# Brief note on Cyril of Alexandria



## DTK

While specific studies can offer insights as to how members of the early church worked through particular issues with respect to the theological language they employed, one can also see that they were far from occupying a theological chair of superior understanding and consistency in their formulations. The following is one brief example from Cyril of Alexandria. In the Nestorian controversy (and I think one must be careful not to equate, by way of default, Nestorius with Nestorianism, unless one has made such a decision to do so based on extended exposure to that question), Cyril began to object to certain expressions of theological formulation that had been used in an orthodox sense prior his day, and the difficulty to understand such ancient members of the early church is then made all the more complicated when such terms are set forth in a very nuanced way. Notice the following note on Cyril from the patristic scholar G. L. Prestige regarding Cyril of Alexandria...

*G. L. Prestige: *Cyril’s own writings convict him of unfairness. He protested repeatedly against the use of the word ‘conjunction’ to express the union between Christ’s two natures, suggesting that it was an innovation, and claiming that Nestorius used it to imply a moral association instead of a real identity of person (_ad Nest._ 3, 71A; _quod unus_ 733A, B). But in fact it had been employed in a fully orthodox sense by Athanasius (_c. Ar._ 2. 70), Basil (_ep._ 210. 5), Gregory of Nyssa (_c. Eun. _3. 3. 66, Migne 705C), and even by Apollinaris (_de un._ 12; frag. 12). Language capable of bearing an orthodox meaning in these writers was neither new nor necessarily unorthodox in Nestorius. Again, Cyril objected to the description of the Incarnation as the ‘assumption of a man’ (_apol. c. Thdt. _232C, D, E, cf. _hom. Pasch._ 27, 323B), forgetting that in his own pre-Nestorian treatise he had written: “The Word was in the beginning, and far later in time became high priest on our behalf, assuming the woman-born man or shrine like a robe” (_thes. ass. _21, 214B). And though he strongly deprecated the Nestorian use of ‘two hypostases’ and ‘indwelling’ and union ‘by good pleasure’, he was quite ready to use all such phrases under proper safeguards in his own explanations of his faith (e.g. _ad Acac._ 116C; _thes. ass._ 32, 317D; _ad Succens._ 1, 137A); indeed, in 435 extreme members of his own party were openly suspecting him of having gone over to the Nestorians during his negotiations for a settlement. Yet so resolute was his conviction of the heretical depravity of his principal opponent, that language which was orthodox in Cyril acquired a tinge of heresy merely from passing through Nestorius’s lips. See G. L. Prestige, _Fathers and Heretics: Six Studies in Dogmatic Faith with Prologue and Epilogue_ (London: S.P.C.K., 1958), p. 156.

Consider only the first issue noted by Prestige in his observation, viz., Cyril of Alexandria’s objection to the term *συναφείας* (conjunction) in describing the hypostatic union in the person of Christ. In my attempt to make this helpful, I've tried to provide a few of the references to Cyril and others to whom Prestige makes reference. Notice, first, Cyril's rejection of the term συναφείας.



> *Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444):* In fact we reject the term *‘conjunction’ *as being insufficient to signify the union. See the Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius,§5 in John A. McGuckin, _St Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology, and Texts_ (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 269.
> *Greek text:* μᾶλλον δὲ τὸ τῆς *συναφείας* ὄνομα παραιτούμεθα, ὡς οὐκ ἔχον ἱκανῶς σημῆναι τὴν ἕνωσιν. _Epistola tertia ad Nestorium_, Epistola XVII, §5, PG 77:112.
> 
> *Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444): *Then why do they abandon the term “union,” even though it is the word in customary use among us, and indeed has come down to us from the holy Fathers, preferring to call it a *conjunction*? The term union in no way causes the confusion of the things it refers to, but rather signifies the concurrence in one reality of those things which are understood to be united. Surely it is not only those things which are simple and homogeneous which hold a monopoly over the term “unity”? for it can also apply to things compounded out of two, or several, or different kinds of things. This is the considered opinion of the experts in such matters. How wicked they are, then, when they divide in two the one true and natural Son incarnated and made man, and when they reject the union and call it a *conjunction*, something that any other man could have with God, being bonded to him as it were in terms of virtue and holiness.
> John Anthony McGuckin, trans., _St. Cyril of Alexandria On the Unity of Christ_ (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), p. 73-74.
> *Greek text:* {Α} Ἀνθότου δὲ δὴ παρέντες τὴν ἕνωσιν, καίτοι φωνὴν οὖσαν εὐτριβῆ παρ’ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀγίων Πατέρων καταβαίνουσαν εἰς ἡμᾶς, *συνάφειαν* ὀνομάζουσι; Καίτοι συγχεῖ μὲν ἡ ἕνωσις οὐδαμῶς τὰ καθ' ὧν ἂν λέγοιτο, διαδείκνυσι δὲ μᾶλλον τὴν εἰς ἕν τι συνδρομὴν τῶν ἡνῶσθαι νοουμένων. Καὶ οὐχὶ πάντη τε καὶ πάντως ἓν ἂν λέγοιτο μόνως τὸ ἁπλοῦν καὶ μονοειδές, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὰ ἐκ δυοῖν ἢ πλειόνων ἔτι καὶ ἐξ ἑτεροειδῶν συγκείμενα. Δοκεῖ γὰρ οὕτως εὖ ἔχειν τοῖς ταῦτα σοφοῖς. Κακουργότατα τοίνυν τὸν ἕνα καὶ φύσει καὶ ἀληθῶς Υἱὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα καὶ σεσαρκωμένον διϊστάντες εἰς δύο, παραιτοῦνται μὲν τὴν ἕνωσιν, *συνάφειαν* δὲ ὀνομάζουσιν, ἣν ἂν ἔχοι τυχὸν καὶ ἕτερός τις πρὸς Θεόν, ὡς ἐξ ἀρετῆς καὶ ἁγιασμοῦ μονονουχὶ συνδούμενος, _Qoud unus sit Christus_, PG 75:1285.



Now notice below those whom Prestige observed using the same term to describe that union in an orthodox way (The translation employed for συναφείας in Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa below is "union," while the precise Greek term they used was indeed *συναφείας*, while Cyril preferred the term *ἕνωσις* for "union.").



> *Athanasius (297-373): *And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been deified, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the *union* was of this kind, that He *might unite* what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure. _NPNF2: Vol. IV, Four Discourses Against the Arians_, Discourse II, Chapter 21, §70.
> *Greek text:* Καὶ ὥσπερ οὐκ ἂν ἠλευθερώθημεν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τῆς κατά ρας, εἰ μὴ φύσει σὰρξ ἦν ἀνθρωπίνη, ἣν ἐνεδύσατο ὁ Λόγος· οὐδὲν γὰρ κοινὸν ἦν ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸ ἀλλότριον· οὕτως οὐκ ἂν ἐθεοποιήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος, εἰ μὴ φύσει ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἀληθινὸς καὶ ἴδιος αὐτοῦ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, ὁ γενόμενος σάρξ. Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ τοιαύτη γέγονεν ἡ *συναφὴ*, ἵνα τῷ κατὰ φύσιν τῆς θεότητος *συνάψῃ* τὸν φύσει ἄνθρωπον, καὶ βεβαία γένηται ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ θεοποίησις αὐτοῦ. _Oratio II Contra Arianos_, §70, PG 26:296.
> 
> *Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379):* But those who ignorantly criticise these writings refer to the question of the Godhead much that is said in reference to the *conjunction* with man; as is the case with this passage which they are hawking about. For it is indispensable to have clear understanding that, as he who fails to confess the community of the essence or substance falls into polytheism, so he who refuses to grant the distinction of the hypostases is carried away into Judaism. For we must keep our mind stayed, so to say, on certain underlying subject matter, and, by forming a clear impression of its distinguishing lines, so arrive at the end desired. For suppose we do not bethink us of the Fatherhood, nor bear in mind Him of whom this distinctive quality is marked off, how can we take in the idea of God the Father? For merely to enumerate the differences of Persons is insufficient; we must confess each Person to have a natural existence in real hypostasis. _NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters,_ Letter 210, To the notables of Neocaesarea, §5.
> *Greek text:* Πολλὰ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον *συναφείας* εἰρημένα εἰς τὸν περὶ τῆς θεότητος ἀναφέρουσι λόγον, οἱ ἀπαιδεύτως τῶν γεγραμμένων ἀκούοντες• ὁποῖόν ἐστι καὶ τοῦτο, τὸ παρὰ τοῦτων περιφερόμενον. Εὖ γὰρ εἰδέναι χρὴ, ὅτι ὥσπερ ὁ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὐσίας μὴ ὁμολογῶν, εἰς πολυθεΐαν ἐκπίπτει• οὕτως ὁ τὸ ἰδιάζον τῶν ὑποστάσεων μὴ διδοὺς, εἰς τὸν Ἰουδαϊσμὸν ὑποφέρεται. Δεῖ γὰρ τῆν διάνοιαν ὑμῶν οἱονεὶ ἐπερεισθεῖσαν ὑποκειμένῳ τινὶ, καὶ ἐναργεῖς αὐτοῦ ἐντυπωσαμένην τοὺς χαρακτῆρας, οὕτως ἐν περινοίᾳ γενέσθαι τοῦ ποθουμένου. Μὴ γὰρ νοήσαντες τῆν πατρότητα, μηδὲ περὶ ὃν ἀφώρισται τὸ ἰδίωμα τοῦτο ἐνθυμηθέντες• πῶς δυνατὸν Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ἔννοιαν παραδέξασθαι; Οὐ γὰρ ἐξαρκεῖ διαφορὰς προσώπων ἀπαριθμήσασωαι, ἀλλὰ χρὴ ἕκαστον πρόσωπον ἐν ὑποστάσει ἀληθινῇ ὑπάρχον ὁμολογεῖν.
> _Epistola CCX_, §5, PG 32:776.
> 
> *Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395):* What is the brightness of the glory, and what is that that was pierced with the nails? What form is it that is buffeted in the Passion, and what form is it that is glorified from everlasting? So much as this is clear, (even if one does not follow the argument into detail,) that the blows belong to the servant in whom the Lord was, the honours to the Lord Whom the servant compassed about, so that by reason of contact and the *union* of Natures the proper attributes of each belong to both, as the Lord receives the stripes of the servant, while the servant is glorified with the honour of the Lord; for this is why the Cross is said to be the Cross of the Lord of glory , and why every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father._ NPNF2: Vol. V, Answer to Eunomius_, Book V, §5.
> *Greek text:* Τί τὸ τῆς δόξης ἀπαύγασμα, Τί τὸ τοῖς ἥλοις διαπειρόμενον; ποία μορφὴ ἐπὶ τοῦ πάθους ῥαπί ζεται καὶ ποία ἐξ ἀϊδίου δοξάζεται; φανερὰ γὰρ ταῦτα κἂν μή τις ἐφερμηνεύσῃ τῷ λόγῳ, ὅτι αἱ μὲν πληγαὶ τοῦ δούλου ἐν ᾧ ὁ δεσπότης, αἱ δὲ τιμαὶ τοῦ δεσπότου περὶ ὃν ὁ δοῦλος· ὡς διὰ τὴν *συνάφειάν* τε καὶ συμφυΐαν κοινὰ γίνεσθαι τὰ ἑκατέρας ἀμφότερα, τοῦ τε δεσπότου τοὺς δου λικοὺς μώλωπας εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀναλαμβάνοντος καὶ τοῦ δούλου τῇ δεσποτικῇ δοξαζομένου τιμῇ· διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ κυρίου τῆς δόξης ὁ σταυρὸς λέγεται καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογεῖται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός. _Contra Eunomium_, Liber V, §5, PG 45:705C.



And just when one begins to think they have a grasp of terms, there's always someone to throw a monkey wrench into the controversy just to give it an added bit of spice...

DTK


----------



## P.F.

I'm glad you tracked this down and provided the Greek. It would be easy to miss that Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa were using the word in question when filtered through the English translation.


----------



## johnbugay

Hi David, thanks for posting this. Pelikan agrees with you, saying, "It is significant that Cyril and his fellow Alexandrians employed in their christology many of the same technical tems that had been mined and minted, largely by previous generations of Alexandrians, during the trinitarian discussion." (History of the Development of Doctrine, pg 227).

He goes on to say, "theologians who shared an uncompromising loyalty not only to the letter of Nicea but to the Nicene orthodoxy of Didymus and the Cappadocians were nevertheless on opposite sides when the question of Christ and God became the question of God and man in Christ." 

He says, "the neglect of the christological question was responsible for the impasse." 

I'm not trying, by any means, to make excuses for Cyril -- he was just as foul as any pope ever was, and worse than most, but my understanding of this (and I haven't read nearly as much on this as I need to) is that one reason why the "Christological controversies" came up was precisely because of the variations in language, (exactly what you have shown, in Gregory of Nyssa and Athanasius) in trying to button down precisely how "Christ was both God and man." It just wasn't "precise" enough.


----------



## P.F.

*J.N.D. Kelly*: But since the Incarnate was none other than the eternal Word in a new state, His unity was presupposed from the start. Hence Cyril could have nothing to do with the Antiochene conception of a 'conjunction' (συνάφεια) based upon a harmony of wills or upon 'good pleasure'; such an association seemed to him artificial and external. Even the analogy of indwelling, which (like Athanasius) he had used before the controversy, became suspect in his eyes unless it was carefully hedged around. See J.N.D. Kelly, _Early Christian Doctrines_ (San Fransisco: HarperSanFransisco, 1978), p. 320.


----------



## MW

> Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444): [/B]Then why do they abandon the term “union,” even though it is the word in customary use among us, and indeed has come down to us from the holy Fathers, preferring to call it a *conjunction*?



There is an obvious difference between utilising "union" in association with "conjunction," and abandoning "union" in preference for "conjunction." I don't know of any orthodox Christology which rejects the concept of "union." If Nestorius did in fact reject the concept of union then I must side with Cyril in opposing him.


----------



## johnbugay

armourbearer said:


> There is an obvious difference between utilising "union" in association with "conjunction," and abandoning "union" in preference for "conjunction." I don't know of any orthodox Christology which rejects the concept of "union." If Nestorius did in fact reject the concept of union then I must side with Cyril in opposing him.



Mar Bawai Soro, of Nestorius, says this:



> As an antiochian, Nestorius resorted to the Bible to make his theology intelligible. The most significant mark of Nestorius thought is his dogma of the "prosopic union." It is characteristic of his complete work, "The Bazaar (of Heraclides)," and conveys a message of faith that is based on his understanding of the Sacred Scripture and Church Fathers.



Historically, the big issue between Nestorius and Cyril (other than the "Mother of God" tiff) is the difference between the "prosopic union" and Cyril's "hypostasis."

Moffett, a historian, summarizes this way:



> This doctrine of the unity of the person (prosopon) of Christ in two natures may have rested on the use of a word too weak to support the theological weight it was required to bear, but it was in no sense heresy.



I will agree that matters are still not settled regarding Nestorius and "Nestorianism" and this controversy. But there are also a number of things to keep in mind:

1. Cyril attributed beliefs to Nestorius that he did not actually hold.

2. Following Cyril, the Council of Ephesus (431) ratified these statements.

3. The results of this council cause one of the major splits in the Christian church.

4. Like most "heretics" of this day, Nestorius's writings were largely destroyed; we know of his theology from scraps (which Luther saw, and which he did not think was heresy), as well as "The Book of Heraclides," a memoir that Nestorius wrote from exile and that was hidden away in his name for centuries, and was only "found" in the 19th century (see Freidrich Loofs's work "Nestorius" available on Google Books).

5. Nestorius was concerned to avoid just the kind of Marian "adoration" in his use of the word "Christotokos". (And in the 1994 joint Christological statement, Pope John Paul II recognized this statement as "right" and "legitimate".

6. According to Pelikan, Chalcedon essentially vindicated Nestorius's theology (which the Reformed accept) though it was later overturned in the 5th council, Constantinople II, (wich the Reformed reject). 

7. A thorough study of all of this (including Cyril's behavior at Ephesus) will shed very much light on "authority" in the early church.

I am not trying to be disagreeable here. But I do think a very thorough history of this whole era needs to be written by someone other than an Eastern Orthodox historian. 

There are many, many misconceptions that abound, and the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have much to gain by having this period remain dark and obscure.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> I am not trying to be disagreeable here. But I do think a very thorough history of this whole era needs to be written by someone other than an Eastern Orthodox historian.



Be that as it may, if Nestorius or anyone denies the union of the two natures, he is to be considered Christologically unorthodox, whatever party he happens to belong to.


----------



## johnbugay

armourbearer said:


> Be that as it may, if Nestorius or anyone denies the union of the two natures, he is to be considered Christologically unorthodox, whatever party he happens to belong to.



But that's the point. He DIDN'T deny the union of the two natures. 

And I think that Reformed believers, especially, need to consider whether they're repeating the "false witness" that was attributed to him by Cyril.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> But that's the point. He DIDN'T deny the union of the two natures.
> 
> And I think that Reformed believers, especially, need to consider whether they're repeating the "false witness" that was attributed to him by Cyril.



That is a point which is yet to be established.

Who are these reformed believers who are repeating a false witness?


----------



## johnbugay

armourbearer said:


> That is a point which is yet to be established.



I think it has been established. Note here, Bishop Kallistos Ware (see clip one at this link: clip one at this link -- I have posted this here several times already), 

And note Bishop Ware saying clearly, that *"The church of the east has never held the heresy of Nestorius...In fact, Nestorius himself did not hold the Nestorian heresy"* (much laughter). 

This laughter included very high-ranking Catholics and Orthodox, even though there are councils condemning him.



> Who are these reformed believers who are repeating a false witness?



Well, with all due respect, that is what you are doing here. 

This is a matter of historical importance that is largely ignored. If anyone is going to be able to "get it right," it will be a Reformed process of historical research that will get it right. And to date, there is very little of that. But I think this is a great area where Reformed historians and theologians can bring great clarification.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> Well, with all due respect, that is what you are doing here.



I have only made conditional statements here -- if ... then.

It still remains to be established that Nestorius did not teach what he is historically charged with teaching.


----------



## OPC'n

Just yesterday I was talking to someone about this... Not as indepth mind you. But a person stated that they had read an article concerning Luther and baptismal regeneration. I guess the article stated that Luther believed in this. I told that person that I would refuse to believe that he did for two reasons. One reason was that back then they used words differently than we do now which if we are not careful will lead us to wrong conclusions about what they are saying. People then and today use the same word to state different things. I believe much misunderstanding arises bc of this. Second, he spoke German which then had to be translated into an English we are not familar with... there's going to be some breakdown in translation. Also I think it wise to read the whole of a person's work in order to come to an accurate understanding.


----------



## johnbugay

armourbearer said:


> johnbugay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, with all due respect, that is what you are doing here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have only made conditional statements here -- if ... then.
> 
> It still remains to be established that Nestorius did not teach what he is historically charged with teaching.
Click to expand...


Well, there are ways to make "conditional" statements in a way that impugns the subject, and there are ways to make conditional statements in ways that don't. You have made the former. 

I have cited several sources that say "Nestorius did not teach what he is historically charged with teaching." Do you disagree with the citations I've made of Moffett, Soro, and Kallistos? (And Pelikan, in an indirect way?) 

If so, on what basis do you disagree? What will it take for you to begin to give Nestorius "a charitable interpretation"?

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 07:42:13 EST-----

I should say, if Nestorius DIDN'T teach that which has been attributed to him, then what ramifications does that have for the authority of church councils? What effect will that have on future ecumenical dialogs? What DOES that say about Greek and Roman condemnations made during that and subsequent councils?

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 07:49:36 EST-----

Sarah, I would agree with your qualifications.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> Well, there are ways to make "conditional" statements in a way that impugns the subject, and there are ways to make conditional statements in ways that don't. You have made the former.



News to me.



johnbugay said:


> What will it take for you to begin to give Nestorius "a charitable interpretation"?



I am yet to give Nestorius any interpretation, so your plea for charity is somewhat misplaced. All that is required for a proof of his orthodxy is a statement in terms of Christological orthodoxy -- two natures in one person.


----------



## P.F.

*Nestorius of Constantinople (patriarch 428-431)*: But those who wish rather to adhere to the orthodox attribute to him a body and an intelligent soul and agree to the union in one nature for the completion of the nature. And as the body and the soul and the intelligence are the completion of the nature of man, so also the union of God the Word took place with the body and an intelligent soul for the completion of the nature. _The Bazaar of Heracleides_, (1925), Book I, Part I, Section 42

Also see section 47 for more discussion.

I think a number of folks imagine the first council of Ephesus couldn't have (or were not likely to have) had the wrong idea about Nestorius and his teachings. Such a view seems a bit naive to those of us who have seen Presbyteries in action (some of the divergent views of the Federal Vision and its proponents come to mind).

*Nestorius of Constantinople (patriarch 428-431)*: _Concerning this: that it was needful that there should be a union of two natures, and that it was not right that it should take place otherwise._ For these reasons, then, and for similar causes, the incarnation of God took place justly: true God by nature and true man by nature. For there would not have been any [union] of these, if one of these natures had been left out. _The Bazaar of Heracleides_, (1925), Book I, Part I, Section 88


----------



## johnbugay

Armourbearer: When you say, 



> If Nestorius did in fact reject the concept of union then I must side with Cyril in opposing him.



I do take this in quite a different way than if you were to say something more in accord with what we know now about what Nestorius said. Cyril's activities with regard to that council have been mentioned here on at least a couple of occasions that I am aware of. 

There is a reason why this is a problem. And here's what Berkhof said in his Systematic Theology:



> Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius stressed the complete manhood of Christ, and conceived of the indwelling of the Logos in Him as a mere moral indwelling, such as believers also enjoy, although not to the same degree. They saw in Christ a man side by side with God, in alliance with God, sharing the purpose of God, but not one with Him in the oneness of a single personal life -- a Mediator consisting of two persons to him. (Berkhof, "Systematic Theology," pg. 307).



For as much as we respect Berkhof, (and it seems to me that you and many Reformed pastors may be using him as a source for your knowledge about Nestorius), we have to say that he did not have these beliefs of Theodore and Nestorius stated correctly. 

And admittedly this is a very complex situation. I'm writing this not primarily to argue with you, but to try and give some perspective to all of this. 

Theodore was a theologian in the school of Antioch, which stressed a hermeneutic that very much seems like our "grammatico-historical" hermeneutic. When I say "school of Antioch," this automatically sets up a contrast between "the School of Alexandria," which was more "mystical" and was less hesitant to rely on something like an allegorical hermeneutic to support their points. 

Nestorius was probably Theodore's student, who eventually became the "Patriarch of Constantinople." And again, there was a kind of political rivalry between Constantinople and Alexandria. (Cyril was patriarch of Alexandria).

Now, bear in mind that the entire previous century -- from 325-381 -- two major councils, major personalities in the history of the church, all writing and working to come to some kind of agreement on "the Doctrine of the Trinity," and even after that, with all of the disputes over words, there were still questions about how Christ could be both "God" and "Man". How the natures "worked together". 

In the fourth century, as Pastor King has noted up above, not all of the verbiage was theologically precise, and Cyril himself used words that he later condemned. If you were to go to the Council of Ephesus, you would still find Cyril (whose followers became the monophysites) making such distinctions as this: 



> *In a similar way we say that he suffered and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any other wounds in his own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is incapable of suffering), but because the body which became his own suffered these things, he is said to have suffered them for us. For he was without suffering, while his body suffered. *Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of God is of itself immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving, but since on the other hand his own body by God's grace, as the apostle says, tasted death for all, the Word is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he himself had experienced death as far as his own nature was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to say or to think that), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. So too, when his flesh was raised to life, we refer to this again as his resurrection, not as though he had fallen into corruption--God forbid--but because his body had been raised again. (2nd letter of Cyril, cited in Council of Ephesus



Soro, in his work quotes extensively from Theodore's "On the Creed," painstakingly outlining Theodore's line of thinking. Here is Soro's summary: 



> "Theodore lived in an atomosphere charged with "monophysite" teachings and other "heretical" tendencies. Teachings that emphasized the divine aspect of Christ's person while, at the same time, denied the fullness of his humanity, were representative of the period. On the one hand, Theodore's concern was to argue against these teachings and, consequently, he greatly stressed the fact that Jesus' humanity was true and perfect, bestowed with all the human faculties and operations, including a rational human soul. On the other hand, and in order to balance this approach, he taught that the second Person of the Trinity, God the Word, or the Only Begotten of God the Father, had a distinct nature from that which was "begotten of Mary" and born of the seed of David. At the same time, by virtue of of the very close and intimate union existing between the radically different natures, they did not constitute two sons but only one Son." (Soro summarizing Theodore, "The Church of the East," pg 211.)



For Theodore's Christology, he relies heavily on an exegesis of Phil 2, and also, "the Creed's crucial word is the verb "to become" (in the phrase "He was incarnate and became man."). Here is a quote directly from Theodore's document, "On the Creed," section 66:



> "The one who assumed is the Divine nature that does everything for us, and the other is the human nature which was assumed on behalf of all of us by the One who is the cause of everything, and is united to it in an ineffable union which will never be separated ... the Sacred Books also teach us this union, not only when they impart to us the knowledge of each nature but when they affirm that what is due to the one is also due to the other, so that we should understand the wonderfulness and the sublimity of the union that took place." (Theodore of Mopsuestia, "On the Creed," Section 6



It is hard to say just how this is any different from what the Reformed hold in the definition of Chalcedon, 



> we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.




But compare this (admittedly brief summary of Theodore,) with PCFlanagan's citations from Nestorius above, and consider what Berkhof said that they taught. 

But to go even further, Chalcedon was not the end of the story for Theodore and Nestorius, as the Council of Constantinople II (the 5th Ecumenical Council, 553 ad) mentioned these two by name:



> *If anyone defends the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that God the Word is one, while quite another is Christ, who was troubled by the passions of the soul and the desires of human flesh, was gradually separated from that which is inferior, and became better by his progress in good works, and could not be faulted in his way of life, and as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and through this baptism received the grace of the holy Spirit and came to deserve sonship and to be adored, in the way that one adores a statue of the emperor, as if he were God the Word, and that he became after his resurrection immutable in his thoughts and entirely without sin.* ... let him be anathema.
> 
> If anyone defends the heretical writings of Theodoret which were composed against the true faith, against the first holy synod of Ephesus and against holy Cyril and his Twelve Chapters, and also defends what Theodoret wrote to support the heretical Theodore and Nestorius and others who think in the same way as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius and accept them or their heresy and if anyone, because of them, shall accuse of being heretical the doctors of the church who have stated their belief in the union according to subsistence of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these heretical books and those who have thought or now think in this way, and all those who have written against the true faith or against holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, and who persist in such heresy until they die: let him be anathema.



Bear in mind that what I've bolded above, mis-stating what Theodore taught (there is much more at the link), was the teaching of a council, and was, according to Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) "recognized by popes and councils as an authentic expression of Catholic doctrine." (Ott pg 144.)

Someone in another thread said that "this was the worst kind of political posturing" in the church. It is far worse than that. It led to a far worse schism -- needlessly -- than any of the schisms following, whether that be the Greek/Roman split of 1054 or the Protestant Reformation.

We do not need to blindly follow what Berkhof said. We are able to investigate the sources, and "reform" our understanding of these types of things. 

Protestantism is capable of renewing its understanding of such things. But "infallible" bodies such as Rome and Constantinople are bound "infallibly" in their irreformable dogmas to the lies written into and voted into the faulty decisions of these councils. 

Sorry this is so long; I believe it is vitally important for Reformed believers, and especially Reformed scholars, to understand and explain these things.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> For as much as we respect Berkhof, (and it seems to me that you and many Reformed pastors may be using him as a source for your knowledge about Nestorius), we have to say that he did not have these beliefs of Theodore and Nestorius stated correctly.



Well, I am at a loss to understand why Berkhof's statement should be written off without any evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that you want to exonerate Nestorius and give him the most charitable reading possible, while at the same time you criticise reformed authors and give them the least charitable reading possible. As far as I can see, your method of dealing with this subject is by and large a-historical.



johnbugay said:


> In the fourth century, as Pastor King has noted up above, not all of the verbiage was theologically precise, and Cyril himself used words that he later condemned.



Be that as it may, the "verbiage" which was utilised was understood to convey a specific message, and the church of that time saw that a rejection of specific "verbiage" entailed a denial of a point which was essential to Christological orthodoxy.


----------



## TimV

One the one hand we have the testimony of some of the greatest mind the human race has ever produced, and over a period of a millennia and a half. On the other we have a hand full of people that I've never heard of (not that it means much) who say Nestorius was framed.

Well, I'm all for RESPONSIBLE historical revisionism, but it seems to me that the burden of proof would be on those who are claiming they have a new insight that those tens of thousands of scholars who have studied the subject in-depth over 15 centuries have somehow missed.



> I have cited several sources that say "Nestorius did not teach what he is historically charged with teaching." Do you disagree with the citations I've made of Moffett, Soro, and Kallistos? (And Pelikan, in an indirect way?)



Anyone can cite sources for anything. I can cite three sources that say the government brought down those towers on 9/11. From a layman who's been following this thread, I'll frankly demand the burden of proof be placed on the revisionists.

Tim *trying to keep an open mind, but struggling*


----------



## johnbugay

Armourbearer, TimV, and others who are watching this thread:

I want you all to know that I have the greatest respect for the Reformed faith – and that includes a great respect for a theologian like Berkhof, whose work has influenced generations of Reformed pastors and teachers. As well, I have the greatest respect for history, especially church history. 

I’m going to address a couple of comments here, but there is much more to say and I’m going to try to address that more thoroughly in another post.

But for now, Armourbearer said



> Well, I am at a loss to understand why Berkhof's statement should be written off without any evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that you want to exonerate Nestorius and give him the most charitable reading possible, while at the same time you criticise reformed authors and give them the least charitable reading possible. As far as I can see, your method of dealing with this subject is by and large a-historical.



Because Berkhof was factually wrong about what was taught, and as Christians, we should be most eager to be honest in our dealings with history.

In the first place, I can’t believe that you don’t accept the explanations of the historians and bishops that I’ve cited. I’ve quoted the entirety of Berkhof’s statement; it’s not as if he did a thorough job of presenting all of this. 

Too, Tim V. suggests he can cite three sources that think the government was responsible for 9/11. That is a totally unserious comment; I’m not citing certifiable kooks. Moffet (Princeton) and Pelikan (Yale) are leading historians, and they are conservative in nature. So I don’t understand how I am charged with being “a-historical” in this. These individuals are not “modern critical scholars”. They are conservatives. As well, Soro and Ware are both bishops in their respective communities. I am not citing kooks. 

And essentially, all four of these say “Nestorius is not guilty of teaching Nestorianism.” 

As for the factual nature of the teaching of Theodore and Nestorius, which Berkhof got wrong, because Theodore and Nestorius were on the wrong side of some church decisions, their writings were largely destroyed. This is not unheard of at all in Christian history. 

As well, large caches of writings of both of these individuals were discovered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; it is possible that Berkhof did not have access to at least some of these. (Some of Theodore’s writings were discovered as recently as 1932.)

Just to avoid the charge of “a-historicity” I’m going to take a little bit of extra time and really track down these sources.


Meanwhile, much of what I’m saying can be found in Loofs 1914 work on Nestorius. Loofs compiled the writings of Nestorius, and his 1914 work (found here on Google Books) goes into some detail about this.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> Because Berkhof was factually wrong about what was taught, and as Christians, we should be most eager to be honest in our dealings with history.



It appears you haven't spent as much time discovering what Berkhof taught in comparison to the time spent on what Nestorius taught. You should keep in mind that you have quoted from a Systematic Theology, and Systematics often employ names to simply represent a position which is known to history without entering into the historical merits of a debate. To discover what Berkhof taught on Historical Theology you are obliged to read what he wrote on Historical Theology, which can be found in his "History of Christian Doctrines."

Were you to read that work you would discover that Berkhof draws a distinction between Nestorius and the Nestorian conclusion. He bases his criticism of Nestorius on the undisputed fact that Nestorius denied the "theotokos." Whatever one may say in Nestorius' defence it is clear that he rejected this part of Christian orthodoxy.

The only inevitable conclusion of this denial is a separation of the human and divine as two persons, leaving us with a mere human Saviour. Nestorius was obviously unwilling to draw this conclusion, and merely hinted at it in certain statements that he made; nevertheless, a man is accountable for the fruits of his teaching, and therefore the catholic church has held Nestorius accountable for consequences for which he was unwilling to take responsibility.



johnbugay said:


> Just to avoid the charge of “a-historicity” I’m going to take a little bit of extra time and really track down these sources.



Perhaps you could also take some time to set Nestorius in his context, note the school from which he came and the school to which he gave birth, and take some account of the work of the Holy Spirit in the church and the gradual development of dogma.


----------



## johnbugay

> It appears you haven't spent as much time discovering what Berkhof taught in comparison to the time spent on what Nestorius taught. You should keep in mind that you have quoted from a Systematic Theology, and Systematics often employ names to simply represent a position which is known to history without entering into the historical merits of a debate. To discover what Berkhof taught on Historical Theology you are obliged to read what he wrote on Historical Theology, which can be found in his "History of Christian Doctrines."



I have this work and I have consulted it, and I continue to find the 1 1/2 pages he devoted to this topic to be woefully inadequate.

(Nor does the explanation he gives in this work negate that what he wrote in his Systematic is factually not correct.)



> Were you to read that work you would discover that Berkhof draws a distinction between Nestorius and the Nestorian conclusion.



I did read the work; I'm glad that he "draws a distinction between Nestorius and the Nestorian conclusion." But even that is insufficient. 

The "Nestorian Conclusion" (i.e., the Nestorian heresy) is not something that Nestorius taught, nor is it anything that anyone believed. (Although Berkhof did say, "the followers of Nestorius did not hesitate to draw the conclusion.")

To show you just how inadequate that is, let me give you what Berkhof presents as "the Nestorian conclusion" and you tell me where anyone believed this:



> (Citing Berkhof): "Following in the footsteps of Theodore, Nestorius denied that the term "theotokos" could properly be applied to Mary for the simple reason that she only brought forth a man who was accompanied by the Logos. Although Nestorius did not draw the inevitable conclusion that followed from this position, his opponent, Cyril, held him responsible for that conclusion. He pointed out (a) that, If Mary is not 'theotokos,' that is, the mother of one person, and that person divine, the assumption of a single being into fellowship with the logos is substituted for the incarnation of God ; and (b) that, if Mary is not 'theotokos,' the relation of Christ to humanity is changed, and He is no more the effectual Redeemer of mankind. The followers of Nestorius did not hesitate to draw the conclusion. (Berkhof, "History of Christian Doctrines," 104)



There are many things wrong with this.

1. The most obvious is that Nestorius was condemned for a conclusion he didn't draw, based on a position that he did not hold. Do you believe that is a good thing to have done? Berkhof evidently gives his support to this.

Which "followers of Nestorius" went around saying, "Christ is no more the effectual Redeemer of mankind"? For that matter, which followers of Nestorius went around saying, "the assumption of a single being into fellowship with the logos..."? 

Berkhof does not at all provide examples of what Nestorius actually taught. However, his name is attached to a "heresy" that he never taught, which nobody ever believed. Do you believe that is a good thing? This is the position you (and Berkhof) are espousing. (Keep in mind that there were plenty of real heresies at that time that plenty of real people were espousing. But that was not enough; a heresy had to be invented and then attributed to Nestorius in order for Cyril to get his way.) 

2. In the words of Soro, then, *"...the sentences of the Council (of Ephesus) simply condemned a heresy with content that was not specified. Interestingly, the issue of the 'Theotokos' is not presented as a charge against Nestorius," even though it was the question that that ignited this controversy.*"

If the issue was not brought up at Ephesus, why does Berkhof bring it up as THE reason for condemning Nestorius?

Continuing with Soro: "The sham tribunal presented two witnesses who reportedly could attest to some damaging and scandalous remarks that Nestorius had made, but there was no authoritative verification of their accusations. Furthermore, the grounds of the accusation had not been submitted for verification by an impartial court. The absence of the accused made that even more necessary." (Soro, pg 254, citing DeHalleux, "Nestorius: History and Doctrine": A. Stirnemann & G. Wilflinger (eds.), Vienna, 1994.)


3. "Theotokos" is properly translated "bearer of God," that is to say, from the moment of Christ's virginal conception, Christ was God present on earth. I don't think anyone has a problem to say that.

As a bit of history, Pelikan gives the "earliest incontestable instance of the term Theotokos" in the encyclical of Alexander of Alexandria directed against Arianism in 324. 

The problem occurs, and Nestorius was in a position to see that it was not sufficient to use that word as it applied only to Christ. Others DID draw other conclusions from that word and began to apply them to Mary. You know, and we all know, that this word was used as a wedge to open up the whole world of Marian devotions (to which I am sure you do not subscribe.)

Nestorius "explains numerous times why he avoids the assertion that God the Word was born of the holy Virgin. He instead maintains that": 



> He who is God the Word has surely passed through (the virgin) but was surely not born, because he derived not his origin from her. But there both exists and is named one Christ, the two of them being united, he who was born of the Father in the divinity, (and) of the holy virgin in the humanity, for there was a union of the two natures. ... God the Word existed in the body, in that which he took the beginning of its coming into being from the blessed Mary, (yet) he took not the beginning of his coming into being. "In the beginning was the Word," and God the Word exists eternally." (Soro, 251, citing Book of Heraclides).



Do you deny that "In the beginning was the Word"? Or that "God the Word exists eternally"? If not, then welcome to genuine "Nestorianism." 

Soro goes on to explain, "It is in such a context that Nestorius would accept the communicatio idiomatum as expressed in the term Theotokos, and even then, as mentioned above, only with reservation. For the Antiochians, to adhere to such a term without first providing safeguards that affirm the full and authentic humanity of the Lord and his real consubstantiality with every other human being, would lead to a fundamentally Monophysite conception of the union with Christ. (Soro, 251 -- and we know that Cyril's Alexandria DID not long afterward become Monophysite in total. And of course, we know that the rest of the Greco/Roman church did fall off the ledge in terms of Marian devotion after that as well.) 

You wrote: 



> The only inevitable conclusion of this denial is a separation of the human and divine as two persons, leaving us with a mere human Saviour. Nestorius was obviously unwilling to draw this conclusion, and merely hinted at it in certain statements that he made; nevertheless, a man is accountable for the fruits of his teaching, and therefore the catholic church has held Nestorius accountable for consequences for which he was unwilling to take responsibility.



*Perhaps you could say precisely how "the only inevitable conclusion" is "a separation of the human and divine as two persons, leaving us with a mere human savior".* I've cited Cyril's own words from Ephesus up above, saying that "In a similar way we say that he suffered and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any other wounds in his own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is incapable of suffering), but because the body which became his own suffered these things, he is said to have suffered them for us." Is that not to say that "we have a mere human savior"? It clearly is to say "only the human part of Christ suffered and died." 

So how is the "conclusion" that Cyril foisted on Nestorius (and which Berkhof evidently reported in an unquestioning way) any different from what Cyril said right here? 

Whose word are you taking that it is "the only inevitable conclusion"? Why are there not other conclusions? And further, why is a man condemned on someone else's word about such a thing as "the only inevitable conclusion"? Indeed, why is the whole Eastern branch of the church condemned for this? 

Did you at all consult with Nestorius's own treatment of this? Berkhof clearly did not provide it. What about Nestorius's own conclusions? 

You wrote: 



> Perhaps you could also take some time to set Nestorius in his context, note the school from which he came and the school to which he gave birth, and take some account of the work of the Holy Spirit in the church and the gradual development of dogma.



I do intend to do this.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> 1. The most obvious is that Nestorius was condemned for a conclusion he didn't draw, based on a position that he did not hold. Do you believe that is a good thing to have done? Berkhof evidently gives his support to this.



Yes; and the reason why it is good rests in the way in which dogma develops throughout the history of the church. Doctrines emerge in connection with each other, and various tenets are found to stand beside other more fundamental teachings as supports for them. Hence, as I have urged, you need to look at the man, the terms he uses, and the things he denied, within the context of the time and place in which he functioned. Regrettably, however, you continue to engage in a-historical analysis as if Nestorius functioned within a 20th century setting.



johnbugay said:


> 2. In the words of Soro, then, *"...the sentences of the Council (of Ephesus) simply condemned a heresy with content that was not specified. Interestingly, the issue of the 'Theotokos' is not presented as a charge against Nestorius," even though it was the question that that ignited this controversy.*"
> 
> If the issue was not brought up at Ephesus, why does Berkhof bring it up as THE reason for condemning Nestorius?



Because the doctrinal issue stands or falls here.



johnbugay said:


> 3. "Theotokos" is properly translated "bearer of God," that is to say, from the moment of Christ's virginal conception, Christ was God present on earth. I don't think anyone has a problem to say that.



Nestorius had a problem saying that.



johnbugay said:


> Do you deny that "In the beginning was the Word"? Or that "God the Word exists eternally"? If not, then welcome to genuine "Nestorianism."



It is at this point that you expose your doctrinal weakness. The hypostatical union is the alternative, not Nestorianism.



johnbugay said:


> *Perhaps you could say precisely how "the only inevitable conclusion" is "a separation of the human and divine as two persons, leaving us with a mere human savior".*



Read Larger Catechism answer 40.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> Hence, as I have urged, you need to look at the man, the terms he uses, and the things he denied, within the context of the time and place in which he functioned. Regrettably, however, you continue to engage in a-historical analysis as if Nestorius functioned within a 20th century setting.



We can start with the term _theotokos_ as applied to Mary. We Protestants like to translate this as "God-bearer" when the more traditional rendering has been "Mother of God." While this may be an inaccurate translation, it was the error that Nestorius was trying to guard against because he saw the implications. He didn't reject the term outright, instead suggesting that it was prone to misinterpretation.

We might think of this as being similar to the term "real presence": while yes, we might admit that the term, understood properly, accurately describes the nature of the Lord's Supper, we don't use the term because of its misuse by Catholics and Lutherans. 



> It is at this point that you expose your doctrinal weakness. The hypostatical union is the alternative, not Nestorianism.



I think that's his point: Chalcedonian orthodoxy is what Nestorius taught--it just wasn't as refined as Chalcedon would make it. As I recall, the followers of Cyril were condemned at Chalcedon. In reading Nestorius' writings, it seems he was aware of the Council of Chalcedon and applauded it. He comes across (at least to me) as a very humble man who is more concerned that the truth be known than that his reputation be upheld.



> But I was content to endure the things whereof they accused me, in order that, while I was accused thereof, they might accept without hindrance the teaching of the Fathers; for I have no word [to say] concerning what was committed against me.


----------



## DTK

P. F. Pugh said:


> I think that's his point: Chalcedonian orthodoxy is what Nestorius taught--it just wasn't as refined as Chalcedon would make it. As I recall, the followers of Cyril were condemned at Chalcedon. In reading Nestorius' writings, it seems he was aware of the Council of Chalcedon and applauded it. He comes across (at least to me) as a very humble man who is more concerned that the truth be known than that his reputation be upheld.
> 
> 
> 
> And I think someone needs a history lesson or two.
> 
> DTK
Click to expand...


----------



## Philip

I'll just refer you to what Nestorius actually said: Bazaar of Heracleides

I'm running across a distinction--what exactly is the difference between the prosopic union and the hypostatic union of Chalcedon? The terms seem extremely similar.


----------



## DTK

P. F. Pugh said:


> I'll just refer you to what Nestorius actually said: Bazaar of Heracleides
> 
> I'm running across a distinction--what exactly is the difference between the prosopic union and the hypostatic union of Chalcedon? The terms seem extremely similar.



You're going to have to do more than refer me to the above work by Nestorius when you suggest that "the followers of Cyril were condemned at Chalcedon" and that Nestorius was aware of the proceedings of Chalcedon, which is why I suggested the needed lesson(s) in Church history. And your question, "what exactly is the difference between the prosopic union and the hypostatic union of Chalcedon?" betrays the need for such. The prosopic (πρόσωπον) union was Cyril's stress on the unity of the person of Christ, whereas the hypostatic union of Chalcedon stressed the union of the two natures of Christ in one person. The Chalcedonian definition stated that Christ... 


> "was begotten by the Father before all ages according to His divinity and, in these latter days, He was born for us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin, the Θεοτόκος according to His humanity; one single and same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation (ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστόν, Υἱόν, Κύριον, μονογενῆ, ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζομένον); the difference of natures is in no way suppressed by their union, but rather the properties of each are retained and united in one single person (πρόσωπον) and single hypostasis; He is neither separated nor divided in two persons, but He is a single and same only-begotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, such as He was announced formerly by the prophets, such as He Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, taught us about Himself and such as the symbol of the fathers has transmitted to us. See Peter L'Huillier, _The Church of the Ancient Councils_, p. 194.



The Council of Chalcedon employed various materials for its official definition on the person of Christ from a number of different quarters/sources, including principally the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, as well as his letter to the Antiochians with the Formula of Union of 433, the Tome of Leo, and Flavian's profession of faith, and stressed the point that the unity of Christ must be sought, not on the level of natures, but on the level of the person of Christ. Yes, people like Theodoret (who was sympathetic to Nestorius) felt vindicated by Chalcedon, but Chalcedon did not condemn the followers of Cyril. Moreover, Nestorius was either dead (or at any rate, near death...some suggest he died in 436 AD, some suggest 451 AD when Chalcedon convened) at the time of this Council, and certainly could not have expressed familiarity with its proceedings in any of his writings.

I guess I never cease to be amazed at how college students will weigh into discussions without even understanding (among other things) the chronology involved in such historical events; and then assume the posture of instructing, older, wiser, learned elders in Christ's church, such as Rev. Winzer, who is a seasoned minister, and who is obviously well read historically, if not minutely, on this subject. If you would assume the posture of a student rather than a lecturer of this man, you might profit from what he has to say. I encourage you to do so. Then if you disagree with him, so be it, but at least demonstrate first some acquaintance historically with the Council of Chalcedon.

DTK

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Philip

The reason I am asking is because the main argument of the _Bazaar_ is arguing for the prosopic union. If such was Cyril's argument, then what was the debate about really?

As for the Church history, I'm relying on the scholarly introduction to the text which suggests that he most probably died around 451 and knew at least of the banishment of Dioscorus I, Pope of Alexandria (student of Cyril). The text also refers to the death of Theodosius II in 450. 

This is Nestorius on the prosopic union:



Bazaar I said:


> 58. That as also God the Word is conceived to have become flesh and the flesh is one, and there are not two fleshes, so also the flesh is Son and there are not two Sons.
> 
> / Is it not as if the Word were Son only in so far as he became flesh? Since he took the flesh in his own prosôpon, he became flesh and the flesh was God because of the prosôpon of the Word, in such wise that God the Word is said to be flesh and man, while the flesh is called the Son of God. For until he took the flesh in his own prosôpon and was revealed therein, he was called Son on account of the divinity: in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; everything came into being through him, and without him also nothing whatever came into being. But since he became flesh in taking the flesh, he was named after both of them in both of them, but as though he were one in both of them, not [in both] in nature, but in the one indeed in nature but in the other in prosôpon by adoption as well as by revelation. The Son was revealed in flesh, being similar to his Father: / and my Father are one, he says in a manner demonstrative of his own prosôpon. . . .
> . . . . For he who does not remain in his own ousia can neither / be emptied nor diminished nor even raised above all names. Therefore has he said 'the likeness' and 'the name' which it has taken, which indicates a prosôpon as of one; and this same name and prosôpon make the two of them to be understood; and the distinction of nature, one hypostasis and one prosôpon,50 is theirs, the one being known by the other and the other by the one, so that the one is by adoption what the other is by nature and the other is with the one in the body. As a king and a lord, who has taken the prosôpon of a servant as his own prosôpon and gives his prosôpon to the servant and makes known that he is the other and the other he, is content to be abased in the prosôpon of the servant while the servant is revered in the prosôpon of the lord and king, and for this reason, even though I should not have said the one for the other nor the other for the one, it is so with both of them who are one and possess the same prosôpon ----[so] are these things in regard to the two natures which are distinct in ousia but are united by love and in the same prosôpon.



What we have here, I think, is the expression of two natures in one person--maybe I just don't understand the prosopon clearly. If Nestorius was mistaken, he was less mistaken than his enemies made him out to be--certainly not worth splitting the church over (as stated before, the Patriarchate-Catholicate of Seleucia never accepted the decision due to the irregular procedure).


----------



## P.F.

PFP: Eutychianism/Monophysitism may indeed be a danger of Cyril's emphasis, but I don't think many folks would view Eutychians or Monophysites as legitimate followers of Cyril. Do you see some reason to think of them that way?


----------



## timmopussycat

DTK said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just refer you to what Nestorius actually said: Bazaar of Heracleides
> 
> I'm running across a distinction--what exactly is the difference between the prosopic union and the hypostatic union of Chalcedon? The terms seem extremely similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have to do more than refer me to the above work by Nestorius when you suggest that "the followers of Cyril were condemned at Chalcedon" and that Nestorius was aware of the proceedings of Chalcedon, which is why I suggested the needed lesson(s) in Church history. And your question, "what exactly is the difference between the prosopic union and the hypostatic union of Chalcedon?" betrays the need for such. The prosopic (πρόσωπον) union was Cyril's stress on the unity of the person of Christ, whereas the hypostatic union of Chalcedon stressed the union of the two natures of Christ in one person. The Chalcedonian definition stated that Christ...
> 
> 
> 
> "was begotten by the Father before all ages according to His divinity and, in these latter days, He was born for us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin, the Θεοτόκος according to His humanity; one single and same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation (ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστόν, Υἱόν, Κύριον, μονογενῆ, ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζομένον); the difference of natures is in no way suppressed by their union, but rather the properties of each are retained and united in one single person (πρόσωπον) and single hypostasis; He is neither separated nor divided in two persons, but He is a single and same only-begotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, such as He was announced formerly by the prophets, such as He Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, taught us about Himself and such as the symbol of the fathers has transmitted to us. See Peter L'Huillier, _The Church of the Ancient Councils_, p. 194.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Council of Chalcedon employed various materials for its official definition on the person of Christ from a number of different quarters/sources, including principally the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, as well as his letter to the Antiochians with the Formula of Union of 433, the Tome of Leo, and Flavian's profession of faith, and stressed the point that the unity of Christ must be sought, not on the level of natures, but on the level of the person of Christ. Yes, people like Theodoret (who was sympathetic to Nestorius) felt vindicated by Chalcedon, but Chalcedon did not condemn the followers of Cyril. Moreover, Nestorius was either dead (or at any rate, near death...some suggest he died in 436 AD, some suggest 451 AD when Chalcedon convened) at the time of this Council, and certainly could not have expressed familiarity with its proceedings in any of his writings.
Click to expand...


At least one discussion has dates Nestorius death at 451 (after the Council), see The Lynching of Nestorius

-----Added 10/14/2009 at 04:47:03 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Be that as it may, if Nestorius or anyone denies the union of the two natures, he is to be considered Christologically unorthodox, whatever party he happens to belong to.



The $64,000 question is not whether Nestorius used vocabulary to define his concepts that at first glance looks heretical (in the light of subseqent Chalcedonian developments) but whether or not Nestorius used his terms to formulate the doctrinal point later established at Chalcedon. He may not use the phrase "two natures in one person" that sums up the Chalcedonian position, but did he mean to teach what Chalcedon meant by "...the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us."?

If Nestorius, although using different words, can be shown to be teaching a subtially Chalcedonian position wrt the nature of Christ, than a charge of heresy against him cannot be sustained and should not be mounted. 

Such primary source evidence as has been posted here in post #27 suggests that Nestorius was teaching substantially the same position that Chalcedon later codified. Anybody who wishes to affirm the contrary ought to present primary source evidence to that effect. For given the irregularities of his opponents' actions, should we really trust their account of N's teaching against the man's own teaching when apparently competent historical revisionism is increasingly giving us grounds to be sceptical?


----------



## DTK

timmopussycat said:


> At least one discussion has dates Nestorius death at 451 (after the Council), see The Lynching of Nestorius



Yes, but that is pure speculation, and one would be very hard pressed to prove that any of Nestorius' writings were post-Chalcedon. Granted not impossible, but highly unlikely. Moreover, Nestorius was not at that Council, and it's not as though he was living in the days of electronic communication of documents and conciliar decrees. 

Moreover, the language of Cyril and Nestorius was very nuanced, making both of them difficult to understand. For the most part, I'm convinced that the two of them were talking past one another, and that there was more of a personality conflict than anything at work between the two men. I recommend the two chapters on Nestorius and Cyril in G. L. Prestige, _Fathers and Heretics: Six Studies in Dogmatic Faith with Prologue and Epilogue_ (London: S.P.C.K., 1958).

But councils are a different story, and the language of Chalcedon refined the language of Ephesus. But, even here, you have Eastern Orthodox theologians themselves who disagree as to whose language was corrected by Chalcedon. This can be seen in the two quotes below. 



> *Meyendorff: *The Chalcedonian definition of 451—two natures united in one hypostasis, yet retaining in full their respective characteristics—was therefore a necessary correction of Cyril’s vocabulary. Permanent credit should be given to the Antiochians—especially to Theodoret—and to Leo of Rome for having shown the necessity of this correction, without which Cyrillian Christology could easily be, and actually was, interpreted in a Monophysite sense by Eutyches and his followers. John Meyendorff, _Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes_, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 33.
> 
> *John A. McGuckin:* But this, nothing else, is what the Chalcedonian text teaches, at least when it is read apart from the Leonine Tome, which has too often been taken as its exegetical commentary, but rather should be taken out of the interpretive picture since the Chalcedonian symbol was more in the manner of a corrective of Leo than a substantiation of him. This can be seen nowhere more clearly than in the verbal form which drives that whole central clause containing the four adverbs qualifying ‘in two natures’. It is none other than ‘Gnorizomenon’: ‘made known to the intellect.’ Chalcedon, therefore, teaches that Christ is ‘made known (to the intellect) in two natures’. It does not simply teach that ‘Christ is in two natures’ as the Antiochene system had suggested. Those who do not recognize or understand the importance of the difference are those who have not followed the whole fifth century Christological debate, but this certainly did not include the bishops present at Chalcedon. And so, the Chalcedonian decree, at this critical juncture, is clearly and deliberately, a profession of Cyril’s understanding of the union and, again, largely on his terms. The ‘made known’ of Chalcedon is substantially the ‘notional scrutiny’ (oson men heken eis ennoian) of Cyril’s First Letter to Succensus. Even when Cyril’s terminology was felt to be in need of correction, or clarification, whether to placate the West, or to exclude a Eutyches or a Dioscorus, it was instinctively to Cyril that they turned to supply the correction. John A. McGuckin, _St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology and Texts_ (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994 ), p. 240.



Having read both works above, I tend to favor Meyendorff's assessment over that of McGuckin's, because the latter (at least in my opinion) seems to be filled with inordinate praise for Cyril, as if the man could do nothing wrong. 

Now, to be sure, there were hermeneutical tendencies on the part of both schools that caused a rift between Alexandrian (more allegorical) and Antiochian (more literal) methods of exegesis. But Theophilus of Alexandria (along with his nephew Cyril) had a hand in seeing John Chrysostom (an Antiochian) deposed as bishop of Constantinople; and then when Cyril succeeded his uncle as bishop of Alexandria, he proceeded on the same track of behavior to see Nestorius (another Antiochian) deposed as the bishop of Constantinople as well.

But a mere reading of the works of the two men (Cyril and Nestorius) requires a great deal of reflection and thought, as a number of patristic scholars have indicated. I suppose that Prestige is as good as any to read on the dispute between the two men.

DTK


----------



## timmopussycat

DTK said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least one discussion has dates Nestorius death at 451 (after the Council), see The Lynching of Nestorius
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that is pure speculation, and one would be very hard pressed to prove that any of Nestorius' writings were post-Chalcedon. Granted not impossible, but highly unlikely. Moreover, Nestorius was not at that Council, and it's not as though he was living in the days of electronic communication of documents and conciliar decrees.
Click to expand...


No, but he was living in the days of the imperal postal service, which if I recall my source correctly, could in the Roman days of a century or so earlier, transmit a despatch from Rome to Palestine in well under a month. Unless you know of a substantial degredation in the imperial postal system in the east, I don't think we can presume anything substantially longer for the news of Chalcedon to spread empire wide.


----------



## DTK

timmopussycat said:


> No, but he was living in the days of the imperal postal service, which if I recall my source correctly, could in the Roman days of a century or so earlier, transmit a despatch from Rome to Palestine in well under a month. Unless you know of a substantial degredation in the imperial postal system in the east, I don't think we can presume anything substantially longer for the news of Chalcedon to spread empire wide.


Wow, then we can presume that dispatches flowed this flawlessly empire wide! 

DTK


----------



## P.F.

Timmo:

Perhaps a better measure is the speed with which the Roman bishop "ratified" Chalcedon's canons. You are doubtless aware that he did not do so until March of 453. I certainly don't think the ancient world was waiting around to see whether and to what extent the Roman bishop weighed in, but the languor of that bishop's response does not suggest that the news of Chalcedon was spread with the utmost haste.


----------



## Philip

> Yes, but that is pure speculation, and one would be very hard pressed to prove that any of Nestorius' writings were post-Chalcedon.



Actually, the _Bazaar_, which I quoted, refers to events that happened at Chalcedon. Unless we're willing to say that the _Bazaar_ is a Syriac forgery, it's implausible that he was not familiar with the proceedings of Chalcedon. As his place of exile was a monastery near Antioch, it's probable that he would have been very familiar with developments of the day.



> Moreover, the language of Cyril and Nestorius was very nuanced, making both of them difficult to understand. For the most part, I'm convinced that the two of them were talking past one another, and that there was more of a personality conflict than anything at work between the two men.



Oh, I agree. I do think that in Cyril's case, he was trying to attack the Antiochene School by attacking its most prominent student. The rivalry in the east between the Antiochene and Alexandrian Schools is fairly well-documented (and, in the end, fruitful as the conflict between the two produced the Chalcedonian Creed).


----------



## P.F.

"Actually, the Bazaar, which I quoted, refers to events that happened at Chalcedon."

Would you please provide an example? If you did earlier, I missed it.


----------



## timmopussycat

PCFLANAGAN said:


> Timmo:
> 
> Perhaps a better measure is the speed with which the Roman bishop \"ratified\" Chalcedon's canons. You are doubtless aware that he did not do so until March of 453. I certainly don't think the ancient world was waiting around to see whether and to what extent the Roman bishop weighed in, but the languor of that bishop's response does not suggest that the news of Chalcedon was spread with the utmost haste.



Actually the date of Leo's response isn't a better measure of the speed with which news travelled in the Byzantine empire: the canons, specifically the
28th canon presented Leo with a major political problem as it raised Constantinople to equal status with Rome. Leo seems to have taken a while to decide how to finesse this: he eventually accepted the first 27 canons and rejected the 28th. 

And it seems I have misremembered my sources. Although the Roman postal service was inherited by the Byzantines and remained as effective as it had been earlier, it would have taken slightly less than 2 months for a Rome Palestine dispatch, which means that a dispatch going out from Constantinople would reach the fringes of the Byzantine empire in about the same time. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_publicus
for why we may legitimately assume that dispatches flowed routinely if not flawlessly empire wide at the rate of 50 miles per day. 

-----Added 10/14/2009 at 06:24:08 EST-----



PCFLANAGAN said:


> \"Actually, the Bazaar, which I quoted, refers to events that happened at Chalcedon.\"
> 
> Would you please provide an example? If you did earlier, I missed it.



One may find the introduction to the Bazaar online at 
Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.iii-xxxv.* Introduction

The introduction contains the following paragraph. 

"The book must have been written by Nestorius in the year 451 or 452, seeing that there are references to the death of Theodosius II in 450, and to the flight of Dioscorus of Alexandria. Dioscorus was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but though formally deposed by the Council in October of that year was not condemned to banishment until the following July. On the other hand, Nestorius, though speaking of the triumph of the orthodox faith of Flavian and Leo, does not seem to be aware of the formal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. It appears, therefore, that Dioscorus must have fled when the Council decided against him, and that when Nestorius wrote he must have heard of his flight, but not of the formal decision of the Council or of the imperial decree by which sentence of exile was pronounced upon him."

If this is correct it dates N's last emendation of the Bazzar to sometime betwen mid November 451 and early 452.


----------



## DTK

P. F. Pugh said:


> Actually, the _Bazaar_, which I quoted, refers to events that happened at Chalcedon. Unless we're willing to say that the _Bazaar_ is a Syriac forgery, it's implausible that he was not familiar with the proceedings of Chalcedon. As his place of exile was a monastery near Antioch, it's probable that he would have been very familiar with developments of the day.


In his summary of the life of Nestorius, Paul Bedjan makes the point that in the _Bazaar_, Nestorius "knew the celebrated letter of Leo and who speaks at such length of the Robber-synod of Ephesus in 449, is silent about Marcian, silent about the Council of Chalcedon at which he was again condemned..."

Moreover, although he was permitted initially to return to the vicinity of Antioch for 4 or 5 years, he was sent on order of the emperor into exile at the Oasis, in the Thebaid, i.e., to a monastery in the Great Oasis of Hibis (al-Khargah). This was in the middle of the Libyan desert of Egypt, at the most southern oasis, so I disagree with your suggested "probability."

DTK


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> If Nestorius, although using different words, can be shown to be teaching a subtially Chalcedonian position wrt the nature of Christ, than a charge of heresy against him cannot be sustained and should not be mounted.



We seem to have leaped back into modern times again. The fact is that a charge of heresy has been substantiated against Nestorius in the times in which he lived. Our method of examining the evidence must reflect a case that has already been tried. Regrettably modern scholars come to the facts of the case as if it were still open, which results in the evaluation of evidence which was not part of the original case and the omission of evidence which was essential to the original case.

I accept that Nestorius might not have declared everything that was charged against him; hence I am only prepared to use a conditional statement concerning his apparent maintenance of "two persons." But the evidence which does exist fails to exnonerate him, and that for three reasons.

1. He denied the orthodox language of the time at the precise point where it comes to bear on orthodox Christology. "Theotokos" simply cannot be cast aside as the language of Mariolatry; it was the orthodox way of representing soteriological truth in an incarnation model of salvation; much in the same way the reformed speak of the infinite value of the atonement.

2. He used language which hints at "two persons." At times he even used the plural "prosopa." Scholars have suggested this can be explained away on the basis of Aristotelian categories of existence. That may be the case; but the fact is he used language which gave the distinct impression that Christ was two persons.

3. His overall theological concerns cannot be reconciled with the strong emphasis on union which later came to be identified with Christological orthodoxy.

Obviously it was a period of development. Cyril himself made statements which later Christology would find suspect. But history is history; we should simply read it, not revise it. Cyril was found to be within mainline orthodoxy, however closely he walked on the edge of it; and Nestorius was found to be outside the mainline. Any evaluation of the period must focus on this reality.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> We can start with the term _theotokos_ as applied to Mary. We Protestants like to translate this as "God-bearer" when the more traditional rendering has been "Mother of God." While this may be an inaccurate translation, it was the error that Nestorius was trying to guard against because he saw the implications. He didn't reject the term outright, instead suggesting that it was prone to misinterpretation.



Matthew 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

The son brought forth by the Virgin is "God with us." The catholic tradition (including the reformed catholic tradition) takes seriously the nativity revelation of Matthew and Luke. Nestorius' failure to affirm this key element of the incarnation is bound to become a problem for anyone who undertakes to defend him.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Nestorius, although using different words, can be shown to be teaching a subtially Chalcedonian position wrt the nature of Christ, than a charge of heresy against him cannot be sustained and should not be mounted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to have leaped back into modern times again. The fact is that a charge of heresy has been substantiated against Nestorius in the times in which he lived. Our method of examining the evidence must reflect a case that has already been tried. Regrettably modern scholars come to the facts of the case as if it were still open, which results in the evaluation of evidence which was not part of the original case and the omission of evidence which was essential to the original case.
Click to expand...


The attitude that once a theological judgment once made by the church is not capable of being revisited when prima facie views of evidence that is either not known or not presented in the original court turns up, is simply inconsistent with the stances Reformed Theology has taken elsewhere. We do not, for example, presume that we may not reexamine the Roman doctrine of the Mass because the doctrine is already established. Nor can we assume that Councils get it always right. I think it was the Bainton bio of Luther that noted that it was when Martin Luther discovered two solidly "evangelical" (his word) propositions of Hus that were condemned by the council of Constance that he showed that councils could not have final authority in the church. 

Moreover on biblical standards, it is an injustice to condemn a man for a doctrine he does not hold. 

If N's own writings show Chalcedonian orthodoxy wrt to the nature of Christ, his differing position concerning how to name Mary must be shown by GNC to be heresy before he can be condemned as heretical. Given the circumstances of the council that promulgated the title "theotokos" I trust you will not think it unChristian to ask, following Luther's example and the requirement of WCF 1 vi, x, for Scriptural proof that N's substitute title for Mary *necessarily* leads to heresy. Does anyone know where such a proof is attempted?


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> The attitude that once a theological judgment once made by the church is not capable of being revisited when prima facie views of evidence that is either not known or not presented in the original court turns up, is simply inconsistent with the stances Reformed Theology has taken elsewhere. We do not, for example, presume that we may not reexamine the Roman doctrine of the Mass because the doctrine is already established. Nor can we assume that Councils get it always right. I think it was the Bainton bio of Luther that noted that it was when Martin Luther discovered two solidly "evangelical" (his word) propositions of Hus that were condemned by the council of Constance that he showed that councils could not hae final authority in the church.
> 
> Moreover on biblical standards, it is an injustice to condemn a man for a doctrine he does not hold.
> 
> If N's own writings show Chalcedonian orthodoxy wrt to the nature of Christ, his reservations concerning how to name Mary must be shown by GNC to be heresy before he can be condemned for it. It would help if someone could set forth a place where such demonstration is attempted.



On paragraph one, you are speaking to the wrong issue. I am not denying the responsibility of the modern church to evaluate the history. I am denying the ability to revise the history. Modern evangelicals continually confound those two things, so I suppose I have to show some indulgence to your zeal for the fallibility of human councils.

On paragraph two, that is a truism, and it applies as equally to condemning a council for acting in the interests of Christian truth.

On paragraph three, good and necessary consequence only applies in a closed world of facts. It applies to the Bible because the fulness of the Bible as a revelation fom God specifically implies truths which are not expressly stated. Good and necessary consequence would be dangerous to apply to fallible and limited human statements. What we must determine is whether Nestorius' rejection of the theotokos was a rejection of an important part of Christological orthodoxy of that time. Given the incarnational model of salvation, the answer to that question is affirmative.


----------



## Philip

DTK said:


> Moreover, although he was permitted initially to return to the vicinity of Antioch for 4 or 5 years, he was sent on order of the emperor into exile at the Oasis, in the Thebaid, i.e., to a monastery in the Great Oasis of Hibis (al-Khargah). This was in the middle of the Libyan desert of Egypt, at the most southern oasis, so I disagree with your suggested "probability."



Oops--regardless, Egypt was also a major center of Christianity, plus it was the breadbasket of the Empire. News would still have traveled fast there.



armourbearer said:


> Regrettably modern scholars come to the facts of the case as if it were still open, which results in the evaluation of evidence which was not part of the original case and the omission of evidence which was essential to the original case.



The church of the time was divided on the validity of the proceedings. Hence the immediate counter-council called by John of Antioch, which exonerated Nestorius and defrocked Cyril. The emperor banished both Cyril and Nestorius but was later persuaded to reinstate Cyril and banish Nestorius to Egypt--under Cyril's watchful eye.



> He denied the orthodox language of the time at the precise point where it comes to bear on orthodox Christology. "Theotokos" simply cannot be cast aside as the language of Mariolatry; it was the orthodox way of representing soteriological truth in an incarnation model of salvation; much in the same way the reformed speak of the infinite value of the atonement.



He didn't deny its validity as a technical theological term any more than we reject the validity of the term "real presence." The trouble was that he saw it as being a bit ambiguous and leading to error (in which he was justified), preferring a term that emphasized both humanity _and_ divinity.



> His overall theological concerns cannot be reconciled with the strong emphasis on union which later came to be identified with Christological orthodoxy.



I think the quote which I presented in post 27 answers this.



> The son brought forth by the Virgin is "God with us." The catholic tradition (including the reformed catholic tradition) takes seriously the nativity revelation of Matthew and Luke. Nestorius' failure to affirm this key element of the incarnation is bound to become a problem for anyone who undertakes to defend him.



Again, he didn't deny the title _theotokos_, he just disliked it for some of its possible implications--and I don't think any Protestant can deny that his fear was ultimately justified. He preferred the title _Christotokos_ partly because it emphasized both divine and human.

I might myself say that the term _theanthropotokos_ (God-man-bearer) might be even more accurate.


----------



## DTK

P. F. Pugh said:


> Oops--regardless, Egypt was also a major center of Christianity, plus it was the breadbasket of the Empire. News would still have traveled fast there.


I think I'm done with this discussion.

DTK


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> The church of the time was divided on the validity of the proceedings. Hence the immediate counter-council called by John of Antioch, which exonerated Nestorius and defrocked Cyril. The emperor banished both Cyril and Nestorius but was later persuaded to reinstate Cyril and banish Nestorius to Egypt--under Cyril's watchful eye.



I am referring to the Christological verdict, not events. Nestorius is left on the outside and Cyril within the circle of orthodoxy.



P. F. Pugh said:


> He didn't deny its validity as a technical theological term any more than we reject the validity of the term "real presence." The trouble was that he saw it as being a bit ambiguous and leading to error (in which he was justified), preferring a term that emphasized both humanity _and_ divinity.



Can't you see that you are substantiating the point, that his negation of a term which emphasised unity and his preference for duality is the very problem.



P. F. Pugh said:


> His overall theological concerns cannot be reconciled with the strong emphasis on union which later came to be identified with Christological orthodoxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the quote which I presented in post 27 answers this.
Click to expand...


Regrettably it doesn't. His concerns were metaphysical; he could not find a rational way to bring divinity and humanity together in personal union. Even the Bazaar (which is really irrelevant to the case as it was post factum) continues to voice these concerns.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Again, he didn't deny the title _theotokos_, he just disliked it for some of its possible implications--and I don't think any Protestant can deny that his fear was ultimately justified. He preferred the title _Christotokos_ partly because it emphasized both divine and human.



As suspected, the problem does not lie in the verdict of history, but in the dislike of an orthodoxy which Protestantism has always confessed. If a modern rejects the theotokos it is no wonder he will fight for Nestorius because he is really fighting for himself.


----------



## Philip

> I am referring to the Christological verdict, not events. Nestorius is left on the outside and Cyril within the circle of orthodoxy.



Depends--do you accept Cyril's council or John's version of Ephesus?



> Can't you see that you are substantiating the point, that his negation of a term which emphasised unity and his preference for duality is the very problem.



I think you miss the problem that _theotokos_ emphasizes Christ's divinity at the expense of His humanity. I don't see how using the term _Christotokos_ is any less unified than _theotokos_.



> Regrettably it doesn't. His concerns were metaphysical; he could not find a rational way to bring divinity and humanity together in personal union. Even the Bazaar (which is really irrelevant to the case as it was post factum) continues to voice these concerns.



And they were legitimate concerns, as Chalcedon and later history proved.



> As suspected, the problem does not lie in the verdict of history, but in the dislike of an orthodoxy which Protestantism has always confessed.



Half the church didn't accept it at the time! The only parts that accepted it were the ones under imperial jurisdiction. Outside the Roman Empire, it was rejected entirely and within, the debate would rage until Chalcedon.



> If a modern rejects the theotokos it is no wonder he will fight for Nestorius because he is really fighting for himself.



I don't reject the _theotokos_--I just think the term has been so misused as to not be useful. Again, think "real presence." I can affirm the original intent--I just reject its current use in Catholicism as a reference to transubstantiation.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> Depends--do you accept Cyril's council or John's version of Ephesus?



The orthodox Christological tradition accepts Cyril's council.



P. F. Pugh said:


> I think you miss the problem that _theotokos_ emphasizes Christ's divinity at the expense of His humanity. I don't see how using the term _Christotokos_ is any less unified than _theotokos_.



Yes, Christ is a divine person who assumed a human nature; that is the point of the term. "Christotokos" made no substantive claim.



P. F. Pugh said:


> And they were legitimate concerns, as Chalcedon and later history proved.



Chalcedon answered these metaphysical concerns with theological certainty: "Mary, the Mother of God." 



P. F. Pugh said:


> Half the church didn't accept it at the time! The only parts that accepted it were the ones under imperial jurisdiction. Outside the Roman Empire, it was rejected entirely and within, the debate would rage until Chalcedon.



Chalcedon accepts it; catholicism (including reformed catholicism) accepts Chalcedon.



P. F. Pugh said:


> I don't reject the _theotokos_--I just think the term has been so misused as to not be useful. Again, think "real presence." I can affirm the original intent--I just reject its current use in Catholicism as a reference to transubstantiation.



By all means one is required to free terms from misconceptions which attach to them; but one is not at liberty to disregard the substantive truth signified by a term. Corporeal presence, not real presence, undergirds transubstantiation. Anyone with common sense will understand that. But this is beside the point, as Nestorius' polemic was aimed at the Christological truth signified by theotokos, not at mariolatrical abuse of the term.


----------



## Philip

> Therefore has he said 'the likeness' and 'the name' which it has taken, which indicates a prosôpon as of one; and this same name and prosôpon make the two of them to be understood; and the distinction of nature, one hypostasis and one prosôpon,50 is theirs



Two natures in a hypostatic/prosoponic union. I really can't see how Nestorius' understanding contradicts.



> But this is beside the point, as Nestorius' polemic was aimed at the Christological truth signified by theotokos, not at mariolatrical abuse of the term.



Actually, if anything, that was his error--in his objection to the term _theotokos_ (which is where the controversy started), he made too great a distinction between the two natures. The subtle christological differences between the actual Nestorian (ie: Nestorius--not the Ephesian definition), orthodox, and miaphysite positions are so slight, in my humble opinion, as to render them moot. In fact, in modern times, adherents of all three have come together in affirming Chalcedon.

The other question I would ask here is, how much does it matter? Does Nestorius' position teach another Gospel/worship another Christ than the one that we do?

I would suggest that it does not. Nestorians in Persia and beyond were the greatest missionaries since the apostolic age. By 1000 AD there were Christians of this Church of the East from Mesopotamia to Japan and the Philippines and from Mongolia to India. Are we going to seriously suggest that they were all preaching a false Gospel as they were fulfilling the Great Commission? Somehow the thought is incredible to me.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> Therefore has he said 'the likeness' and 'the name' which it has taken, which indicates a prosôpon as of one; and this same name and prosôpon make the two of them to be understood; and the distinction of nature, one hypostasis and one prosôpon,50 is theirs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two natures in a hypostatic/prosoponic union. I really can't see how Nestorius' understanding contradicts.
Click to expand...


This is from a work which is only relevant to the case insofar as it seeks to present the perspective of the condemned. This work was not in evidence during the controversy.

Even here, however, there is no genuine presentation of Christological orthodoxy. In the very section you cite, we read, "But since he became flesh in taking the flesh, he was named after both of them in both of them, but *as though* he were one in both of them, *not [in both] in nature*, but in the one indeed in nature but in the other *in prosôpon by adoption* as well as by revelation."

Again, "He who was seen speaks from him who was conceived as from his own prosôpon, *as though he were one* and possessed the same prosôpon."

Again, "For they are not *far removed* either in operation or in word or in ousia; nor are the things which are to be distinguished the one from the other in the prosôpon distinct in love, for they are conceived of his prosôpon *in the love and the will of God* in that he took the flesh."

The "union" recognised by this bizarre Bazaar is one of love and will. The flesh is spoken of as a prosopon by adoption and revelation. The language of two persons is not utilised, but it uses very impertinent language if it intends to teach a unio personalis.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Actually, if anything, that was his error--in his objection to the term _theotokos_ (which is where the controversy started), he made too great a distinction between the two natures.



It is good that you are starting to see what the controversy was actually concerned with.



P. F. Pugh said:


> The subtle christological differences between the actual Nestorian (ie: Nestorius--not the Ephesian definition), orthodox, and miaphysite positions are so slight, in my humble opinion, as to render them moot. In fact, in modern times, adherents of all three have come together in affirming Chalcedon.



All three have not come together in affirming Chalcedon if Nestorius' advocates continue to reject Chalcedon's affirmation of theotokos.

To show the importance of the controversy in modern terms -- do you believe "Christ" satisfied "infinite" justice? How?


----------



## Philip

> This is from a work which is only relevant to the case insofar as it seeks to present the perspective of the condemned. This work was not in evidence during the controversy.



And neither were the eastern bishops. You have a synod of half the church essentially condemning the other half for heresies they don't hold. Again, I'm not convinced that Nestorius actually held the heresy condemned at Ephesus. This isn't like Nicaea where the case was clear--in this case there were so many irregularities as to throw the whole into doubt.



> All three have not come together in affirming Chalcedon if Nestorius' advocates continue to reject Chalcedon's affirmation of theotokos.



I'll check into that. Given the subsequent history of the term _theotokos_, I would prefer to find a different term that doesn't put quite so much emphasis on Mary.



> To show the importance of the controversy in modern terms -- do you believe "Christ" satisfied "infinite" justice? How?



By being God incarnate. I don't think Nestorius would disagree here.


----------



## TimV

> We do not, for example, presume that we may not reexamine the Roman doctrine of the Mass because the doctrine is already established.



He said



> Regrettably modern scholars come to the facts of the case as if it were still open, which results in the evaluation of evidence which was not part of the original case and the omission of evidence which was essential to the original case.



How can the RC doctrine of the Mass be compared to the teachings of Nestorius when it comes to clear forensic evidence?


----------



## P.F.

timmopussycat said:


> PCFLANAGAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Actually, the Bazaar, which I quoted, refers to events that happened at Chalcedon."
> 
> Would you please provide an example? If you did earlier, I missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One may find the introduction to the Bazaar online at
> Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.iii-xxxv.* Introduction
> 
> The introduction contains the following paragraph.
> 
> "The book must have been written by Nestorius in the year 451 or 452, seeing that there are references to the death of Theodosius II in 450, and to the flight of Dioscorus of Alexandria. Dioscorus was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but though formally deposed by the Council in October of that year was not condemned to banishment until the following July. On the other hand, Nestorius, though speaking of the triumph of the orthodox faith of Flavian and Leo, does not seem to be aware of the formal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. It appears, therefore, that Dioscorus must have fled when the Council decided against him, and that when Nestorius wrote he must have heard of his flight, but not of the formal decision of the Council or of the imperial decree by which sentence of exile was pronounced upon him."
> 
> If this is correct it dates N's last emendation of the Bazzar to sometime betwen mid November 451 and early 452.
Click to expand...


The flight of Dioscorus is not an event that happened at Chalcedon.

Furthermore, you may be interested to note that the quotation you provided is essentially a block quotation taken from "Nestorius and his Teaching" by James Franklin Bethune-Baker. Bethune-Baker provides the following justification for his dating:



> *There is no direct mention of the Council of Chalcedon*, but the orthodox faith—the faith of Flavian and of Leo which Nestorius regards as his own faith—has already triumphed, and Dioscorus has betaken himself to flight 'as a means of avoiding deposition and being driven into exile'. But Dioscorus was at the Council of Chalcedon, still endeavouring to brave out all that he had done, and if he took to flight it can only have been after the Council had already condemned him and before their sentence had been ratified by the Emperor, in the hope that his friends might secure more favourable treatment for him. The Council sat from the 8th of October to the 1st of November, and the formal deposition of Dioscorus was pronounced at the third session on the 13th of October. On the 7th of February of the following year the Emperor published an edict confirming the doctrinal decisions of the Council, but the decree condemning Eutyches and Dioscorus to banishment was not issued till the 6th of July. Nestorius therefore wrote the concluding portion of his book after the Council (apparently *before the Acts of the Council had reached him*) and *before the news of the imperial edict* which sent Dioscorus into exile *had travelled so far up the Nile*. The earlier parts were probably written at a much earlier time:—they breathe more of the spirit of battle and give no indication of the denouement; it seems to be only to a distant future that the writer looks for the vindication of his doctrine.


The emphasis is mine. 

I'm not sure that will change your (or Pugh's - who has not deemed my inquiry worthy of a response) firmly entrenched views either as to the speed of the post in those days or to the fact that the Bazaar does not refer to events that happened at Chalcedon.


----------



## timmopussycat

PCFLANAGAN said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PCFLANAGAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Actually, the Bazaar, which I quoted, refers to events that happened at Chalcedon."
> 
> Would you please provide an example? If you did earlier, I missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One may find the introduction to the Bazaar online at
> Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides (1925) pp.iii-xxxv.* Introduction
> 
> The introduction contains the following paragraph.
> 
> "The book must have been written by Nestorius in the year 451 or 452, seeing that there are references to the death of Theodosius II in 450, and to the flight of Dioscorus of Alexandria. Dioscorus was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but though formally deposed by the Council in October of that year was not condemned to banishment until the following July. On the other hand, Nestorius, though speaking of the triumph of the orthodox faith of Flavian and Leo, does not seem to be aware of the formal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. It appears, therefore, that Dioscorus must have fled when the Council decided against him, and that when Nestorius wrote he must have heard of his flight, but not of the formal decision of the Council or of the imperial decree by which sentence of exile was pronounced upon him."
> 
> If this is correct it dates N's last emendation of the Bazzar to sometime betwen mid November 451 and early 452.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The flight of Dioscorus is not an event that happened at Chalcedon.
> 
> Furthermore, you may be interested to note that the quotation you provided is essentially a block quotation taken from "Nestorius and his Teaching" by James Franklin Bethune-Baker. Bethune-Baker provides the following justification for his dating:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no direct mention of the Council of Chalcedon*, but the orthodox faith—the faith of Flavian and of Leo which Nestorius regards as his own faith—has already triumphed, and Dioscorus has betaken himself to flight 'as a means of avoiding deposition and being driven into exile'. But Dioscorus was at the Council of Chalcedon, still endeavouring to brave out all that he had done, and if he took to flight it can only have been after the Council had already condemned him and before their sentence had been ratified by the Emperor, in the hope that his friends might secure more favourable treatment for him. The Council sat from the 8th of October to the 1st of November, and the formal deposition of Dioscorus was pronounced at the third session on the 13th of October. On the 7th of February of the following year the Emperor published an edict confirming the doctrinal decisions of the Council, but the decree condemning Eutyches and Dioscorus to banishment was not issued till the 6th of July. Nestorius therefore wrote the concluding portion of his book after the Council (apparently *before the Acts of the Council had reached him*) and *before the news of the imperial edict* which sent Dioscorus into exile *had travelled so far up the Nile*. The earlier parts were probably written at a much earlier time:—they breathe more of the spirit of battle and give no indication of the denouement; it seems to be only to a distant future that the writer looks for the vindication of his doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The emphasis is mine.
> 
> I'm not sure that will change your (or Pugh's - who has not deemed my inquiry worthy of a response) firmly entrenched views either as to the speed of the post in those days or to the fact that the Bazaar does not refer to events that happened at Chalcedon.
Click to expand...


Unless you know that D was present for his deposition or remained in Chalcedon for the rest of the council and travelled to his see immediately afterwords, N may have been better informed than you are. Do we know D's travel diary? The land speed of the postal system throughout the Roman empire is known to have been 50 miles/day and it is not at all unreasonable to posit that such news could have reached N in Lower Egypt within 50 days as the distance from Istanbul (Chalcedon) to Alexandria is about 1061 miles. From Alexandria to the present Aswan is about another 700 miles. The Thebaid area was a twenty mile wide strip along the Nile running from Abydos south to Aswan. So the maximum distance from Chalcedon to Nestorius in exile was 1800 miles or 36 days average travel time. 

The entire reason I have cited the matter was to point out that since the Bazaar specifically mentions an event that could only have occured after the council began, (since we know that D participated in the council until deposed), we have good reason to believe N's death took place after the Council commenced rather than before it began as was earlier presumed.


----------



## P.F.

Tim wrote:


> Please note that the Bazaar specifically mentions that Discordius has taken flight so it could only been written after his banishment on 13 October. The land speed of the postal system throughout the Roman empire is known to have been 50 miles/day and it is not at all unreasonable to posit that such news could have reached N in Lower Egypt within 50 days.


Note, however, that Nestorius was not in Lower Egypt (well - of course, that depends where one sets off the limits). He was banished to a remote (far from the Nile) oasis in the Western Desert, as Pastor King already pointed out. (The place known today as al-Kharga, Egypt)

As to the remainder...

Pastor King had written:


> Moreover, Nestorius was either dead (or at any rate, near death...some suggest he died in 436 AD, some suggest 451 AD when Chalcedon convened) at the time of this Council, and certainly could not have expressed familiarity with its proceedings in any of his writings.


Mr. Pugh had retorted:


> As for the Church history, I'm relying on the scholarly introduction to the text which suggests that he most probably died around 451 and knew at least of the banishment of Dioscorus I, Pope of Alexandria (student of Cyril). The text also refers to the death of Theodosius II in 450.


You, Mr. Cunningham, chimed in by quoting from the paragraph to which Mr. Pugh was referring. However, that source (the source from which that paragraph originally comes) supports what Pastor King said.
Recall that Mr. Pugh had stated:


> As I recall, the followers of Cyril were condemned at Chalcedon. In reading Nestorius' writings, it seems he was aware of the Council of Chalcedon and applauded it.


And again:


> Actually, the Bazaar, which I quoted, refers to events that happened at Chalcedon.


I think what Pastor King wrote still stands:


> You're going to have to do more than refer me to the above work by Nestorius when you suggest that "the followers of Cyril were condemned at Chalcedon" and that Nestorius was aware of the proceedings of Chalcedon, which is why I suggested the needed lesson(s) in Church history.


And I'm rather puzzled both as to why Mr. Pugh hasn't apologized to Pastor King and as to why you are seemingly trying to support Mr. Pugh. Your explanation doesn't really clarify things for me:


> The entire reason I have cited the matter was to point out that since the Bazaar specifically mentions an event that could only have occured after the council began, (since we know that D participated in the council until deposed), we have good reason to believe N's death took place after the Council commenced rather than before it began as was earlier presumed.


Given that Pastor King said dead or dying and given that the issue is whether Nestorius was familiar with Chalcedon's acts, I hardly see what purpose your comments serve, or how they are really relevant to the topic. Perhaps focus has been lost in the flurry of comments.


----------



## timmopussycat

TimV said:


> We do not, for example, presume that we may not reexamine the Roman doctrine of the Mass because the doctrine is already established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regrettably modern scholars come to the facts of the case as if it were still open, which results in the evaluation of evidence which was not part of the original case and the omission of evidence which was essential to the original case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can the RC doctrine of the Mass be compared to the teachings of Nestorius when it comes to clear forensic evidence?
Click to expand...


It can't. We have clear statements accepted by the Roman magisterium as to what they teach on the subject. But much of N's own teachings are not accessible to us and N. consistently denied that that he taught what his accusers were accusing him of both at Ephesus and thereafter. 

But my main point in referring to the Hus condemnation was to provide supporting evidence for my comment that 



> =timmopussycat
> The attitude that once a theological judgment once made by the church is not capable of being revisited when prima facie views of evidence that is either not known or not presented in the original court turns up, is simply inconsistent with the stances Reformed Theology has taken elsewhere.



in contrast to the claim that



armourbearer said:


> Our method of examining the evidence must reflect a case that has already been tried.



-----Added 10/15/2009 at 04:02:30 EST-----



PCFLANAGAN said:


> Tim wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that the Bazaar specifically mentions that Discordius has taken flight so it could only been written after his banishment on 13 October. The land speed of the postal system throughout the Roman empire is known to have been 50 miles/day and it is not at all unreasonable to posit that such news could have reached N in Lower Egypt within 50 days.
> 
> 
> 
> Note, however, that Nestorius was not in Lower Egypt. He was banished to a remote (far from the Nile) oasis in Upper Egypt, as Pastor King already pointed out. (The place known today as al-Kharga, Egypt)
Click to expand...


Sorry my typo: Upper Egypt is correct. But Upper Egypt lies within the milage radius I gave as that radius includes the distance from Alexandria to Aswan which is south of the Thebaid. Any oasis in the Thebaid would have been visited by the mail route to Aswan. 



PCFLANAGAN said:


> As to the remainder...
> 
> Pastor King had written:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, Nestorius was either dead (or at any rate, near death...some suggest he died in 436 AD, some suggest 451 AD when Chalcedon convened) at the time of this Council, and certainly could not have expressed familiarity with its proceedings in any of his writings.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Pugh had retorted:
> You, Mr. Cunningham, chimed in by quoting from the paragraph to which Mr. Pugh was referring. However, that source (the source from which that paragraph originally comes) supports what Pastor King said.
Click to expand...


Not quite. I stated the source from which I was quoting. That source was not Mr. Pugh's source, although mine drew from his. 



PCFLANAGAN said:


> And I'm rather puzzled ...as to why you are seemingly trying to support Mr. Pugh. Your explanation doesn't really clarify things for me:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire reason I have cited the matter was to point out that since the Bazaar specifically mentions an event that could only have occured after the council began, (since we know that D participated in the council until deposed), we have good reason to believe N's death took place after the Council commenced rather than before it began as was earlier presumed.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Pastor King said dead or dying and given that the issue is whether Nestorius was familiar with Chalcedon's acts, I hardly see what purpose your comments serve, or how they are really relevant to the topic. Perhaps focus has been lost in the flurry of comments.
Click to expand...


The Bazaar provides evidence that N may have been familliar with some of the events at the council, if not its decrees. That possibility must be taken into account in any discussions of timelines, something Pastor King appeared unwilling to do.


----------



## P.F.

> The Bazaar provides evidence that N may have been familliar with some of the events at the council, if not its decrees. That possibility must be taken into account in any discussions of timelines, something Pastor King appeared unwilling to do.



There is no positive evidence that Nestorius knew what the council said about Christ. None. Even the source you quoted states:


> On the other hand, *Nestorius*, though speaking of the triumph of the orthodox faith of Flavian and Leo, *does not seem to be aware of the formal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon*.



So, again, it seems apparent that there is no interaction between Nestorius and the council of Chalcedon, and that the weight of the evidence suggests he did not know what the council said.

-----Added 10/15/2009 at 04:40:23 EST-----

*Friedrich Loofs*: Now the Treatise of Heraclides teaches us that Nestorius lived roughly speaking till the time of that council. Accurately speaking there is no trace of the Chalcedonian synod in the Treatise of Heraclides, and the passages which seem to point to the time following it must in my opinion be explained otherwise. Hence I believe that the monophysitic stories asserting that Nestorius had been invited to the council of Chalcedon, but died a dreadful death on the journey thither are right in so far that Nestorius did not live to see the opening of the council in October 451. But he saw the beginning of the reaction which followed the so-called robber-synod of Ephesus in 449. He even read the famous letter of Pope Leo to Flavian of Constantinople, which was of such decisive importance for the determination of Chalcedon and was acknowledged as a norm of doctrine by this council. See _Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine_, Friedrich Loofs, Cambridge: 1914, pp. 21-22


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> To show the importance of the controversy in modern terms -- do you believe "Christ" satisfied "infinite" justice? How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By being God incarnate. I don't think Nestorius would disagree here.
Click to expand...


Then we will have to agree to disagree over what Nestorius would agree or disagree with.


----------



## P.F.

Pastor Winzer:

I don't disagree with you, and yet your comment makes me wonder whether you've considered this remark from Nestorius:

*Nestorius*. As a king, who takes the clothes of soldierhood and is [so seen], has not become a double king, and as the king exists not apart from him, in that he is in him, and as, further, he is not revered apart from him in whom he is known and whereby men also have known him and have been rescued; so also God used his own prosôpon to condescend in poverty and shame even unto the death on the Cross for our salvation; and by it he was raised up also to honour and glory and adoration. Nestorius, _Bazaar of Heracleides_, Book I, Part I, Section 29

I'm not sure we can construct a complete view of the atonement from Nestorius' works, but it appears he recognized the significance of the passive obedience of Christ in our salvation. Now, whether he would use the "Christ" where he used "God" there, is a more difficult issue (we have so little of his own writings to go on). Given that he called Mary, _Christokos_, I suspect he'd prefer _not_ to refer the atoning work simply to the name of Christ, but to the person of God the Word.

I understand from Pastor King that you've studied this issue more than I have. I would welcome your correction if you think I'm mistaken in my conclusions.

I'd like to add one more quotation from a portion where he appears to be opposing a monophysite error:

*Nestorius*: But to those who thought that the body of the Son of God was polluted the Apostle says that they are trampling underfoot the Son of God in rejecting him and denying him, against those who confess that the body is of our own nature and who regard it as polluted, although [they admit] that it was given for the salvation of us all because it was pure and unstained and saved from sins, and that for all our sins he accepted death and became as it were an offering unto God. Nestorius, _Bazaar of Heracleides_, Book I, Part I, Section 41


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attitude that once a theological judgment once made by the church is not capable of being revisited when prima facie views of evidence that is either not known or not presented in the original court turns up, is simply inconsistent with the stances Reformed Theology has taken elsewhere. We do not, for example, presume that we may not reexamine the Roman doctrine of the Mass because the doctrine is already established. Nor can we assume that Councils get it always right. I think it was the Bainton bio of Luther that noted that it was when Martin Luther discovered two solidly "evangelical" (his word) propositions of Hus that were condemned by the council of Constance that he showed that councils could not hae final authority in the church.
> 
> Moreover on biblical standards, it is an injustice to condemn a man for a doctrine he does not hold.
> 
> If N's own writings show Chalcedonian orthodoxy wrt to the nature of Christ, his reservations concerning how to name Mary must be shown by GNC to be heresy before he can be condemned for it. It would help if someone could set forth a place where such demonstration is attempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On paragraph one, you are speaking to the wrong issue. I am not denying the responsibility of the modern church to evaluate the history. I am denying the ability to revise the history. Modern evangelicals continually confound those two things, so I suppose I have to show some indulgence to your zeal for the fallibility of human councils.
Click to expand...


I am not attempting to revise the history. I have no dog in the fight and I am not an expert on the controversy. But I agree with John Bugay who in post 6 yearned for "a very thorough history ... written by someone other than an eastern orthodox theologian." And I don't see the seven ecumenical councils given equal ranking to Scripture by the WCF. 



armourbearer said:


> [On paragraph two, that is a truism, and it applies as equally to condemning a council for acting in the interests of Christian truth.
> 
> On paragraph three, good and necessary consequence only applies in a closed world of facts. It applies to the Bible because the fulness of the Bible as a revelation fom God specifically implies truths which are not expressly stated. Good and necessary consequence would be dangerous to apply to fallible and limited human statements. What we must determine is whether Nestorius' rejection of the theotokos was a rejection of an important part of Christological orthodoxy of that time. Given the incarnational model of salvation, the answer to that question is affirmative.



No but we can compare the statements of men with the Scripture and that is how all theological controversy ought to be settled. Which means that we ought not to ultimately judge N's statements by the judgements of other men or councils but by comparing them to Scripture, particularly in cases where he is on record as denying the specific teachings imputed to him. 

Now on theotokos: It is simply unjust to _presume_ N to be guilty of an error in the nature of his Christology because of his statement concerning the propriety of a title for Mary. It is only if one can show that a Christological error is a good and necessary consequence of his anti-theotokes statements that we will be justified in condemning him for those statements. 

Nobody will doubt that there may be differences between Mary's actual relationship to the Second Person of the Trinity, and the particular terms used to describe that relationship. The words may or may not not fully match the reality. 

To determine whether or not N's rejection of the title theotokos is itself an error, we must, in the final analysis, consider whether or not his concept of that relationship accurately conveyed the Scriptural reality, despite his rejection of the technical term. One can for example describe the reality of Christ's incarnation quite accurately without using the term. (This is not to say that the council may have no justification for condemning him on other grounds. This is why I'd like to see a non-Orthodox writer do a full analysis of the era.)


----------



## johnbugay

I am grateful for the serious discussion on all sides of this issue.

For a long time, my knowledge of "The Church of the East" consisted of Acts 16:6: "and they went through the region of Phyygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia."

My interest began, as I may have mentioned, with Samuel Hugh Moffett's very serious "A History of Christianity in Asia." Moffett traces the growth of Christianity eastward from that point, as "The Old Silk Road," a major trade route, extended northeast from Antioch into Edessa, east toward Nisibis (where one of the great early schools of Christianity was located), southward along the Tigris River through Mosul, Tekrit, Baghdad, Seleucia-Ctesiphon, (the border between Roman and Persian empires; we know this area as Iraq), before heading straight east through Persia, modern Afghanistan, and onward to China.

This eastward expansion of Christianity led to the development of a thriving church outside of the Roman Empire which grew in spite of a truly "Great Persecution" in the 4th century. As Moffett says, the conversion of the Roman Empire "was enough to make any Persian ruler conditioned by three hundred years of war with Rome suspicious of the emergence of a potential fifth column."



> Persia's (Zoroastrian) priests and rulers cemented their alliance of state and religion in a series of periods of terror that have been called the most massive persecution of Christians in history, \"unequalled for its duration, its ferocity and the number of martyrs.\" (Moffett 138)



By the time this persecution ended, in around 401 ad, Moffet says, "one estimate is that as many as 190,000 Persian Christians died in the terror. It was worse than anything suffered in the West under Rome, and yet the number of apostasies seemed to be fewer in Persia than in the West, which is a remarkable tribute to the steady courage of Asia's early Christians." (145)

This "Church of the East" emerged from that period of persecution and adopted the the canons of the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed unanimously in about 410 ad. It was a church which knew next to nothing of Rome and Constantinople and Alexandria, nothing of their feuds, nothing of their supposed "authority." It was this church which looked to Theodore of Mopsuestia as one of its greatest theologians. It was this church which took the "ill-fitting name for the church in non-Roman Asia, 'Nestorian.'"

Later, this church lived through the invasions of Islam, and largely died at its hand after the 12th century invasions of these lands under Ghengis Khan.


This history is one reason why I believe it is important to really understand how this branch of Christianity, which held some beliefs that we would not hold today. Their quite orthodox faith in Christ (those early centuries), their endurance, their rejection after the utterly reprehensible council of Ephesus, make the arguments of "who was greatest" among the "great" centers of Christianity -- Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople -- seem quite small and petty by comparison.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I am not attempting to revise the history. I have no dog in the fight and I am not an expert on the controversy. But I agree with John Bugay who in post 6 yearned for "a very thorough history ... written by someone other than an eastern orthodox theologian." And I don't see the seven ecumenical councils given equal ranking to Scripture by the WCF.



Again you trumpet the fallibility of human councils. I always find this an unbalanced zeal when it refuses to recognise the work of the Spirit of truth in the church. It really maintains solo Scriptura rather than sola Scriptura. There is a whole garbage truck of inconsistency here.



timmopussycat said:


> No but we can compare the statements of men with the Scripture and that is how all theological controversy ought to be settled. Which means that we ought not to ultimately judge N's statements by the judgements of other men or councils but by comparing them to Scripture, particularly in cases where he is on record as denying the specific teachings imputed to him.



As noted previously, this is a-historical and fails to take into account the development of dogma. Nestorius must be judged in the appropriate court of jursidiction, which is his own times, not ours.



timmopussycat said:


> Now on theotokos: It is simply unjust to _presume_ N to be guilty of an error in the nature of his Christology because of his statement concerning the propriety of a title for Mary. It is only if one can show that a Christological error is a good and necessary consequence of his anti-theotokes statements that we will be justified in condemning him for those statements.



When judging between parties in an earlier controversy, men can't be held to good and necessary consequence because it is only in the light of controversy that logical outcomes are brought forth. It is illegitimate to judge on the basis of knowledge which has come as a result of that controversy. It equates to standing on a man's shoulders and kicking him in the head at the same time.

It is an error to make theotokos a mere "title for Mary." It is a Christological statement, as the structure and emphasis of both Ephesus and Chalcedon reveal. It does not aim to show us something about Mary per se, but about Jesus Christ. As with the nativity revelation of Matthew and Luke, Mary's dignity is conceived solely in terms of the nature of her offspring.


----------



## MW

PCFLANAGAN said:


> I'm not sure we can construct a complete view of the atonement from Nestorius' works, but it appears he recognized the significance of the passive obedience of Christ in our salvation. Now, whether he would use the "Christ" where he used "God" there, is a more difficult issue (we have so little of his own writings to go on). Given that he called Mary, _Christokos_, I suspect he'd prefer _not_ to refer the atoning work simply to the name of Christ, but to the person of God the Word.



Please keep in mind that I only used the atonement of Christ as a modern day concern which this controversy influences. I would not import it into those times and make it a criterion of judgment. I don't expect the fathers to speak of atonement in Anselmian categories. By and large they were more concerned with the issue of humiliation-exaltation than with satisfaction.

I am sorry, but I just cannot see anywhere that Nestorius affirmed orthodox Christology. I agree we cannot pin "two persons" on him because we have no statement to that effect; but his language is always in terms of speaking of the Word as a prosopon and the flesh as a prosopon while the "unity" is apparent and moral rather than real and personal. My own opinion is that he was a rationalist who simply could not accept the "mystical union," and therefore struggled to rationally come to terms with how the finite could contain the infinite. We have seen a similar example in Gordon Clark in our own times. I am open to any evidence which suggests otherwise.


----------



## johnbugay

armourbearer said:


> Again you trumpet the fallibility of human councils. I always find this an unbalanced zeal when it refuses to recognise the work of the Spirit of truth in the church. It really maintains solo Scriptura rather than sola Scriptura. There is a whole garbage truck of inconsistency here.



Why do the Reformed then seem to stop counting "ecumenical councils" after Chalcedon? How much (if any) of the councils of Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (681) and Nicea II (787) do you accept? By what criterion, and by whose authority, do you reject what you reject of these? Are there other subsequent councils that have addressed these three?



> As noted previously, this is a-historical and fails to take into account the development of dogma. Nestorius must be judged in the appropriate court of jursidiction, which is his own times, not ours.



What then is our responsibility, given that we have information about him that "his own times" did not have? Or that "the appropriate court of jurisdiction" in "his own times" was very much a corrupt one?


----------



## Philip

First, apologies. Lack of sleep and an excessive zeal caused me to misread/skip over some things. Pastor King is right that it is improbable that Nestorius was aware of the doctrinal statements produced at Chalcedon.

However, the _Bazaar_ does suggest that he was a) aware that it was happening b) aware of the flight of Dioscorus c) aware of the tone it was taking.



armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To show the importance of the controversy in modern terms -- do you believe "Christ" satisfied "infinite" justice? How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By being God incarnate. I don't think Nestorius would disagree here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we will have to agree to disagree over what Nestorius would agree or disagree with.
Click to expand...


What I stated was simple Nicene Orthodoxy--both sides at Ephesus were orthodox by Nicene standards.

Personally, I have been persuaded, in my reading of the history, that in Heaven, we will meet Nestorius, Cyril, John of Antioch, and maybe even the odd Arian Goth. If there's not room in Heaven for a few heretics, then we're all damned. I'm just not convinced that Nestorius' error was enough to warrant a church split. The whole question of _theotokos_ seems to be a question of which terminology to use rather than the actual theological content.


----------



## johnbugay

> My own opinion is that he was a rationalist who simply could not accept the "mystical union," and therefore struggled to rationally come to terms with how the finite could contain the infinite.



Were there "rationalists" in the 5th century? 

It is true, Nestorius began with the phrase, "And the Word became flesh". Nestorius's characterization of this did not become the orthodox way of characterizing it. But Chalcedon did not rely on the verbiage of any one party in coming up with the definition. Cyril's terminology was not used -- in fact, some of his theology was definitely rejected, and yet he became a great doctor of the Church, as later councils (rejected by the Reformed) incorporated some of his theologies (to my understanding). 

Reymond says "It is interesting to note that the council did not declare Leo's Tome a doma of the church as he had wished, doubtless lest it give too much authority to the Roman bishopric. It then wrote a new creed ..."

Nestorius became a "heretic" because of a mischaracterization of his teachings that simply happened to have been voted on by "a council". That was his "court of jurisdiction" -- it was dishonest with him.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> My own opinion is that he was a rationalist who simply could not accept the "mystical union," and therefore struggled to rationally come to terms with how the finite could contain the infinite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were there "rationalists" in the 5th century?
Click to expand...


Yes; there were rationalists in the 1st century. Read 1st Corinthians and its refutation of the exaltation of reason and an over-realised eschatology.



johnbugay said:


> It is true, Nestorius began with the phrase, "And the Word became flesh". Nestorius's characterization of this did not become the orthodox way of characterizing it. But Chalcedon did not rely on the verbiage of any one party in coming up with the definition. Cyril's terminology was not used -- in fact, some of his theology was definitely rejected, and yet he became a great doctor of the Church, as later councils (rejected by the Reformed) incorporated some of his theologies (to my understanding).



Yes, well the difference between Cyril and Nestorius is that the former was catholic. Cyril's emphases were rejected while his orthodoxy was respected, even as we would reject the Lutheran tenet of communicatio idiomatum from nature to nature while receiving them as generally orthodox.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not attempting to revise the history. I have no dog in the fight and I am not an expert on the controversy. But I agree with John Bugay who in post 6 yearned for "a very thorough history ... written by someone other than an eastern orthodox theologian." And I don't see the seven ecumenical councils given equal ranking to Scripture by the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you trumpet the fallibility of human councils. I always find this an unbalanced zeal when it refuses to recognise the work of the Spirit of truth in the church. It really maintains solo Scriptura rather than sola Scriptura. There is a whole garbage truck of inconsistency here.
Click to expand...


I "trumpet" nothing. I am a trombone player. ;-)

Your last two sentences are the guilt by associaton fallacy and you ought to know better. It would be like someone claiming that you hold to concilliar equivalency with Scripture in view of your high view of the early councils. 

As for me, for over 30 years I have recognized the importance of tracing out the work of the Holy Spirit in Church history and not reinventing the wheel when early fathers, Reformers, Puritans, and Calvinistic Methodists can be shown to have understood issues Scripturally. I just don't place councils on the level of Scripture unless their findings can be shown to be consistent with Scripture. 

Either Councils have the authority of Scripture or they do not. The WCF does not give councils ulitmate authority to determine controversies of religion. Rather it specifically makes the point that " The Supreme Judge by which ....councils...are to be examined can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture." WCF 1:ix



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but we can compare the statements of men with the Scripture and that is how all theological controversy ought to be settled. Which means that we ought not to ultimately judge N's statements by the judgements of other men or councils but by comparing them to Scripture, particularly in cases where he is on record as denying the specific teachings imputed to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted previously, this is a-historical and fails to take into account the development of dogma. Nestorius must be judged in the appropriate court of jursidiction, which is his own times, not ours.
Click to expand...


Shall we not appeal Luther's condemnation by the diet of Worms? Or challenge the decrees of the Council of Trent? Certainly Cardinal Newman thanks you for taking up the principle on which he justifies Roman accretions. See his work on the development of doctrine here. Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine



timmopussycat said:


> Now on theotokos: It is simply unjust to _presume_ N to be guilty of an error in the nature of his Christology because of his statement concerning the propriety of a title for Mary. It is only if one can show that a Christological error is a good and necessary consequence of his anti-theotokes statements that we will be justified in condemning him for those statements.





armourbearer said:


> When judging between parties in an earlier controversy, men can't be held to good and necessary consequence because it is only in the light of controversy that logical outcomes are brought forth. It is illegitimate to judge on the basis of knowledge which has come as a result of that controversy. It equates to standing on a man's shoulders and kicking him in the head at the same time.



You are missing the point. You made the link not me. Your claimed that N was guilty of heresy at point B because he "erred" at point A. For that claim to be true, denying the title to Mary must necessarily force one into asserting an error about Christ's nature. Such a demonstration could have been provided, and N or anybody prior to him who (ex hypothesi made the denial before he did) truly shown to be guilty of heresy at point B at any time before the Council began, at the council or even today, on the the basis of logic alone once the prooof of necessity is known. Such a demonstration does not necessarily involve relying on knowledge that came about as a result of the controversy, as what is at issue is the logical demonstration that one "error" necessitates the other. 



armourbearer said:


> It is an error to make theotokos a mere "title for Mary." It is a Christological statement, as the structure and emphasis of both Ephesus and Chalcedon reveal. It does not aim to show us something about Mary per se, but about Jesus Christ. As with the nativity revelation of Matthew and Luke, Mary's dignity is conceived solely in terms of the nature of her offspring.



The question is can the Scripturally assigned dignity of Mary and the Scripturally described nature of the incarnate Second Person be correctly expressed in terms other than "theotokos" without violating that dignity and misrepresenting that nature? If the answers to these questions are yes, then there may not be a real problem when someone wished to avoid the term, provided that the term or terms one uses instead of theotokos correctly express the Scriptural realities to which they point.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I "trumpet" nothing. I am a trombone player. ;-)







timmopussycat said:


> Your last two sentences are the guilt by associaton fallacy and you ought to know better. It would be like someone claiming that you hold to concilliar equivalency with Scripture in view of your high view of the early councils.



There was no guilt by association; I identified your unbalanced statement with the position of solo scriptura. If in reality you heartily recognise the work of the Spirit in the church then I am very happy to withdraw the identification; but if that is the case, I would also ask you to present that balance when looking at the decrees of councils. By your own admission, the fact that councils may err does not mean that they have erred; so it is not helpful to appeal to the fallibility of councils simpliciter.



timmopussycat said:


> Either Councils have the authority of Scripture or they do not. The WCF does not give councils ulitmate authority to determine controversies of religion. Rather it specifically makes the point that " The Supreme Judge by which ....councils...are to be examined can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture." WCF 1:ix



Unless you can find in this thread where I have ascribed "the authority of Scripture" to Councils your remarks are irrelevant. As already noted, you are speaking to the wrong issue. You quote WCF as an authority. Should I assume thereby that you place the WCF on the same level as Scripture? No. Then neither should that be read into my remarks. It should also be borne in mind that the WCF validates the orthodox Christological tradition in its presentation of Christ the Mediator.



timmopussycat said:


> Shall we not appeal Luther's condemnation by the diet of Worms? Or challenge the decrees of the Council of Trent? Certainly Cardinal Newman thanks you for taking up the principle on which he justifies Roman accretions. See his work on the development of doctrine here. Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine



Again, I haven't denied the responsibility of the modern church to evaluate past councils. I am only requiring that such an analysis does not import later developments and concerns into the proceedings being evaluated. In this case, I would insist that neither the Council nor Luther be judged by a principle of scriptural authority which did not come to the fore until the debates of the Puritans with the Elizabethan settlement. This puts the onus on the historian to ascertain precisely what Luther meant by being captive to the Word, and not simply to assume a Puritan view of it.

The fact that you would confound any idea of the development of dogma with Newman's specific idea of it does not indicate you understand the subject very well. At no point in this discussion have I suggested that non-scriptural developments are permissible.



timmopussycat said:


> You are missing the point. You made the link not me. Your claimed that N was guilty of heresy at point B because he "erred" at point A. For that claim to be true, denying the title to Mary must necessarily force one into asserting an error about Christ's nature. Such a demonstration could have been provided, and N or anybody prior to him who (ex hypothesi made the denial before he did) truly shown to be guilty of heresy at point B at any time before the Council began, at the council or even today, on the the basis of logic alone once the prooof of necessity is known. Such a demonstration does not necessarily involve relying on knowledge that came about as a result of the controversy, as what is at issue is the logical demonstration that one "error" necessitates the other.



I have stated that the theotokos was orthodox Christology at the time. Nestorius denied it. There is no moving from point A to point B in my criticism of him.

Again you fail to understand the historical method at issue. I am not saying that Nestorius can't be found guilty or exonerated today. I am saying that the case is not to be examined as if it were a new case. He has already been tried and condemned in his own times. Modern concerns cannot be read into the proceedings which found him guilty and used as a basis for his exoneration. E.g., the fact that Mariolatry came to be condemned by Protestants does not justify Nestorius' rejection of the theotokos as a common Christological affirmation of the time.



timmopussycat said:


> The question is can the Scripturally assigned dignity of Mary and the Scripturally described nature of the incarnate Second Person be correctly expressed in terms other than "theotokos" without violating that dignity and misrepresenting that nature? If the answers to these questions are yes, then there may not be a real problem when someone wished to avoid the term, provided that the term or terms one uses instead of theotokos correctly express the Scriptural realities to which they point.



No, that is not the question because "theotokos" meant something significant at that time just as "sola scriptura" means something significant at this time. To understand the significance of it we simply need to look at Peter's confession: thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. What would that confession mean if it only consisted of "the Christ," and there was a rejection of "the Christ" being "the Son of God?" That is what Nestorius' denial of theotokos and affirmation of Christotokos looks like. Either Mary is the mother of our Lord or she is not. By denying the theotokos Nestorius claimed she was not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Philip

> No, that is not the question because "theotokos" meant something significant at that time just as "sola scriptura" means something significant at this time. To understand the significance of it we simply need to look at Peter's confession: thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. What would that confession mean if it only consisted of "the Christ," and there was a rejection of "the Christ" being "the Son of God?" That is what Nestorius' denial of theotokos and affirmation of Christotokos looks like. Either Mary is the mother of our Lord or she is not. By denying the theotokos Nestorius claimed she was not.



For goodness sake, Nestorius was making an assertion about Mary--he wasn't denying the divinity of Christ at all--he was orthodox by Nicene standards. The question was not whether Christ was God and Man, but exactly how that relationship works. 



> Again you fail to understand the historical method at issue. I am not saying that Nestorius can't be found guilty or exonerated today. I am saying that the case is not to be examined as if it were a new case. He has already been tried and condemned in his own times.



And we are saying that the case needed a retrial due to procedural irregularities and a biased jury. To me, there's a reasonable doubt about Nestorius' guilt, especially given his actual teaching. The fact that he claimed not to teach what the council accused him of teaching is enough to warrant our saying this. His real teaching is what needed to be examined, not the misrepresentation of it.



> I have stated that the theotokos was orthodox Christology at the time. Nestorius denied it. There is no moving from point A to point B in my criticism of him.



But the question is whether the term was crucial to orthodox Christology (and again, Nestorius did not reject the term outright--he just found it confusing). Does the alternate term compromise Christ's divinity? No. The alternate term was imprecise, but not inaccurate. Nestorius knew and taught that Christ was God--that part was not at issue at Ephesus, having been decided by Nicaea. No one ever accused Nestorius of being Arian.

Just because a term is orthodox does not mean that alternate terms are heretical. I personally would have suggested _theanthropotokos_.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> For goodness sake, Nestorius was making an assertion about Mary--he wasn't denying the divinity of Christ at all--he was orthodox by Nicene standards. The question was not whether Christ was God and Man, but exactly how that relationship works.



The reason why Ephesus and Chalcedon settles "how that relationship works" is because the manner of subsistence was seen to be critical to the affirmation that Christ is God and man. When Nestorius emerges on the other side of the orthodox fence he is clearly seen as affirming something different to orthodoxy. He does not teach two natures in one person, as has already been shown from the Bazaar. If you agree with the Bazaar you disagree with orthodoxy; hence it is little wonder if you defend Nestorius because you are really only defending yourself.



P. F. Pugh said:


> And we are saying that the case needed a retrial due to procedural irregularities and a biased jury. To me, there's a reasonable doubt about Nestorius' guilt, especially given his actual teaching. The fact that he claimed not to teach what the council accused him of teaching is enough to warrant our saying this. His real teaching is what needed to be examined, not the misrepresentation of it.



The only point in question is whether he taught "two persons." But whether he taught it or was imputed with it is really beside the point because his teaching does not and cannot affirm the two natures in one person formula of orthodox Christology.



P. F. Pugh said:


> The alternate term was imprecise, but not inaccurate.



It is not only imprecise but inaccurate as a substitute for theotokos. The substitution diminishes a point of Christology for which Ephesus and Chalcedon contended. If you agree with Nestorius then you also diminish that Christological assertion.


----------



## Philip

> The reason why Ephesus and Chalcedon settles "how that relationship works" is because the manner of subsistence was seen to be critical to the affirmation that Christ is God and man. When Nestorius emerges on the other side of the orthodox fence he is clearly seen as affirming something different to orthodoxy. He does not teach two natures in one person, as has already been shown from the Bazaar. If you agree with the Bazaar you disagree with orthodoxy; hence it is little wonder if you defend Nestorius because you are really only defending yourself.



If I agree with the _Bazaar_, it's because it teaches two natures in one person. He's speaking the language of prosoponic union--which is the language of Cyril himself. If Cyril's understanding was orthodox, the so was Nestorius'.

If you want to show me exactly how the _Bazaar_ teaches two persons, please do so. My concern is that we not convict a possibly innocent man just because a church council did.

And I must say that accusing me of Christological heresy does little to convince me.



> But whether he taught it or was imputed with it is really beside the point because his teaching does not and cannot affirm the two natures in one person formula of orthodox Christology.



But it's exactly the point. If his teaching does affirm the two natures in one person formula (which I think it does), then he was falsely accused and we need to re-evaluate. Cyril of Alexandria, by all accounts was a man who sometimes let his zeal blind him to the facts. If this is so, then it is very much the point.

Remember also that Nestorius and his teacher Theodore were esteemed as Church fathers outside the Roman Empire post-Ephesus. What we have to say, then, is that if real Nestorian teaching (as opposed to Ephesian-Nestorian) is heretical, then we hold the whole of the Eastern Missionary enterprise of the next five centuries (the largest missionary effort in church history) to be unorthodox. Are you prepared to say that half of the church of Nestorius' day was heretical?



> It is not only imprecise but inaccurate as a substitute for theotokos. The substitution diminishes a point of Christology for which Ephesus and Chalcedon contended. If you agree with Nestorius then you also diminish that Christological assertion.



Why? Does _Christotokos_ as a title for Mary somehow diminish the identity of Christ? I agree that the term is imprecise (see my alternate title), but I don't take the title "Mother of God" to be a doctrinal statement. Again, all my sources indicate that Nestorius didn't reject the title _persay_--he just didn't like it.


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> If I agree with the _Bazaar_, it's because it teaches two natures in one person. He's speaking the language of prosoponic union--which is the language of Cyril himself. If Cyril's understanding was orthodox, the so was Nestorius'.
> 
> If you want to show me exactly how the _Bazaar_ teaches two persons, please do so. My concern is that we not convict a possibly innocent man just because a church council did.



Please pay attention. I have repeatedly said that we have no evidence that Nestorius taught two persons. What we have in the Bazaar is a reference to the Word as a person and the flesh as a person and a mere moral union between the two. Please see my above response to your quotation of the Bazaar and especially the emboldened portions. This language cannot be reconciled with Christological orthodoxy.



P. F. Pugh said:


> And I must say that accusing me of Christological heresy does little to convince me.



You weren't accused of heresy, as you will see if you give some attention to the conditional form of the statement to which you are repying.



P. F. Pugh said:


> But it's exactly the point. If his teaching does affirm the two natures in one person formula (which I think it does), then he was falsely accused and we need to re-evaluate. Cyril of Alexandria, by all accounts was a man who sometimes let his zeal blind him to the facts. If this is so, then it is very much the point.



Where does he make such an affirmation? How many times are you going to make the same claim without actually presenting evidence to support it?



P. F. Pugh said:


> Are you prepared to say that half of the church of Nestorius' day was heretical?



I'm prepared to say what the catholic church teaches -- Nestorius and Nestorianism is unorthodox. Enough with the emotional pleas, please. Try and present some facts.



P. F. Pugh said:


> but I don't take the title "Mother of God" to be a doctrinal statement.



It is a doctrinal statement in Ephesus and Chalcedon, so you are only asserting your disagreement with the councils.

Friend, If you can't be bothered interacting on a factual level I'm not going to waste time responding to your posts.


----------



## Philip

> Please pay attention. I have repeatedly said that we have no evidence that Nestorius taught two persons. What we have in the Bazaar is a reference to the Word as a person and the flesh as a person and a mere moral union between the two.



The understanding that I took away was that Christ has two natures (_ousia_) in one person (_prosopon_). Prosopon here is the exact word from which "Person" is derived. 



> Therefore has he said 'the likeness' and 'the name' which it has taken, which indicates a prosôpon as of one; and this same name and prosôpon make the two of them to be understood; and the distinction of nature, one hypostasis and one prosôpon,50 is theirs, the one being known by the other and the other by the one, so that the one is by adoption what the other is by nature and the other is with the one in the body.



Again, my reading here is that he is saying two _ousia_ in one _prosopon_.

Again, part of my whole issue is the fact that Church history seems to have vindicated Nestorius. Not only did Chalcedon overturn the Alexandrian Christology, but the Church of the East produced the most missionary-minded--and the most persecuted--branch of the church in history. I'm quite sure that Nestorius was mistaken--but no more mistaken than Cyril was. If Cyril is orthodox, then so was Nestorius. Orthodox by Chalcedonian standards? Probably not--but neither was Cyril.

I would almost compare this to the Clark-Van Til controversy except that Ephesus produced the largest church split in history.



> I'm prepared to say what the catholic church teaches -- Nestorius and Nestorianism is unorthodox.



So only western Christianity is catholic, then?

At any rate, we have two parallel threads going, of which the other is the more senior, so maybe we should move the discussion there.


----------



## DTK

P. F. Pugh said:


> Again, my reading here is that he is saying two _ousia_ in one _prosopon_.


And this "reading" is an overt indication that you neither understand Nestorius, nor the orthodox understanding of Christ, which has been my point all along. But since you have been continually presenting a "moving target," I expect this to be revised as well.

DTK


----------



## Ron

I'm going to get a bit out of my historical comfort zone here so bear with me as I ask some questions for my own clarification. Please don't derail the thread becaue of my ignorance. 

_Today_, can't the word _prosopon_ properly be interpreted as "person" but also as "face", which is to say manifestation (modalistically)? Accordingly, if the understanding during the controversy was "face", then to apply it to the incarnation - couldn’t that suggest a form of modalism (a manifestation of a one person God), or else two manifestations within Christ, which might suggest two persons within one Christ?

With respect to _ousia_, can't it rightly be interpreted as substance and therefore, more readily applied to the persons Trinity (all being divine), but not so readily (cumbersome in fact) to apply it to the Christ (without a view to the Trinity) since _he_ was not two persons, same in substance? In other words, how can we have two substances (or beings) within one person (i.e. "two _ousia _in one _prosopon_")?

David, I'll probably phone you on this one! 

Thanks,

Ron


----------



## Ron

As I consider this more, if we take _ousia_ to mean "nature" (without any further qualification), then I suppose Jesus could be referred to having _two ousia_. I recoil at such phraseology because I have taken _ousia_ always to refer more to the divine _being or substance_ that all three persons possess. In my own thinking, contrary to the term "nature", I have always attributed _being and substance_ to the type _person_ (_either_ divine or human, _never both _) that is being considered. SO, if the person is divine, like Jesus, then his being or substance I would have considered divine *only*. (“Essence” I might have _possibly_ been more inclined to allow to be synonymous with nature (but not without further elaboration about one-person), but never would I have used being or substance that way.) In the end, I would have never equated being or substance with _nature_, but rather to what the person _is_ (as a person), _either_ divine or human. Accordingly, I have always thought of the incarnate Christ although having two natures yet in one person, as having _one_ being or substance _only_, that being divine. Again, I’m out of my element here, but I question whether there has been some unusual tagging of terms going on.

Cheers,

Ron


----------



## Philip

_Ousia_ can mean "reality", "substance", or "Essence". _Hypostasis_ means "That which stands beneath" or "Substantive reality" and (in the Antiochene tradition) was used almost interchangeably with _prosopon_. The prosopic union and the hypostatic union are thus extremely similar, but not quite. On further review, no Nestorius was not orthodox by a Chalcedonian standard--but he was by the Nicene and Ephesian standards.

We confess in the creed that the the Son is _homoousious_ with the Father, so I don't think that two substances is so far off-track, as Christ's divine nature is pre-existent, where His human nature is not. _Hypostasis_ is then an accurate way to describe the union of Divine and human substance. I think the prosopic union needs clarification (and I noted that Nestorius does actually use _hypostasis_ to describe the union at one point), but it is not inaccurate.

Maybe a good term for Nestorius and Theodore would be "semi-orthodox", but I wouldn't go so far as to call his view heretical in his time. The line between heresy and orthodoxy was so blurry sometimes, and the irregularities at Ephesus were so glaring (Nestorius himself refused to give an account of his teaching until the Antioch delegation arrived, which meant that the council rendered a verdict without hearing what he actually taught).



> And this "reading" is an overt indication that you neither understand Nestorius, nor the orthodox understanding of Christ, which has been my point all along. But since you have been continually presenting a "moving target," I expect this to be revised as well.



I would be much obliged if you would actually show where exactly I have denied the hypostatic union. I really don't see where the idea of prosopic union contradicts that of hypostatic union--I would say that our Christology should recognize both.


----------



## Ron

“_On further review, no Nestorius was not orthodox by a Chalcedonian standard--but he was by the Nicene and Ephesian standards._”

Mr. Pugh,

You seem to grant with one hand what you take away with another, which I believe in part is DTK's lament. Assuming the councils do not oppose each other, I regret to say that I feel led to believe that you might be opposing yourself, which if true would explain this attempt to affirm both orthodox and non-orthodox _in one person_: 

“_Maybe a good term for Nestorius and Theodore would be ‘semi-orthodox’?_”

I’ll leave the semantics and historical account to the historians on this site. Theologically, I do know that Jesus was a divine person with two natures. That is why I am not comfortable referring to his two natures with a term (_ousia_) that seems best reserved to describe the single being or substance of divinity that all three persons possess as it pertains to their respective persons. Two beings in one person is wrong, so let's stay away from anything that might suggest it is not.

Warmly,

Ron


----------



## DTK

P. F. Pugh said:


> We confess in the creed that the the Son is _homoousious_ with the Father, so I don't think that two substances is so far off-track, as Christ's divine nature is pre-existent, where His human nature is not. _Hypostasis_ is then an accurate way to describe the union of Divine and human substance.


Young man, you are making this up as you go along, and it's evident to me at this point that you have no understanding of basic Christology.

Listen carefully, now, and try reading closely for a change, because it might help you, though at this point I am confessedly beginning to have my doubts. There is *one*, yes, you read me correctly, there is but *one* οὐσία, and that is the one true and living God - _"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" _(Deuteronomy*6:4). There is but *one divine essence, substance, yes one.* The Trinity is One being (οὐσία) and three persons. We never speak of Christ as two essences (substances) in one person. The fact is that you are confused and clueless, and yet still winging it as you go along!



> Maybe a good term for Nestorius and Theodore would be "semi-orthodox", but I wouldn't go so far as to call his view heretical in his time. The line between heresy and orthodoxy was so blurry sometimes, and the irregularities at Ephesus were so glaring (Nestorius himself refused to give an account of his teaching until the Antioch delegation arrived, which meant that the council rendered a verdict without hearing what he actually taught).


Try this on for size, no maybe about it, you have no idea of that which you're trying to define.



> I would be much obliged if you would actually show where exactly I have denied the hypostatic union. I really don't see where the idea of prosopic union contradicts that of hypostatic union--I would say that our Christology should recognize both.


I am not obliged to show something I never claimed. I am not responsible for your inability to read correctly. But I don't think you even understand what the hypostatic union of Christ is. Surely to deny it is to presuppose that you know it, which obviously you don't. And you would have an excuse if it were not for the fact that I've already cited Chalcedon's language for the hypostatic union earlier in this thread. But, in your misguided zeal, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you either gloss-over what is being said, or you are unable to read carefully what others have said. I am going to try this again...



> Christ "was begotten by the Father before all ages according to His divinity and, in these latter days, He was born for us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin, the Θεοτόκος according to His humanity; one single and same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, known *in two natures* [my note - *not two substances*], without confusion, without change, without division, without separation (ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστόν, Υἱόν, Κύριον, μονογενῆ, *ἐν δύο φύσεσιν* ἀσυγχύτως ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζομένον); the difference of natures is in no way suppressed by their union, but rather the properties of each are retained and united in one single person (πρόσωπον) and single hypostasis; He is neither separated nor divided in two persons, but He is a single and same only-begotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, such as He was announced formerly by the prophets, such as He Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, taught us about Himself and such as the symbol of the fathers has transmitted to us. See Peter L'Huillier, _The Church of the Ancient Councils_, p. 194.



It is frustrating trying to deal with a novice, especially when he pontificates about something concerning which he has demonstrated himself repeatedly to be clueless. 

DTK


----------



## johnbugay

Forgive me Gentlemen, I do want to emphasize that I am very willing to grant, as Moffett says, that "This doctrine of the unity of the person (_prosopon_) of Christ in two natures may have rested on the use of a word too weak to support the weight it was required to bear, but it was in no sense heresy." (177)

As well, I am working with English works, and I do not see where the word "ousia" appears in some of these writings. 

In his "examination" of Nestorius and "Nestorianism," Moffett says:



> Nestorius's theological writing is difficult and often obscure. But some points are clear. He took his stand firmly on the historical Christ as revealed in the Gospels. He was not at ease with technical and semantic theological distinctions. He was absolutely convinced that he was biblically orthodox. At no time did he deny the deity of Christ, as was charged against him. He merely insisted that it be clearly distinguished from Christ's humanity. Nor did he deny the unity of Christ’s person, which was the most enduring of the charges against him. It was on this point that he was officially condemned. His opponents, the Alexandrians, maintained that by separating Christ into two “natures” (_keyane _or _keiane _in Syriac, _physis _in Greek) – “true God by nature and true man by nature” was how Nestorius put it – he destroyed the real personality of the Savior, deforming Christ into a creature with two heads. Nestorius answered, “The person (_parsopa _in Syriac, _prosopon _in Greek) is one…,” and “There are not two Gods the Words, or two Sons, or two only-begottens, but one.”
> 
> The problem lay partly in his choice of words. Nestorius used the Greek word _prosopon _to refer to Christ’s person as the basis of Christ’s unity. But _prosopon _is a weak word, used only once in the New Testament to refer to people as “persons” and more often meaning “presence” or even mere “appearance.” His opponents insisted on the use of the stronger word _hypostasis _(“substance,” or “real being,” as in Heb 1:3) for Christ’s person as one being, incarnate. That, said Nestorius, is too strong – for _hypostasis_, like _ousia_, if used of Christ’s unified, essential being confuses the fact that there is still a distinction between his humanity and his deity.”
> 
> There is a subtle distinction between “two natures” (Dyophysitism, which is what Nestorius and the school of Antioch taught) and “two persons,” which is how Alexandria interpreted the phrase, as if Nestorius were teaching “dyhypostatism.” By insisting that one person (_hypostasis_) can have but one nature (_physis_), Alexandria sought to make the teaching of Nestorius heretical. But what Alexandria said he taught was not what Nestorius actually taught, even in his earlier works, and clearly not in the Book of Heracleides, his last work. As early as Ephesus he struggled to find a way to express the essential unity of the person of the incarnate Christ without denying the essential reality of both the humanity and deity of the Savior and without surrendering the all-important truth that there is an ultimate, basic distinction between deity and humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The divine Logos was not one, and another the man in whom he came to be. Rather, one was the _prosopon _of both in dignity and honour, worshipped by all creation, and in no way and no time divided by otherness of purpose and will.
> 
> 
> 
> (From Moffett, “A History of Christianity in Asia,” pgs 175-177).
Click to expand...



And again, he describes this as "too weak to support the theological weight it was required to bear, but it was in no sense heresy."

I would trust that Moffett's presentation and explanation from "Heracliedes" is a better place to begin than some of the other snippets from that work have presented. 

The reason that I keep bringing this up is because of context: (a) Nestorius did not get a fair examination in a council (which itself was held in a questionable way), and (b) the result was a horrific schism that, for all practical purposes, cut off half the church from itself. 

The defense that "God, in the Holy Spirit, produced the correct doctrine in spite of sinful men," simply doesn't seem to hold water, in that (a) the Christological doctrine that came out of Ephesus was not upheld at Chalcedon, and (b) what DID get reaffirmed at Chalcedon, "Theotokos," was not needed in any of the Reformed confessions to write their Christological definitions (except as the definition of Chalcedon is used in them in passing), and it in fact equivocation of that term has caused a great harm of another kind, the Marian cult.

While Calvin seems to have lumped Ephesus in with the first four councils "which were concerned with refuting errors" and that "they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture," he allowed (concerning "councils against councils!) that "we shall determine from Scripture which one's decree is not orthodox."

"Theotokos" is not found in Scripture; moreover, Nestorius was vitally careful to accurately characterize Mary's role _from_ the Scriptures. Here, from the text of the Council, is what the Council rejected:



> Again I should like to expand on this but am restrained by the memory of my promise. I must speak therefore but with brevity. Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord's economy, speaks of the birth and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God. Hear these words that the gospels proclaim: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." It is clear that God the Word was not the son of David. Listen to another witness if you will: "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. " Consider a further piece of evidence: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child of the holy Spirit." But who would ever consider that the godhead of the only begotten was a creature of the Spirit? Why do we need to mention: "the mother of Jesus was there"? And again what of: "with Mary the mother of Jesus"; or "that which is conceived in her is of the holy Spirit"; and "Take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt"; and "concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh"? Again, scripture says when speaking of his passion: "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh"; and again "Christ died for our sins" and "Christ having suffered in the flesh"; and "This is", not "my godhead", but "my body, broken for you".



-----Added 10/17/2009 at 06:07:02 EST-----

Concerning my statement above that Chalcedon did not keep the Christological definition provided by Ephesus, I'll cite Pelikan:



> The genealogy of this decree (the Definition of Chalcedon) makes clear that "the formula is not an original and new creation, but like a mosaic, was assembled almost entirely from stones that were already available. Specifically, its sources were the so-called _Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius_, the _Letter of Cyril to the Antiochesnes _together with the the union formula of 433 (which according to Kelly, "dropped" the anathemas, "the language of "hypostatic union" and "one nature" had disappeared, in favor of Antiochene language of "one prosopon" and "union of two natures"); and the _Tome of Leo_; the phrase "not divided or separated into two persons appears to have come from Theodoret." Even though it may be statistically accurate to say that "the majority of thw quotations come from the letters of Cyril," the contributions of Leo's tome were the decisive ones, in the polemic against what were understood to be the extreme forms of the alternative theologies of the incarnation..."


----------



## Philip

> Listen carefully, now, and try reading closely for a change, because it might help you, though at this point I am confessedly beginning to have my doubts. There is one, yes, you read me correctly, there is but one οὐσία, and that is the one true and living God - "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" (Deuteronomy*6:4). There is but one divine essence, substance, yes one. The Trinity is One being (οὐσία) and three persons. We never speak of Christ as two essences (substances) in one person. The fact is that you are confused and clueless, and yet still winging it as you go along!



Is Christ of one substance with the father? Yes. Is Christ of our substance? Yes. Is Christ essentially God? Yes. Is Christ essentially man? Yes. Are the two natures united in a hypostatic/prosopic union? Yes. To Nestorius, nature, essence, and substance are the same or at least extremely closely linked.

The dividing line between heresy and orthodoxy is this: is Christ fully God and fully human in one person (_prosopon/hypostasis_)? If that is what you hold, I maintain that you are, at least, not in serious error about the incarnation or its ramifications for the atonement. We can argue about the details of how that works, exactly, but it's an in-family dispute.



> Christ "was begotten by the Father before all ages according to His divinity and, in these latter days, He was born for us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin, the Θεοτόκος according to His humanity; one single and same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, known in *two natures* [my note - not *two substances*], without confusion, without change, without division, without separation



Do we agree that Christ was _homoousious_ with the Father, as Nicaea stated? If He is fully God and fully Man, he must have both substances. Nature and substance are very closely linked.

In theology, _ousia_ means "being" or "substance" in a metaphysical sense. God is three _prosopa_ or _hypostases_ in one _ousia_. We speak of _ousia_ to denote a mode of existence. To say that the Son is _homoosios_ with the Father is to say that He exists in the same manner as the Father--pre-existent, co-eternal, co-equal. Can we also say that He is fully human in substance? Yes--He has a physical body and all the attributes that define humanity. Can we say that these are distinct? Yes, or else we are monophysites. The hypostatic/prosopic union unites these two natures/_ousia_ into one _hypostasis_/_prosopon_.

I'm not trying to equivocate the terms here--but I do think that these terms are closely linked.


----------



## Prufrock

P. F. Pugh said:


> The dividing line between heresy and orthodoxy is this: is Christ fully God and fully human in one person (_prosopon/hypostasis_)? If that is what you hold, I maintain that you are, at least, not in serious error about the incarnation or its ramifications for the atonement. We can argue about the details of how that works, exactly, but it's an in-family dispute.



And that, dear brother, is precisely the problem. So long as your definition of Christological orthodoxy is so broad, vague and all-inclusive, what Pastors King and Winzer have been patiently explaining for all of us will inevitably continue to be wholly lost. It is only an "in-family dispute" if one rejects what the very conciliar definitions in question define the "family" to be.


----------



## Philip

I suppose then, that I just disagree over how we define a heretic. I agree with the substance of Chalcedon--I just don't agree that all who take issue with it are categorically heretical. I take most councils to have the same authority--thus, I don't place the declarations of Chalcedon above those of Dordt.


----------



## johnbugay

I don't think anyone here believes or is advocating anything other than Chalcedonian Christology.


----------



## Prufrock

*[Moderator]
I think enough information has probably been delivered in this thread by now for it to be profitable. If someone feels that there is something further which very much needs to be said, it can be re-opened.

For now, it stands thus: catholic Christianity receives and affirms Chalcedon. We hold that which disagrees with its formula to be opposed to scriptural teaching. 
[/Moderator]*

John, what *has* been clearly articulated, however, is that one can stand opposed to Chalcedon and maintain orthodoxy.


----------

