# Nestorianism ...



## amishrockstar (Jul 31, 2007)

I'm studying 'Orthodoxy' (more specifically Ethiopian Orthodoxy) and I'm just curious if it's correct to say that Protestant/Evangelical Christians are *Nestorianists* as opposed to believing _*Monophysitism*_ or _*Miaphysitism*_??? Also, can someone provide a clear explaination of the difference between Miaphysitism and Monophysitism (I understand that the Orthodox Church rejects the idea that they are the same thing)

*Thanks for your help,*
Matthew


----------



## ADKing (Jul 31, 2007)

amishrockstar said:


> I'm studying 'Orthodoxy' (more specifically Ethiopian Orthodoxy) and I'm just curious if it's correct to say that Protestant/Evangelical Christians are *Nestorianists* as opposed to believing _*Monophysitism*_ or _*Miaphysitism*_??? Also, can someone provide a clear explaination of the difference between Miaphysitism and Monophysitism (I understand that the Orthodox Church rejects the idea that they are the same thing)
> 
> *Thanks for your help,*
> Matthew



Protestantism has generally followed the Formula of Chalcedon (451) drafted at the fourth ecumenical council which condemns Nestorianism. 

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

The bolded sections were aimed at Nestorianism which tended to separate the two natures in such a way that it implies two persons--one divine person the Son of God, and one human person the son of Mary. This of course is not the orthodox position of two natures and one person. Nestorius refused to acknowledge Mary as the "God bearer" or "Mother of God" because he did not see her as giving birth to the divine person. While she did not give birth to the divine nature, she did give birth to the divine person of Christ.


----------



## amishrockstar (Jul 31, 2007)

Great! Thank you for your answer.
I guess I was confused by reading the "two-person" ideology of Nestorianism-- for a minute, it almost sounded like it was biblical Christianity, but after looking at it a bit closer, those guys didn't teach the _*'unity'*_ in Christ

Thanks again


----------



## amishrockstar (Jul 31, 2007)

Anyone have any thoughts on the difference between *Miaphysitism* and *Monophysitism*???


----------

