suffer and make intercession for us in our nature,[3] have a fellow feeling of our infirmities;[4] that we might receive the adoption of sons,[5] and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.[6]

WCF SC

Q22: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man? 
A22: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body,[1] and a reasonable soul,[2] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,[3] yet without sin.[4] 

The WCf does not confuse these questions, they separate them.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

I think it betrays the trinity for a catechism or confession to anticipate proper Christology and not include it in the doctrine of God.

God has a body. Not the father or the Spirit but the Son.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I think it betrays the trinity for a catechism or confession to anticipate proper Christology and not include it in the doctrine of God.
> 
> God has a body. Not the father or the Spirit but the Son.



What if the question would have been, what is the nature of God? That is the question, when taken implicityly.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

God is one being three persons.
Christ is one person two natures.

How can we seperate first Christ from the word "God" in the question, what is God's nature ? 

What is God's nature ? First spiritual and divine, and secondly, human, because the Eternal Son became flesh.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> God is one being three persons.
> Christ is one person two natures.
> 
> ...



So, is Christ a divine person, a human person, or both?


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

both . . so the question regarding God's nature should include both pre and post incarnate attributes.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> both . . so the question regarding God's nature should include both pre and post incarnate attributes.



Christ is a divine person (not a human person) with a divine and human nature. To suggest both is Nestorianism.

The catechism is talking about the essence of God, and is thouroughly orthodox. Here is Aquinas on the very matter:



> Whether God is a body?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[Edited on 1-17-2006 by raderag]

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by raderag]


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

Can we please refrain from the word "essense" while discussing this. It is too nebulous. I prefer being or nature.

Christ is divine person with a divine and human nature. I believe that.

The catechism is deficient. It needs a better answer that does not betray the incarnation. 

The question of the trinity should come first, followed by maybe something like this:

How about: God is a spirit, and the Son became a man like us, and Jesus forever remains God and man.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

Aquinas is arguing against God being a body, not having a body. There is a difference.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Can we please refrain from the word "essense" while discussing this. It is too nebulous. I prefer being or nature.
> 
> Christ is divine person with a divine and human nature. I believe that.
> ...



Ok, but Westminster took the exact same approach, order, and logic that Aquinas did. I just don't see the problem. The incarnation has nothing to do with the nature of God.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 17, 2006)

Mark, do you believe God 'changed' with the incarnation?


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Mark, do you believe God 'changed' with the incarnation?



That is an interesting question. Did the immutable God take on a mutable form ? Did Chrst grow in wisdom and knowledge ? God, as the eternal transcendant being did not diminish by becoming flesh.
So in that sense, He did not change. But did God the Son experience something as a human, that God the trinity, could not have existentially known without the incarnation ? ?

I have no idea.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

How do you guys explain the trinity to your kids. Mine are 7 and 5 right now (the ones old enough to discuss this with me).


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Aquinas is arguing against God being a body, not having a body. There is a difference.



In other words,, Aquinas is defining the nature of God. I think we agree on the nature of God, but you believe the question doesn't speak only to the nature of God, but to the person of Christ also. 

If I asked "what is a computer", I would only be correct by giving a definition that was essential to the computer. The incarnation took place in the scope of time, and thus is not essential to the being of God.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> How do you guys explain the trinity to your kids. Mine are 7 and 5 right now (the ones old enough to discuss this with me).



I have a 9 year old and a just turned 5 year old. Honestly, my 5 year old has a hard time grasping concepts like this, but I think my 9 year old has a decent understanding (assuming that I do). Sometimes I use the pie analogy, and sometimes I just use logical assertions such as The Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy SPirit is God.
None of the persons are each other, but they coexist eternally.

Most importantly, I explain that God became man through Christ, yet remained totally God.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

Brett, you win when you mention essence, because it is way over my head. I do not know what is essential to God, other than what He has said in His word, like He does not lie, etc . . . 

I have explained the trinity to the same extent you have, but I am thinking of ditching the catechisms altogether and just reading the Bible and creeds.


----------



## raderag (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Brett, you win when you mention essence, because it is way over my head. I do not know what is essential to God, other than what He has said in His word, like He does not lie, etc . . .
> 
> I have explained the trinity to the same extent you have, but I am thinking of ditching the catechisms altogether and just reading the Bible and creeds.



The problem with the creeds is that they are not systematic, and do not define their terms. You have to read and understand the councils from which the creeds were written to understand them. I would think this is much more difficult and confusing than the catechism.

Sorry about the term essence, but I think it is an important distinction. All of the creeds were written with a classical understanding of greek philosophy.

I understand your consternation though, especially when teaching Children.

[Edited on 1-17-2006 by raderag]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> both . . so the question regarding God's nature should include both pre and post incarnate attributes.



The two natures of the Son of God are connected in an indissoluble union and do not mix or interpenetrate. Though they are attached, they are still separate natures. The Son of God is very God. Jesus Christ is very man. He is *one person*. That means He is one person, self or Ego. He is not schismatic, nor does He have two persons and two natures. That is the heresy of Nestorianism. 

There is no transfusion of the natures into one another although there is an assumption of the human nature by the divine nature. By assumption is meant "œtaking on." The divine nature of the Son of God has taken on the human nature. He is not changed by the union, but takes on a nature He did not formally have. By "œnature", in this connection, is meant description. A "œnature" is the essential qualities of any "œthing." For instance, an eye is made of the cornea, cones, rods, pupil, iris, ducts, glands, veins and the like. The total attributes of a particular "œthing" represent the nature of a thing or the description of a thing. It is the totality of its encompassed parts and attributes. The substance of Jesus´ human nature is not personal, for if it was, Christ would then be two persons. Rather, the human nature is impersonal. The divine nature, which is personal already as the eternal Son, took upon itself the impersonal nature of a human being. In doing so the divine nature assumed the human nature (which encompasses its assumption). That does not mean He absorbed the human nature into His divine nature, but that He attached the human nature of the man Jesus Christ to Himself. The divine nature did not change, but assumed the flesh of the human nature.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

Thank you Matt. That clarifies what I believe. I still think it is hard to explain to kids because they think of Jesus as a bodily man, and they have a hard time seperating human and divine in their little minds. How do I keep them from vacillating between Eutychianism and Monophysitism ?? This is why I think I need to ditch the catechism and stick to the Bible.


----------



## Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

"Would you say Christ, in nature, is Spirit, or flesh, or both ?"

I would say that Christ's divine nature is Spirit.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Would you say Christ, in nature, is Spirit, or flesh, or both ?"
> 
> I would say that Christ's divine nature is Spirit.



You are right. I meant to say HAS a divine nature or flesh or both.

Sorry. His fundamental or essential nature is divine. But he clothes himself with human flesh (impersonal) as wierd as that sounds.


----------



## Saiph (Jan 18, 2006)

It seems that by criticizing the catechisms for not including the human nature of Christ in the answer to the question, "What is God", I was actually capitulating to a subtle form of Eutychianism.

It does not deny the Trinity to say God is spirit.

*
I openly repent of this error here and now.*





> "œSix Common Heresies Regarding the Nature of Christ"
> 
> Ebionism "“ teaches that Jesus was not God, but that the Spirit and Power of God came upon the man Jesus at His baptism. The same infilling departed and left Jesus at the cross, for God cannot die. (Human Nature under God´s influence. No Divine Nature.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (Jan 19, 2006)

Matt: Very helpful desciption. Thanks


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> It seems that by criticizing the catechisms for not including the human nature of Christ in the answer to the question, "What is God", I was actually capitulating to a subtle form of Eutychianism.
> 
> It does not deny the Trinity to say God is spirit.
> ...



You are forgiven my son. 

BTW, you are not the only one who has touble explaining the trinity!


----------

