# Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus



## johnbugay

There was a question in "The Wading Pool" about Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus (431). I've looked into these issues in a good bit of detail. There is controversy, and not everyone sees eye to eye on these things. But our knowledge of them is coming into sharper focus. 

My opinion of this council is largely shaped by Samuel Hugh Moffett, a historian from Princeton, who, writing in his 1991 work, “A History of Christianity in Asia,” describes this council:



> “On Easter Sunday in 429, Cyril publicly denounced Nestorius for heresy. With fine disregard for anything Nestorius had actually said, he accused him of denying the deity of Christ. It was a direct and incendiary appeal to the emotions of the orthodox, rather than to precise theological definition or scriptual exegesis, and, as he expected, an ecclesiastical uproar followed. Cyril showered Nestorius with twelve bristling anathemas…As tempers mounted, a Third Ecumenical Council was summoned to meet in Ephesus in 431 … [it was] the most violent and least equitable of all the great councils. It is an embarassment and blot on the history of the church. … Nestorius … arrived late and was asking the council to wait for him and his bishops. Cyril, who had brought fifty of his own bishops with him, arrogantly opened the council anyway, over the protests of the imperial commissioner and about seventy other bishops. …



It's interesting to note that the Bishop of Rome at the time, Celestine I, did not attend, but his "papal legates" were honored guests of Cyril. 

The council was called by the emperors, at the request of Nestorius. (There were two emperors at the time -- east and west.) In fact, all of the first seven councils (which were observed by Eastern Orthodox believers) were called by emperors. 

Near the end of his life, Nestorius, from exile, wrote a work called "The Book of Heraclides," in which he gives an explanation of his life and theology. In that work, he describes how Cyril "conducted" this council: 



> They acted … as if it was a war they were conducting, and the followers of [Cyril] … went about in the city girt and armed with clubs … with the yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely … raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings, carrying bells about the city and lighting fires. They blocked up the streets so that everyone was obliged to fee and hide, while they acted as masters of the situation, lying about, drunk and besotted and shouting obsceneties… (Moffet 174).



The anathemas of this council were directed at Nestorius; they ratified 12 “anathemas” that, as Moffett relates, had nothing to do with Nestorius’s actual teachings.

This, in my opinion, is a travesty of church authority, and yet as Moffett and others have written, this schism was far greater extent than either the 1054 split with the EO’s or the Protestant Reformation. In this split, (effected by Cyril’s armed thugs and a council that bore false witness against Nestorius), the entire eastern portion of the church (farther east than Jerusalem) was cast off and later left to die at the hands of Islam. Yet this church was far larger in numbers and scope than the churches surrounding the Mediterranean see. 

Moffett summarizes this council:



> The Church of the East never accepted the judgment of the Council of Ephesus in 431. It remains the only one of the first four ecumenical councils rejected by Nestorians, and they may as well have been right. Its legality is questionable. Its conduct was disgraceful. And its theological verdict, if not overturned, was at least radically amended by the Council of Chalcedon thirty years later... (Moffett 175)



As for the supposed "infallibility" of this and other councils, Ludwig Ott, writing in "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," says, 



> The 3rd General Council of Ephesus (431) cofirmed the Twelve Anathemas of St. Cyril of Alexandria, but did not formally define them. (Citing Denzinger 113-124, Ott goes on to say): They were later recognized by Popes and Councils as an authentic expression of Catholic Dogma.



What we have is a situation in which this council condemned something that nobody at all believed -- as Cyril's anathemas really didn't touch what Nestorius taught -- and the 2nd Council of Constantinople (553) did "recognize" these "false witness" anathemas as "an authentic expression of Catholic Dogma". 

As for what Nestorius actually DID believe, Moffett says the "doctrine of the unity of the person of Christ" that Nestorius taught "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."

This was confirmed as recently as 1994 by Pope John Paul, in what is known as the "Common Christological Declaration Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Churches of the East" in 1994. This agreement stated that Nestorius's use of language (including his term "Christotokos" vs "Theotokos") was "legitimate" and "right". 

For more information on "the Churches of the East" (otherwise known as "Nestorian" Churches), see:

Philip Jenkins: The Lost History of Christianity

Mar Bawai Soro: The Church of the East: Apostolic and Orthodox


----------



## Christusregnat

Scholars like to pity the bad guy. This story is repeated time and time again. Is it possible that such scholars are simply repeating false witness against Cyril?


----------



## johnbugay

Christusregnat said:


> Scholars like to pity the bad guy. This story is repeated time and time again. Is it possible that such scholars are simply repeating false witness against Cyril?



Who repeats this time and again? I'm sure it needs to be studied further by Reformed scholars, as it will help to provide a lot of insight into our understanding of how councils and church discipline work (and are supposed to work). 

The only group that basically thinks Cyril was a good guy were the Eastern Orthodox, who are bound to those first seven councils, including Ephesus in 431 but especially Constantinople II in 553 which further condemned Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and others, by name. 

But to look at the details, it is clear that Cyril's anathemas did not touch what Nestorius taught. That's a clear instance of bearing false witness. And we've seen the outcome of it (though it's largely been forgotten). The schism of the fifth century was numerically a larger schism than the east/west split of 1054.


----------



## Philip

I've done research on Nestorius and came to the conclusion that yes, he was a bit mistaken and shaky on the unity of Christ, but that Cyril was using this as an excuse to increase the influence of the Alexandrian Papacy. In other words, Nestorius was not a heretic so much as the loser in Church politics (like, say, Gordon Clark in the Clark-Van Til controversy). Nestorius was exiled and his followers fled with him to the newly-independent Patriarchate of Seleucia (formed in 424 with the blessing of the Patriarchate of Antioch) which was outside the jurisdiction of the council, though they would accept Chalcedon.

The Church of the East would go on to be the most missions-minded body of believers in history, with the exception of the New Testament Church. Within five hundred years, there were thousands of believers in China and by the year 1000, it is believed that the Gospel had reached Japan. The Church continued to thrive under Islamic rule until the Mongol invasions wiped out much of the population of the Middle East. The Church declined from the 1200s on because of association with the Mongols (several Khans were Christians) in addition to the depopulation caused by the invasions. Today, the only surviving branches of this Church are the Mar Thoma Christians of India and the Assyrian peoples of Iraq.


----------



## P.F.

ChristusRegnat wrote: "Scholars like to pity the bad guy. This story is repeated time and time again. Is it possible that such scholars are simply repeating false witness against Cyril?"

Lots of things are possible, but there's very little evidence to support Cyril's accusations against Nestorius. The far more common problem, traditionally, is creating a hagiography of church fathers and councils. We see that error in folks like McGuckin, who seem to think that Cyril walked on water.


----------



## Christusregnat

johnbugay said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scholars like to pity the bad guy. This story is repeated time and time again. Is it possible that such scholars are simply repeating false witness against Cyril?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who repeats this time and again? I'm sure it needs to be studied further by Reformed scholars, as it will help to provide a lot of insight into our understanding of how councils and church discipline work (and are supposed to work).
> 
> The only group that basically thinks Cyril was a good guy were the Eastern Orthodox, who are bound to those first seven councils, including Ephesus in 431 but especially Constantinople II in 553 which further condemned Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and others, by name.
> 
> But to look at the details, it is clear that Cyril's anathemas did not touch what Nestorius taught. That's a clear instance of bearing false witness. And we've seen the outcome of it (though it's largely been forgotten). The schism of the fifth century was numerically a larger schism than the east/west split of 1054.
Click to expand...


What evidence to we have of what Nestorius taught? Above you cited one work in which he complained about Cyril. Anything else?

It is repeated by men like Abelard who whined about his treatment at the Council of Balboa (if memory serves), where he got his just deserts under the hands of Bernard.

The point I am making is you may be trusting Nesty's false witness against Cyril.

Cheers,

-----Added 9/30/2009 at 04:22:00 EST-----



PCFLANAGAN said:


> Lots of things are possible, but there's very little evidence to support Cyril's accusations against Nestorius.



What evidence do we have to support Nestorius' orthodoxy?

He did not want to say that God was born of the Virgin; maybe I'm missing something here.

Cheers,


----------



## Philip

Nestorius was simply trying to reconcile the human and the divine in Christ without denying either. He was particularly concerned with immutability, arguing that if Christ was fully God, then his divine nature could not change and therefore, could not become human. Thus, Nestorius argued that Christ must have two natures: a human and a divine. While incorrect, Nestorius' concerns would form the groundwork for the Council of Chalcedon where his Alexandrian opponents, like Dioscorus, a student of Cyril, were anathematized.

One of Nestorius' later writings (written in exile) is located here.


----------



## johnbugay

> What evidence to we have of what Nestorius taught?



I have been citing from the three works that I named in my first post. Moffett, of course, is a historian from Princeton. Mar Bawai Soro is a bishop from the Assyrian church (he recently converted to Catholicism, but that was after living in the US, with Catholics, for some time). Philip Jenkins touches on teachings relatively less.

Moffett says of Nestorius,


> His writings were burned; only fragments survived. His image as left to history was that created by his enemies. Then, dramatically, in 1889 a Syrian priest discovered an eight-hundred-year-old manuscript of a Syriac translation made about 540 of Nestorius's own account, in Greek, of his controversies and teachings. It had remained hidden for centuries disguised under the title The Book (or Bazaar) of Heracleides, but the author was unmistakably Nestorius. (175-176)



For the above he cites "the most through critical study of the text and its history," L. Abrahamowski's "_Undersuchungen zum Liber Heraclidis des Nestorius_," 1963. He continues:



> Judged by his own words at last, Nestorius is revealed as not so much "Nestorian and more orthodox than his opponents gave him credit for. Luther, for example, after looking over all he could find (of the largely destroyed works available at the time) decided that there was nothing really heretical in them. Opinions about him still differ widely, for his 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.



It should be noted that Nestorius was originally from Antioch, and he adhered to the Antiochene hermeneutic, which, at the time, was very similar to the Grammatico-Historical method. Continuing:

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 fo 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.... 



> Nor was Nestorius guilty of another serious charge against him, the heresy of adoptionism. Alexandria complained that the Christ of Nestorius was only a man, a man who was so good and so obedient that he earned for himself an adoptive "sonship" into divinity. (176 ... 177).



Bear in mind that I myself am not a theologian; the distinctions that were fought about are made in the original languages, and I do not have the ability to analyze those. But I do have the ability to report what modern scholars are concluding. 

You said: 


> The point I am making is you may be trusting Nesty's false witness against Cyril.



I'm sure it's the other way around. Moffett goes to some length to describe the character of the various individuals: 



> Confronted by an impassed that threatened to tear his Byzantine empire apart, Theodosius II reluctantly decided to defuse the situation by accepting the deposition of both the rival patriarchs, Nestorius and Cyril. They were arrested adn imprisoned, but the two men reacted to the sentence in quite different ways. Cyril promptly bribed his way back to power. ... Nestorius, on the other hand, who was often tactless and extreme but always honest and sincere, accepted the verdict with only a quiet protest at its injustice. He went obediently into exile ...



This is corroborated by Mar Bawai Soro in his work, "The Church of the East." 

In 1999, Soro was a speaker at the Lumen Gentium series of meetings. In his introduction of Soro, note that the Orthodox Bishop Timothy "Kallistos" Ware also largely confirmed what Soro said about Nestorius:

Check out the first couple of video clips here: OL III - Mary and the Church


----------



## P.F.

Christusregnat said:


> PCFLANAGAN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of things are possible, but there's very little evidence to support Cyril's accusations against Nestorius.
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do we have to support Nestorius' orthodoxy?
> 
> He did not want to say that God was born of the Virgin; maybe I'm missing something here.
Click to expand...


We have very little evidence to work with, because Nestorius' enemies destroyed most of his writings.

The primary evidence we have of his positions from his own pen is the "Bazaar of Heraclides." I think you can probably buy it in paperback these days. That's the evidence for his orthodoxy. It is typically on an examination of that work that scholars acknowledge that Nestorius did not teach that Jesus was two persons, and objected to "Theotokos" because of the potential for it suggesting that the Godhead was born of Mary.


----------



## johnbugay

See more about Nestorius, Cyril, Christology, etc., here, too.


----------



## Christusregnat

When a cadre of modern scholars agree on something, it is best to be skeptical. Critical scholars are particularly notorious for defending heretics.

I am contented to consider Nestorius a heretic, until convinced otherwise by his writings; I'll see if I can pick up his book some time soon.

Cheers,


----------



## MW

Three points worth considering.

1. The "severity" of the times is no argument for the illegitimacy of the proceedings. Appealing to 20th century sensibilities does not invalidate what took place in the 5th century. The actions of the various parties must be examined according to accepted standards of the time.

2. The later subjugation of the eastern churches cannot be blamed on their separation from the catholic church; and if it was owing to separation, it still leaves open the question as to who was to blame for the separation.

3. One ought not to appeal to theological developments since the time of Nestorius in order to paint him as a figure struggling with issues which were foreign to the history of those times. Specific phrases carry meaning within specific contexts. If Nestorius engaged in unorthodox phrases it is because he was unorthodox. His teaching must be evaluated according to what that age considered as orthodox.


----------



## Philip

Christusregnat said:


> When a cadre of modern scholars agree on something, it is best to be skeptical. Critical scholars are particularly notorious for defending heretics.
> 
> I am contented to consider Nestorius a heretic, until convinced otherwise by his writings; I'll see if I can pick up his book some time soon.
> 
> Cheers,



I think what we're saying is that the doctrine condemned at Ephesus was rightfully condemned . . . it just wasn't Nestorius' view. Most of the material written since the rediscovery of Nestorius' writings agrees that Nestorius was mistaken, but not badly enough to warrant such persecution. Church politics at its ugliest.


----------



## P.F.

Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823-1886): "The Nestorian heresy, charged upon Nestorius, a Syrian by birth, and bishop of Constantinople, during the fifth century, by his enemy Cyril, the arrogant bishop of Alexandria. Cyril obtained a judgment against Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, to the effect that he separated the two natures of Christ so far as to teach the coexistence in him of two distinct persons, a God and a man, intimately united. But it is now, however, judged most probable by Protestant historians that Nestorius was personally a brave defender of the true faith, and that the misrepresentations of his enemies were founded only upon his uncompromising opposition to the dangerous habit then prominently introduced of calling the Virgin Mary _the mother of God_, because she was the mother of the human nature of Christ." (Outlines of Theology, Chapter 20, Question 15, 3rd Answer)

I tend not to think of him (or men preceding him, to which he was referring) as a "modern scholar," but perhaps you would disagree.


----------



## johnbugay

> When a cadre of modern scholars agree on something, it is best to be skeptical. Critical scholars are particularly notorious for defending heretics.



I don't know that Moffett is a "Critical scholar". I picked up his work because it was highly recommended by Dr. David Calhoun while auditing his History of Christianity course through Covenant Seminary. 



armourbearer said:


> Three points worh considering.
> 
> 1. The "severity" of the times is no argument for the illegitimacy of the proceedings. Appealing to 20th century sensibilities does not invalidate what took place in the 5th century. The actions of the various parties must be examined according to accepted standards of the time.



But aren't these "Christians"? Is not the moral law an objective standard of behavior for all people at all times? I did not argue for the illegitimacy of the proceedings. I reported Moffett's conclusion.

However, your consideration here would also "not invalidate" something like the Inquisition. I would hope that you would not think that the reasoning in favor of the Inquisition would not be "valid" in any age. 




> 3. One ought not to appeal to theological developments since the time of Nestorius in order to paint him as a figure struggling with issues which were foreign to the history of those times. Specific phrases carry meaning within specific contexts. If Nestorius engaged in unorthodox phrases it is because he was unorthodox. His teaching must be evaluated according to what that age considered as orthodox.



My understanding is that Theodore, Nestorius, Theodoret, and others from the Antioch school were considered "unorthodox" because they refused to go beyond Scripture (and thus refused to engage in speculations). Pelikan, in his "History of the Development of Doctrine" practically says that Chalcedon was a "vindication" of Nestorius. As Reformed believers, we hang our hats on Chalcedon, but not on Constantinople II, which was the council that really condemned those three. 




> Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823-1886): "The Nestorian heresy, charged upon Nestorius, a Syrian by birth, and bishop of Constantinople, during the fifth century, by his enemy Cyril, the arrogant bishop of Alexandria. Cyril obtained a judgment against Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, to the effect that he separated the two natures of Christ so far as to teach the coexistence in him of two distinct persons, a God and a man, intimately united. But it is now, however, judged most probable by Protestant historians that Nestorius was personally a brave defender of the true faith, and that the misrepresentations of his enemies were founded only upon his uncompromising opposition to the dangerous habit then prominently introduced of calling the Virgin Mary the mother of God, because she was the mother of the human nature of Christ." (Outlines of Theology, Chapter 20, Question 15, 3rd Answer)
> 
> I tend not to think of him (or men preceding him, to which he was referring) as a "modern scholar," but perhaps you would disagree.



I am a great fan of A.A. Hodge (see my signature). And even he, here, seems to be defending Nestorius. Nevertheless, he would not have been familiar with Nestorius's "Book of Heraclides," if he even knew of it at all.

Yes, it was true that Nestorius saw the dangers in the "Mother of God" language. A more proper translation of "Theotokos" is "God-Bearer," and that yields a proper understanding of Mary's role. But to call her "Mother of God" (Mater Theou in Latin) really introduces an inaccuracy, and we can see the results of that little slip.

-----Added 9/30/2009 at 09:35:25 EST-----



P. F. Pugh said:


> I think what we're saying is that the doctrine condemned at Ephesus was rightfully condemned . . . it just wasn't Nestorius' view.


 Would you consider then that Ephesus "bore false witness" against Nestorius? If he didn't believe the views that were "rightfully condemned," why then were they attributed to him?


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> But aren't these "Christians"? Is not the moral law an objective standard of behavior for all people at all times? I did not argue for the illegitimacy of the proceedings. I reported Moffett's conclusion.
> 
> However, your consideration here would also "not invalidate" something like the Inquisition. I would hope that you would not think that the reasoning in favor of the Inquisition would not be "valid" in any age.



The name of Servetus comes to mind. The moral law remains the same, but "Christian sensibilities" change from generation to generation. In historical research it is important to paint a complete picture by examining behaviour in terms of accepted norms of the time, not according to modern standards.



johnbugay said:


> As Reformed believers, we hang our hats on Chalcedon, but not on Constantinople II, which was the council that really condemned those three.



Not sure where this might be coming from, but it sounds odd to me. Surely Ephesus should be the focus.


----------



## Philip

> Would you consider then that Ephesus "bore false witness" against Nestorius? If he didn't believe the views that were "rightfully condemned," why then were they attributed to him?



Yes, they bore false witness against him: his supporters weren't given a chance to submit their case.

To me, the whole issue here was a power struggle. Alexandria was competing with Antioch in Church politics, as well as theology, and saw the recent division of Antioch's territory (the Synod of Seleucia, 410, and the formation of the Catholicate of Seleucia into a Patriarchate in 424) as an opportunity to grab power. The ploy was successful, as Nestorius' supporters arrived late. John, Patriarch of Antioch, called a counter-council which exonerated Nestorius and deposed Cyril.

But you've already gone into that. The only thing of lasting value that came out of Ephesus was the condemnation of Pelagianism. The Christological decrees were practically overturned (or at least highly modified) at Chalcedon to the point where, in retrospect, modern Nestorians would agree with Chalcedon.


----------



## Christusregnat

P. F. Pugh said:


> To me, the whole issue here was a power struggle. Alexandria was competing with Antioch in Church politics, as well as theology, and saw the recent division of Antioch's territory (the Synod of Seleucia, 410, and the formation of the Catholicate of Seleucia into a Patriarchate in 424) as an opportunity to grab power. The ploy was successful, as Nestorius' supporters arrived late. John, Patriarch of Antioch, called a counter-council which exonerated Nestorius and deposed Cyril.



This sounds like speculation about the character of historical persons; do you have any evidence to support such assertions?

Cheers,


----------



## MW

P. F. Pugh said:


> But you've already gone into that. The only thing of lasting value that came out of Ephesus was the condemnation of Pelagianism. The Christological decrees were practically overturned (or at least highly modified) at Chalcedon to the point where, in retrospect, modern Nestorians would agree with Chalcedon.



I will pass by your power conspiracy as something which sensible people won't be too inclined to fall for, but in the quoted paragraph you are not only exonerating Nestorius, but Nestorians, and that is simply impossible to accomplish.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you've already gone into that. The only thing of lasting value that came out of Ephesus was the condemnation of Pelagianism. The Christological decrees were practically overturned (or at least highly modified) at Chalcedon to the point where, in retrospect, modern Nestorians would agree with Chalcedon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will pass by your power conspiracy as something which sensible people won't be too inclined to fall for, but in the quoted paragraph you are not only exonerating Nestorius, but Nestorians, and that is simply impossible to accomplish.
Click to expand...


While such an exoneration is impossible if modern Nestorians teach the errors condemned at Ephesus, it seems that the moderns do not teach the Ephesian errors: as they are now in sufficient communion with the RCC that a Roman may receive communion in an Assyrian Orthodox (Nestorian) church if an RCC is not available.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> While such an exoneration is impossible if modern Nestorians teach the errors condemned at Ephesus, it seems that the moderns do not teach the Ephesian errors: as they are now in sufficient communion with the RCC that a Roman may receive communion in an Assyrian Orthodox (Nestorian) church if an RCC is not available.



If that is the case, it doesn't materially alter the tradition's condemnation of Nestorianism. Since that time East has split from West and the West has undergone a Reformation; any "Romanist" acceptance of Nestorianism cannot be construed as a "Catholic" acceptance of Nestorianism.


----------



## johnbugay

It seems as if an old thread has been brought to the front. Here is something though that I probably needed to address at the time: 



armourbearer said:


> johnbugay said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Reformed believers, we hang our hats on Chalcedon, but not on Constantinople II, which was the council that really condemned those three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where this might be coming from, but it sounds odd to me. Surely Ephesus should be the focus.
Click to expand...


The rulings of these three councils (actually four) went back and forth. Ephesus made a particular Christological ruling, which was superceded by Chalcedon, which in turn was ruled on in another way by Constantinople II (in 553 ad). 

In summarizing the work of Mar Aba, a 6th century Patriarch of Seleucia (Baghdad), here is what Moffett says concerning later efforts within the "Nestorian" church, "The Church of the East" to work past what had transpired at Ephesus:



> Above all, Mar Aba (patriarch of the "Nestorian" church) gave himself to the work of reunion. Not only did he heal the wounds in his own church, he also reached out to restore broken relationships between Christians east and west. Not long after his conversion Aba had made a pilgrimage to Christian centers in the West, Jerusalem, Egypt, Greee, and Constantinople. At the Byzantine capital he is said to have been received to communion and in no way treated as a heretic.
> 
> Whether or not he was actually so well received in Constantinople as that implies, in his general council of 544 (The Council of Mar Aba) he saw to it that the Church of the East brought itself more into official theological harmony with the non-Monophysite, orthodox West by adopting the creed and decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. At the same time the council reiterated that the basic doctrinal position of the Persian church was the Creed of Nicaea as interpreted by Theodore of Mopsuestia:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our opinion -- the opinion of all the bishops of the East -- on the subject of the faith established by the 318 bishops (i.e., the Nicene Creed) which we defend with all our power, is that which was set forth by the holy friend of God, the blessed Mar Theodore, bishop and Interpreter of the holy Books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few years later such recognition of Theodore's authority would be labeled heretical in the West. But in 544 it was no act of schism, though the emperor Justinian did, it is true, issue a personal edict that very year condemning the "Nestorianism" of Theodore. It is ironic that as the Church of the East was reaching out for reunion with the West, the West was making that reunion impossible. (Moffet 219)
Click to expand...


Just a few years later, in 553, the Council of Constantinople II condemned Theodore, Nestorius, and Theodoret (and another individual named Hiba) by name. 

Summarizing, Moffett says:



> All three were summarily anathematized, though Theodore had died in communion with the church and though Theodoret and Hiba had officially been cleared of taint by the Council of Chalcedon.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> The rulings of these three councils (actually four) went back and forth. Ephesus made a particular Christological ruling, which was superceded by Chalcedon, which in turn was ruled on in another way by Constantinople II (in 553 ad).



Chalcedon's words: "the frenzied folly of Nestorius" (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, second series, 14:264).

Constantinople II's words: "the blasphemies of the heretics Theodore and Nestorius" (ibid., 310).

Chalcedon affirms the judgements of Nice, Constantinople I, and Ephesus in express words. Constantinople II affirms the judgements of Nice, Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon in express words.


----------



## johnbugay

armourbearer said:


> Chalcedon's words: "the frenzied folly of Nestorius" (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, second series, 14:264).



It was not this simple though. While they condemned the man, in the words of Pelikan, 



> it is, of course, quite another question whether these interpretations of the christological alternatives represented a fair and accurate reading of the various theologies. The insistence that Christ not be divided or separated into two persons did not really strike the center of its intended target, which was the need to affirm that the birth, suffering, and death of Christ were real, and simultaneously to protect the Godhead from compromise by them.... Although the Chalcedonian formula did not in fact say oany of these things unequivocally, it did allow room for them; hence it could be, and indeed was, taken as a vindication of the Nestorian position. (Pelikan, "History," Vol 1, pgs 264-5)



So then we are back to that business of a council (Ephesus) not having condemned Nestorius's teaching as it had been stated (except to disagree with his cautions on "theotokos"), but again, on what basis does Chalcedon call that a "frenzied folly," when they are adopting very much akin to his "one person after the union of two natures" christological formulation? 

I am not saying that we need to welcome Nestorius with open arms; again, my point is to question precicely "how" the Holy Spirit spoke in the council of Ephesus? This was one council that Nestorius refused to attend because (a) his people hadn't arrived in the city, and (b) Cyril was presiding, having "compelled" people to come in, quite evidently at the hand of armed gangs of thugs who were terrorizing people to see things his way. (This is why the Emperorer originally threw out both Cyril's and John of Antioch's council). 

Reymond gives a large analysis of the council of Chalcedon, and it is largely seems to be "fencing off" a particular set of guidelines, within which was "orthodox Christology." 

So it is true that they used "Theotokos" as a title, but they specifically did not use the "Mother of God" language which Cyril had specifically used (there are multiple ways to translate "Theotokos," one as "God-bearer," which Nestorius could have accepted, and "Mother of God," which is Cyril's way of using it, which had become a popular expression, and which ultimately opened the door for "Marian devotion".) 

It was muddy, and while I understand that you are looking to attribute "the work of the Holy Spirit" in the entire history of the church (in the spirit of the Magisterial Reformers), I still do not see how, precisely you are dividing up what was "the work of the Spirit" and what was not "the work of the Spirit" in these councils. 

Especially Ephesus. That council has almost nothing going for it, except that Chalcedon (interested in making peace) said, "That was The Ecumenical Council" of the several held at that time. But what it offered with one hand, it took back with the other.


----------



## TimV

> It was muddy, and while I understand that you are looking to attribute "the work of the Holy Spirit" in the entire history of the church (in the spirit of the Magisterial Reformers), I still do not see how, precisely you are dividing up what was "the work of the Spirit" and what was not "the work of the Spirit" in these councils.
> 
> Especially Ephesus. That council has almost nothing going for it



? Speaking of magisterial Reformers, have you read what any of the magisterial Reformers said about Ephesus? And it's relationship with the Spirit?


----------



## johnbugay

TimV said:


> Speaking of magisterial Reformers, have you read what any of the magisterial Reformers said about Ephesus? And it's relationship with the Spirit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luther did not think Nestorius's work, without having seen _Heraclides_, was all that bad. (I've cited Moffett on this somewhere).
> 
> And to my knowledge, Calvin says almost nothing of it, except Institutes 4.9.13, where he says "Nestorius's impiety was overthrown. From the beginning, then, this was the ordinary method of maintaining unity in the church whenever Satan began any machinations."
> 
> Now, this is not the way we understand Ephesus today. As I mentioned, Cyril started the council, virtually at gunpoint (or the 5th century equivalent of it), and ruled without half of the rightful attendees being there. If that passes for "an ordinary method of maintaining unity whenever Satan begins his machinations," then we are in trouble.
> 
> Turretin as well seems to have little to say about these councils that we are discussing.
> 
> I am open to suggestion as to which Reformed (or even conservative Protestant) sources have written histories of these councils, and said precisely what parts of them that the Reformed say are "guided by the Spirit" and which parts are not.
> 
> To my knowledge, the Reformed reject councils 5, 6, and 7 (Constantinople II, III, and Nicea II), but I am not aware of any source that discusses this in any detail at all.
Click to expand...


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> While such an exoneration is impossible if modern Nestorians teach the errors condemned at Ephesus, it seems that the moderns do not teach the Ephesian errors: as they are now in sufficient communion with the RCC that a Roman may receive communion in an Assyrian Orthodox (Nestorian) church if an RCC is not available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is the case, it doesn't materially alter the tradition's condemnation of Nestorianism. Since that time East has split from West and the West has undergone a Reformation; any "Romanist" acceptance of Nestorianism cannot be construed as a "Catholic" acceptance of Nestorianism.
Click to expand...


Nobody is claiming that the tradition was wrong to condemn "Nestorianism" when some of Nestorius' followers embraced the errors condemned by Ephesus. But the term "Nestorians" is equivocal. Some of his early followers did walk down the Ephesianly condemned path. Others (and his modern descendants) did not. 

As I understand the matter, there are no significant differences dividing the RCC from Protestantism in the area of Christology. If yes, what are they? If no, is there any theological reason why Reformed Protestants should treat the contemporary Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorius contemporary followers) as different from, say, the Greek Orthodox, since both bodies accept Chalcedon?


----------



## TimV

> And to my knowledge, Calvin says almost nothing of it, except Institutes 4.9.13, where he says "Nestorius's impiety was overthrown. From the beginning, then, this was the ordinary method of maintaining unity in the church whenever Satan began any machinations."



You could have turned one page back to 4.9.8, where he says ...we willingly embrace and reverence as holy....Ephesus..... ;-)


----------



## johnbugay

TimV said:


> And to my knowledge, Calvin says almost nothing of it, except Institutes 4.9.13, where he says "Nestorius's impiety was overthrown. From the beginning, then, this was the ordinary method of maintaining unity in the church whenever Satan began any machinations."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could have turned one page back to 4.9.8, where he says ...we willingly embrace and reverence as holy....Ephesus..... ;-)
Click to expand...


Calvin at 4.9.8 lists the first four councils as "concerned with refuting errors--in so far as they relate to the teachings of faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. 

At any rate, if what he says in my quote is the qualification for what he said in your quote, What is it of "Nestorius's impiety" that was contrary to Scripture? Nestorius was from the school of Antioch most careful not to be "contrary to Scripture". If you read Nestorius's letter, cited in the Council of Ephesus, he is most careful to adhere to Scripture.

On the other hand, as we've discussed here, Cyril, via a logic trick, got a council full of his own followers (all of Nestorius's people, including John of Antioch and his contingent were not present) not to vote on Nestorius's own words, but on this logic trick:



> If, however, we reject the hypostatic union as being either impossible or too unlovely for the Word, we fall into the fallacy of speaking of two sons.



Nestorius nowhere says "two sons". Nowhere. As best as I can tell, his ONLY "impiety" was not to use the word "Theotokos."

Now, I've searched through the confessions that are generously published at this site. And I do not find any Reformed believers staking their faith on the word "Theotokos". They all manage to adequately describe Chalcedonian Christology without using that word. 

I do not understand how, given that what we know now is far more extensive than what Calvin knew, any Reformed believer would continue to condemn Nestorius as a heretic.


----------



## TimV

Now we're talking past each other. You said Ephesus has almost nothing going for it. Then you said



> you are looking to attribute "the work of the Holy Spirit" in the entire history of the church (in the spirit of the Magisterial Reformers), I still do not see how, precisely you are dividing up what was "the work of the Spirit" and what was not "the work of the Spirit" in these councils.



and I showed you where Calvin called Ephesus holy, and reverent and to be embraced. Surely you see a difference between something that's holy and to be reverenced and to be embraced and something that has almost nothing going for it!


----------



## johnbugay

TimV said:


> Now we're talking past each other. You said Ephesus has almost nothing going for it. Then you said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are looking to attribute "the work of the Holy Spirit" in the entire history of the church (in the spirit of the Magisterial Reformers), I still do not see how, precisely you are dividing up what was "the work of the Spirit" and what was not "the work of the Spirit" in these councils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I showed you where Calvin called Ephesus holy, and reverent and to be embraced. Surely you see a difference between something that's holy and to be reverenced and to be embraced and something that has almost nothing going for it!
Click to expand...


Yes, I see what Calvin said. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. But when I look at the council itself, I see a bankrupt proceeding, held under questionable circumstances, that made a ruling ("Theotokos") that no reformed confession even mentions. 

Other than that Calvin listed as he did, what is it about Ephesus that is "the work of the Holy Spirit"? Why is Nestorius condemned?


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chalcedon's words: "the frenzied folly of Nestorius" (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, second series, 14:264).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not this simple though.
Click to expand...


Facts can be brutal things. Just accept them and you will be much better for it.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Nobody is claiming that the tradition was wrong to condemn "Nestorianism" when some of Nestorius' followers embraced the errors condemned by Ephesus. But the term "Nestorians" is equivocal. Some of his early followers did walk down the Ephesianly condemned path. Others (and his modern descendants) did not.



If present day Nestorians are not historic Nestorians then there is no benefit to discussing them in a thread which is examining an historic question.


----------



## Christusregnat

johnbugay said:


> made a ruling ("Theotokos") that no reformed confession even mentions.



Is this to be taken that you consider none of the Reformed Confessions to have stated anything about Mary as the Mother of God, or that God was born of Mary?

Cheers,


----------



## johnbugay

armourbearer said:


> johnbugay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chalcedon's words: "the frenzied folly of Nestorius" (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, second series, 14:264).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not this simple though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts can be brutal things. Just accept them and you will be much better for it.
Click to expand...


It is a fact that Chalcedon referred to "frenzied folly"; it does not say what that "frenzied folly" was. That actually explains nothing. So I'm not sure what you are asking me to accept. 

As a former Roman Catholic, I was able to leave that system precisely because I did not accept what they said as "facts"; I challenged them, and searched for the truth. (That is why I am here and why I attend a PCA church). 

I've written quite extensively about this here and in the other thread. I'm relying on the word of sound historians and theologians and have cited them extensively. I can admit that Nestorius, personally, in his actions, may have been "frenzied". But that is not a heresy. His rationale for suggesting the use of the term "Christotokos" was an attempt to compromise between a party that was insisting on _Theotokos _and one that was insisting on _anthropotokos_. To my knowledge this dispute occurred prior to Ephesus. (In Heraclides, Soro does not provide a quote for this, but he says that Nestorius does state that he could "accept the _communicatio idomatum_" as expressed in the term Theotokos" with the reservation that it be noted that "In the beginning was the Word," and that "God the Word exists eternally." That is a scriptural qualification of that term.) 

It was also stated in the other thread that Chalcedon admitted some portion of Nestorius's construction into the definition that we all now adhere to (and as well, some of Cyril's construction from Ephesus was not used. So, prior to Chalcedon, nobody adhered to "Chalcedonian orthodoxy" Such a thing simply did not exist. 

From what I can gather, from what you have been saying, the only reason Nestorius is a heretic is that he did not say "Theotokos". But nor did any of the Reformed confessions; each and every one of them managed to define their Christology without saying "theotokos". 

Aside from that, the ONLY thing that I can tell is that you dislike that I've said that Berkhof was factually wrong about what Nestorius (and Theodore) taught. And I explained that in detail as well. 

Could you please state, in positive terms, what it is that you think I should "just accept"?

-----Added 10/18/2009 at 07:53:39 EST-----



Christusregnat said:


> johnbugay said:
> 
> 
> 
> made a ruling ("Theotokos") that no reformed confession even mentions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this to be taken that you consider none of the Reformed Confessions to have stated anything about Mary as the Mother of God, or that God was born of Mary?
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


It seems to me that the Second Helvetic confession goes into the most detail of this -- the date on that is 1566. And it does not say "theotokos" nor "Mother of God" but uses other language to make its Christological statement. 

Please don't be coy; if you think I am in error, please say precisely where.


----------



## MW

johnbugay said:


> It is a fact that Chalcedon referred to "frenzied folly"; it does not say what that "frenzied folly" was. That actually explains nothing. So I'm not sure what you are asking me to accept.



I am asking you to accept the fact that there was no revised understanding of Nestorius or what he taught. The councils speak uniformly. Your conjectures to the contrary are simply contrary to fact.



johnbugay said:


> (In Heraclides, Soro does not provide a quote for this, but he says that Nestorius does state that he could "accept the _communicatio idomatum_" as expressed in the term Theotokos" with the reservation that it be noted that "In the beginning was the Word," and that "God the Word exists eternally." That is a scriptural qualification of that term.)



This is all a figment of the historian's imagination. Any communicatio can only be predicated on the acknowledgment of a unio personalis, which Nestorius never affirmed. His statements in the Bazaar only allow for a moral union and specifically refer to the adoption of the person of the flesh. Such language cannot be reconciled with orthodox Christology as defined by Chalcedon.



johnbugay said:


> It was also stated in the other thread that Chalcedon admitted some portion of Nestorius's construction into the definition that we all now adhere to (and as well, some of Cyril's construction from Ephesus was not used. So, prior to Chalcedon, nobody adhered to "Chalcedonian orthodoxy" Such a thing simply did not exist.



How ridiculous! Chalcedon praises Ephesus and self-consciously aims to reproduce the orthodoxy of Ephesus in seeking to meet the challenges of new errors.



johnbugay said:


> From what I can gather, from what you have been saying, the only reason Nestorius is a heretic is that he did not say "Theotokos". But nor did any of the Reformed confessions; each and every one of them managed to define their Christology without saying "theotokos".



You are not gathering very well. I have continually insisted on the Christological significance of the theotokos -- a significance which Nestorius rejected. That significance is embodied in the reformed confessions. See WCF 8:2. The eternal Son of God was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. That conception pertains to the human nature but is nonetheless a conception of the Son of God -- a doctrine which Nestorius rejected.


----------



## DTK

I'm not interested in getting involved in this thread beyond this post, but I do think it's of importance to point out a few historical facts about events at the Council of Chalcedon.

The 9th session of Chalcedon was held on October 26, and involved the examination of Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466). He had been deposed in 449 by the "Robber Council of Ephesus." It was well known that he had befriended Nestorius. In order for him to be restored, Theodoret was required by Chalcedon to condemn Nestorius, which he did in the following formula...


> "Anathema to Nestorius and to whoever does not call the holy Virgin Mary Theotokos and to anyone who divides the only-begotten Son into two sons. I myself also have subscribed to the definition of faith and to the letter of the very reverend archbishop Leo; this is my opinion. And after all that, may you be saved." See Peter L'Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, p. 197.



The same condemnation of Nestorius was likewise required by Ibas of Edessa, Sophronius of Constantina, and John of Germanicea. The point is that even though Antiochian sentiments were represented in the official definition of Chalcedon, none of that affected the Council's posture against Nestorius as pronounced at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. Though the number of bishops claimed to have been present was later numbered at about 630 in attendance, the actual figure was probably closer to 510, and the Antiochian contingency was well represented (Ibid, p. 187).

DTK


----------



## Christusregnat

johnbugay said:


> Please don't be coy; if you think I am in error, please say precisely where.



You may need to do an in-depth study of the 9th Commandment; both in your treatment of people on this board, as well as historic councils of the Church. Please don't impute motives that you are ignorant of. The form of my question was intended to give you the chance to speak for yourself rather than my own prejudice being read into what you said. Perhaps you should grant me the same courtesy.

Cheers,


----------



## johnbugay

My apologies to all.


----------



## Marrow Man

One of my seminary professors did his Ph.D. on Cyril and the Council of Ephesus. I copied the OP and sent it to him to get his opinion on this. Here is the gist of his reply:



> But here’s the short version of the story:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Yes, Cyril was a jerk in the way he treated Nestorius.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) But Cyril did not treat Nestorius any worse than Nestorius treated Cyril at the time that Nestorius thought he had the upper hand. In his Book of Heraclidis, written much later from exile, Nestorius seems to have forgotten this fact and he whines incessantly about the way Cyril treated him. But he does not back down on his Christology at all, and he does not seem to remember how badly he treated Cyril.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The way Cyril treated Nestorius would have been inexcusable IF a major truth of the gospel were not at stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Modern scholars don’t think that a major truth of the gospel was at stake, because they believe Nestorius adequately affirmed the “deity of Christ.”
> 
> 
> 
> 5) But as Cyril knew all along, as John of Antioch came to recognize, and as virtually the whole church eventually realized, Nestorius did NOT adequately affirm the deity of Christ. For Nestorius, Christ as a man in whom God the Son dwelt, just as the Spirit dwells in each of us. But the rest of the church, led by Cyril, correctly recognized that such a definition of “deity” missed the central point: Christ had to BE God the Son, not just be INDWELT by God the Son, or he could not save us.
> 
> 
> 
> 6) Modern scholars generally speaking hold to a Christology very much like that of Nestorius. Their notion of the “deity of Christ” means little more than some sort of divine spirit dwelling in this man. It certainly does not mean that he was the eternal Second Person of the Trinity. Since the modern scholars believe that, and want that to be acceptable, they assume Nestorius’ thought was acceptable, and they assume that Cyril’s vehemence toward Nestorius was only the result of politics. It wasn’t. Behind the politics and the mistreatment of Nestorius lay the fundamental, correct recognition that Nestorius’ Christ could not save us, because he was not God the Son incarnate.
> 
> 
> 
> 7) One of the sad ironies of this is that evangelicals emphatically hold to Cyril’s Christology, but we do not realize that we are doing so. And we often passionately defend Nestorius and defame Cyril, not realizing that in doing so we have bought into a liberal, 19th-century way of viewing the controversy that has nothing in common with our own faith.
> 
> P.S. – Nestorius’ use of Christological language was not the problem. The problem was his view of salvation and the view of Christ that came out of it.
> 
> 
> P.P.S. – Jenkins’ _The Lost History of Christianity_ is a fascinating book, but he knows basically nothing about the theological issues of the time, and he virtually admits as much. He is willing to say that anyone who calls himself a Christian is one.



This prof is knowledgeable in the area and has written a chapter in a textbook (_Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology_) as well as at least one book (_Life in the Trinity: An Introduction to Theology with the Help of the Church Fathers_) on the subject.


----------



## johnbugay

Thank you for posting this information from your professor. I'd like to make a couple of responses.



> 1) Yes, Cyril was a jerk in the way he treated Nestorius.



It is not only Cyril being "a jerk." It is an entire church council following his lead, and writing a condemnation of a man based on Cyril's misattribution of what Nestorius actually said. An entire council ratified, under Nestorius's name, a false witness. And, of course, it caused a huge schism in a church which had not previously been split. 




> 2) But Cyril did not treat Nestorius any worse than Nestorius treated Cyril at the time that Nestorius thought he had the upper hand. In his Book of Heraclidis, written much later from exile, Nestorius seems to have forgotten this fact and he whines incessantly about the way Cyril treated him. But he does not back down on his Christology at all, and he does not seem to remember how badly he treated Cyril.



I am aware of Nestorius's prior reputation of being a self-proclaimed hunter of heretics. In that regard, he ticked off a lot of people, and was not well liked. But I don't recall Nestorius's "whining" getting written into church dogma. Nestorius did not lead armed gangs in the street, compelling people and voting bishops to "see things my way." 




> 3) The way Cyril treated Nestorius would have been inexcusable IF a major truth of the gospel were not at stake.



I don't see how you can say "we accept Cyril's treatment because he defended a major truth of the gospel." And again, it turned out to be a mixed bag in the end. Cyril's Christology at Epheusus was overturned to some degree at Chalcedon and Nestorius's "one person, two natures" formulation did make it into the final definition at Chalcedon. It took "the sword" of an emperor to make all parties sit down and make nice. That, I think, is one good explanation for all the inconsistencies that came out of that council. (For example, Cyril is lauded, but his theology gets whacked; Nestorius is still condemned, but his theology makes it into the definition, etc.)




> 4) Modern scholars don’t think that a major truth of the gospel was at stake, because they believe Nestorius adequately affirmed the “deity of Christ.”



This is vague. Who are the "modern scholars"? Moffett, whom I've quoted most extensively, cites Loofs, who did most of the "modern" work on Nestorius. I'm not able to find any personal background about him. But he also cites A.R. Vine. Perhaps your professor could be more careful to say which scholars are the "modern scholars," and how precisely how that affected their reading of history. McGuckin is not "modern" by any stretch, in fact, he is a devout Eastern Orthodox partisan. 




> 6) Modern scholars generally speaking hold to a Christology very much like that of Nestorius. Their notion of the “deity of Christ” means little more than some sort of divine spirit dwelling in this man. It certainly does not mean that he was the eternal Second Person of the Trinity. Since the modern scholars believe that, and want that to be acceptable, they assume Nestorius’ thought was acceptable, and they assume that Cyril’s vehemence toward Nestorius was only the result of politics. It wasn’t. Behind the politics and the mistreatment of Nestorius lay the fundamental, correct recognition that Nestorius’ Christ could not save us, because he was not God the Son incarnate.



Moffett clearly says Nestorius's theology was "weak". But Nestorius was not in the category of a gnostic, or a docetic, for example. He adhered to the doctrine of the Trinity as espoused at Nicea and Constantinople. He was from the school of Antioch, which used Scripture in a grammatico-historical way (in contrast with the allegorical style of Alexandria.) In my reading, I'm constantly coming across Nestorius citing Scriptures to make his point. 

Even so, this is perhaps the only point of the six that really has some merit; with that said, I'm not convinced that any Reformed scholar has ever given this whole period the thorough kind of treatment it deserves. It was, after all, the occasion of the first and probably the deepest schism in church history. 

And it is true that other parts of the theology of Theodore and Nestorius were not what we as Reformed believers would accept. But it was legitimate enough in that day. (In the early church, there were wide variations in what people believed, and the fact that an early believer was orthodox in one area of his teaching was no protection that other things he taught or believed were orthodox.)




> 7) One of the sad ironies of this is that evangelicals emphatically hold to Cyril’s Christology, but we do not realize that we are doing so. And we often passionately defend Nestorius and defame Cyril, not realizing that in doing so we have bought into a liberal, 19th-century way of viewing the controversy that has nothing in common with our own faith.



We do not hold to Cyril's Christology. We hold to Chalcedonian Christology, which is not exactly Cyril's Christology. In his 433 "formulary" with John of Antioch, Cyril made major concessions. Kelly says, "The anathemas which he had made so much of had dropped into the background, and even his favorite expressions, "one nature" and "hypostatic union" had disappeared. Instead he found himself accepting the Antiochene language of "one prosopon" and "union of two natures," while one phrase emphasized the duality of the natures after the union. "Theotokos" was admitted, but only with safeguards which satisfied the Antiochenes, and it was balanced by the admission of their traditional description of the humanity of the Word's "Temple."

This formulary, along with Leo's Tome, were the primary sources for the definition of Chalcedon. Cyril was an opportunist; in the end, on his "christology", he licked his finger, stuck it in the air, and checked the direction of the wind. (And in the end, he accepted what was much closer to Chalcedon, while his Alexandrian school, steeped in "one nature, hypostatic union" did break off and become the Monophysite, Coptic church of Egypt.)

So where do we really stand? 

No Reformed scholar really has looked with the depth needed to produce a study which is mentioned in the same breath as Grillmeier or McGuckin. So we really don't know. 



> P.S. – Nestorius’ use of Christological language was not the problem. The problem was his view of salvation and the view of Christ that came out of it.



What was his "View of salvation"? He was very careful to keep to the parallel of "First Adam / Second Adam", and follow through the implications of that. 


Re. Jenkins, I've not cited him here, except for such things as measuring the size and the scope of the "Nestorian" church.

If your professor's work is available online anywhere, I'd be happy to take a look at it.


----------



## Marrow Man

johnbugay said:


> What was his "View of salvation"? He was very careful to keep to the parallel of "First Adam / Second Adam", and follow through the implications of that.
> 
> 
> Re. Jenkins, I've not cited him here, except for such things as measuring the size and the scope of the "Nestorian" church.
> 
> If your professor's work is available online anywhere, I'd be happy to take a look at it.



The professor's work is available in the two published works I mentioned. In addition, he has a book published by Oxford Press, but I do not recall the name. It is very expensive if I recall ($60 or more for a book less than 300 pages), which is probably why he didn't include that.

As far as Nestorious' view of salvation, it seems it was a sort of proto-Pelagianism, If I recall correctly. He did not delve into a denial of original sin, but taught a view that very much bordered on "Christ as our example," in the sense that in Adam we lost our way and got off track, but in Christ we have our example who shows us our way back.

Of course, that is from memory. The prof did include something of this in class notes, but I do not have them with me at present. I will try to post on this later in the day.

And with all due respect, let me add one more item to this post: this is my professor's area of expertise (his doctorate was specifically on Cyril), so to simply brush off most of his comments as having little or no merit because you don't happen to agree with them or prefer to agree with your own sources instead, is not very helpful. Speaking as a moderator, this is one reason that discussions like this begin to devolve into shouting matches. While expertise does not mean that one cannot err in one's conclusions, it is something to consider. Also, presuppositions need to factor into this (which is why he mentioned modern scholarship; I do not know of whom he spoke, as I copied the response "as is" -- it was an _email _response and not meant to be a theological treatise). The professor in question is Westminsterian in his theology. I know nothing of the predilections of Moffett, et al.


----------



## johnbugay

> The professor's work is available in the two published works I mentioned. In addition, he has a book published by Oxford Press, but I do not recall the name. It is very expensive if I recall ($60 or more for a book less than 300 pages), which is probably why he didn't include that.



You never gave his name. I'm happy to look up those works, and even to consider buying a $60.00 Oxford Press work that's done by a Reformed scholar. 



> As far as Nestorious' view of salvation, it seems it was a sort of proto-Pelagianism, If I recall correctly. He did not delve into a denial of original sin, but taught a view that very much bordered on "Christ as our example," in the sense that in Adam we lost our way and got off track, but in Christ we have our example who shows us our way back.



I can accept, too, that Nestorius (and Theodore) had some similarities with Pelagius. But Soro (at least) goes to some lengths to distance Theodore from Pelagius. On the other hand, Cyril's entire school went off into Monophysitism. I don't think "guilt by association" is helpful here. 



> And with all due respect, let me add one more item to this post: this is my professor's area of expertise (his doctorate was specifically on Cyril), so to simply brush off most of his comments as having little or no merit because you don't happen to agree with them or prefer to agree with your own sources instead, is not very helpful. Speaking as a moderator, this is one reason that discussions like this begin to devolve into shouting matches. While expertise does not mean that one cannot err in one's conclusions, it is something to consider.



I did not "brush off" his comments. I addressed each one of them with factual content, and everything I said in that post addressed a particular point of substance. I have no desire to get into a shouting match. But nor do I care to listen to something along the lines of "Ephesus said it, that settled it." 

I can understand that you are passing along a much-abbreviated response. It seems to me that that $60.00 work from Oxford is precisely the place to begin, in order to have the right kind of discussion.


----------



## Marrow Man

You said, "Even so, this is perhaps the only point of the six that really has some merit..." Sorry, but that sounds like a brush off. I understand and accept that this may not have been the intent.

I have withheld the prof's name because I was posting private correspondence. Also, I do not know the exact title of the Oxford work (but I do believe it is a distillation of his thesis). He was giving me the more accessible works, I believe. If you wish, I can ask him for the title of the work and then PM you with it.


----------



## johnbugay

Pastor Phillips, I intended no disrespect at all. I'm writing quickly, getting kids off to school, and perhaps I could have been more precise with that one. But I had addressed each of the points up till then, in a fair way, I think, and it wasn't my intention to brush anyone off. 

I've already tracked down the works on Amazon, and the Oxford work is "only" $35.00. I would still disagree (from what I know) with this statement from the back cover, that "Cyril's understanding of ... Christology was not merely his own, but was in fact the consensus of the early church." Between the council of Ephesus and the agreement with John of Antioch in 433, Cyril made some major concessions in his Christology, and those who held to his earlier Christology, clearly did not understand what he was saying, as they split off into Monophysitism. Perhaps there is some good explanation for this, but I'd like to see it.


----------



## Marrow Man

John, thank you for your comments/explanation. It is appreciated. Emotions and intents are not always conveyed nor interpreted well in these sorts of forums. Which is why all Christians need to go the extra mile (myself included, of course), In my humble opinion. 

I had a question with the prof concerning the last point. This was his reply. Perhaps this will explain certain things further:



> I did mean to say that we hold to Cyril’s Christology. But what I meant by that was that in terms of what we actually believe, we are affirming Cyril’s Christology. Unfortunately, our theological language is very ambiguous, in that we don’t define what we mean by deity or humanity, and we don’t explain how we believe the incarnation happened. Schleiermacher affirmed that Christ was fully divine and fully human, and that there was a union of two natures. But he did not mean anything like what we mean. So we need to say what we mean, which is that God the Son took a full human nature into his own person at the incarnation, so that humanity was united to him (and thus to his divine nature). Notice the very good language of the WCF here. First it says that the Son became man, and THEN it says that the result of that action was that there was a union of two natures. It explicitly rules out the possibility that deity (as a quality) was united to a man, which is what Schleiermacher and company believed. It affirms instead that humanity was united to the person of God the Son (and thus to his divine nature that he had always possessed). In so far as I can tell (and I have checked a lot of them), ALL confessional statements prior to 1800 (Orthodox, Catholic, and all stripes of Protestant statements) say the same thing as the WCF, but the 19th century has so colored the way we STATE our Christology that we don’t say that anymore. We still MEAN that, but we don’t SAY it anymore.


----------



## Marrow Man

johnbugay said:


> I've already tracked down the works on Amazon, and the Oxford work is "only" $35.00.



Just to make sure you have the correct book (as the one I'm seeing on Amazon is actually $39.32, but I do see some others available for $34.44), the title should be _Grace and Christology in the Early Church_. It is in paperback now, which is the reason for the lower price (a good thing, and I may get a copy now). If you look at the Amazon page, it looks like a new hardcover would now cost well over $150!


----------



## johnbugay

Marrow Man said:


> John, thank you for your comments/explanation. It is appreciated. Emotions and intents are not always conveyed nor interpreted well in these sorts of forums. Which is why all Christians need to go the extra mile (myself included, of course), In my humble opinion.



I really do appreciate this; and I too need to be very careful with what I say. 



Marrow Man said:


> I had a question with the prof concerning the last point. This was his reply. Perhaps this will explain certain things further:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did mean to say that we hold to Cyril’s Christology. But what I meant by that was that in terms of what we actually believe, we are affirming Cyril’s Christology. Unfortunately, our theological language is very ambiguous, in that we don’t define what we mean by deity or humanity, and we don’t explain how we believe the incarnation happened. Schleiermacher affirmed that Christ was fully divine and fully human, and that there was a union of two natures. But he did not mean anything like what we mean. So we need to say what we mean, which is that God the Son took a full human nature into his own person at the incarnation, so that humanity was united to him (and thus to his divine nature). Notice the very good language of the WCF here. First it says that the Son became man, and THEN it says that the result of that action was that there was a union of two natures. It explicitly rules out the possibility that deity (as a quality) was united to a man, which is what Schleiermacher and company believed. It affirms instead that humanity was united to the person of God the Son (and thus to his divine nature that he had always possessed). In so far as I can tell (and I have checked a lot of them), ALL confessional statements prior to 1800 (Orthodox, Catholic, and all stripes of Protestant statements) say the same thing as the WCF, but the 19th century has so colored the way we STATE our Christology that we don’t say that anymore. We still MEAN that, but we don’t SAY it anymore.
Click to expand...


I have really not looked deeply at all into the theological aspects of this; I'm primarily looking at historians, I think. I have said all along that I have no problem with the way that the Reformed confessions state their Christology. Except that each and every one of them stubbornly refuses to affirm Cyril's anathema on those who don't say "Theotokos." 

Second Helvetic, too, "detests the heresy of Nestorius, which makes two Christs of one and dissolves the union of the person..." But this, too, does not seem to be what Nestorius actually taught. Nestorius's work, in fact, is full of "one prosopon after the union." So I do see some disconnect there.

But consider Nestorius's words from that council:



> *I could say much on this subject and first of all that those holy fathers, when they discuss the economy, speak not of the generation but of the Son becoming man.* But I recall the promise of brevity that I made at the beginning and that both restrains my discourse and moves me on to the second subject of your reverence. In that *I applaud your division of natures into manhood and godhead and their conjunction in one person. I also applaud your statement that God the Word needed no second generation from a woman, and your confession that the godhead is incapable of suffering. *Such statements are truly orthodox and equally opposed to the evil opinions of all heretics about the Lord's natures. If the remainder was an attempt to introduce some hidden and incomprehensible wisdom to the ears of the readers, _(This is Nestorius's counter-charge -- not sure what "the remainder" is -- maybe it is "Mother of God" language? At any event he is not dogmatic about it -- JB)_ it is for your sharpness to decide. In my view these subsequent views seemed to subvert what came first. They suggested that he who had at the beginning been proclaimed as impassible and incapable of a second generation had somehow become capable of suffering and freshly created, as though what belonged to God the Word by nature had been destroyed by his conjunction with his temple or as though people considered it not enough that the sinless temple, which is inseparable from the divine nature, should have endured birth and death for sinners, or finally as though the Lord's voice was not deserving of credence when it cried out to the Jews: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.'' He did not say, "Destroy my godhead and in three days it will be raised up."



I would like to know what is detestable in this. Note that he qualifies his own belief with Scripture. 

The Council of Ephesus 

As for the price of the book, yes, I was looking at the used book section. (Not sure what's up with those prices. Must be a supply/demand thing -- they only print a very small first run; once those are sold, then you're dealing with an aftermarket kind of pricing.)


----------



## Marrow Man

If I remember, the reason for the excessive pricing has to do with the publishing house. You pay more for better editors.


----------



## Philip

> We do not hold to Cyril's Christology. We hold to Chalcedonian Christology, which is not exactly Cyril's Christology. In his 433 "formulary" with John of Antioch, Cyril made major concessions. Kelly says, "The anathemas which he had made so much of had dropped into the background, and even his favorite expressions, "one nature" and "hypostatic union" had disappeared. Instead he found himself accepting the Antiochene language of "one prosopon" and "union of two natures,"



Just to note that Chalcedon did adopt the hypostatic union terminology. I'll also say that the Antiochenes were starting to become more comfortable with this language by Chalcedon (even Nestorius makes use of hypostasis to describe the unity of Christ in the _Bazaar_).

It should also be noted that the Coptic Church is not monophysite: it is miaphysite.


----------



## johnbugay

Philip, thank you for those corrections.

Pastor Phillips: If you go Amazon and search the book "Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology," you will see the following:



> We can no longer legitimately view the Christological controversy as a clash between two equally represented "schools," leading to a compromise at Chalcedon that settled the matter in a largely negative way. Rather, the Christological controversy was an expression of the outrage that most of the church felt woard the unacceptable Christology of a tiny minority of people, one of whom (Nestorius, the catalyst for the controversy) happened to be in a very influential position as bishop of Constantinople. That outrage expressed itself negatively in Nestorius's condemnation at the Chouncil of Ephesus in 431 and led positively to the consistent doctrinal formulations at Chalcedon in 451, Constantinople II in 553, and Constantinople III in 680-81." (This is from Fairbairn's chapter in that work, beginning on page 80)



Later he says, "When one recognizes that the fundamental issue of the controversy was who the one person of Christ was, and when one accepts the centrality of Cyril's place in the controversy, then it becomes clear that the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 were consistent with each other and were Cyrillian in substance, even though they did not use Cyril's terminology." (82)


Now, that last statement is something that is completely the opposite of what my understanding is of those two last councils. C-II was a largely negative condemnation (again) of Nestorius, Theodore, Theodoret, and others.

Reymond (614) says, "and the Second Council of Constantinople, convoked by [the emperor], while it did not repudiate the Definition of Chalcedon, did attempt by its Twelve Anathemas to make the Definition more palatable to the Alexandrian interpretation...." Later he says that the controversies of the next two centuries "must be judged, then, to be at heart relapses into contradictions that Chalcedon had already substantially overcome."


Your professor seems to be adopting the Eastern Orthodox view of all of this. I'm sure it's not going to be the last word on it.


----------



## Marrow Man

johnbugay said:


> I would like to know what is detestable in this. Note that he qualifies his own belief with Scripture.



I'm sure you have heard this before, John, but every heretic quotes Scripture. The fact that someone quotes verses is no guarantee of orthodoxy (the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons who come to my door do that). Arius did that. It should be no surprise that Nestorius would do so as well.

I asked (one final time) for the prof to give a summary of what he termed 2-act and 3-act salvation schemes in this early church folks. In an earlier post, I mentioned that Nestorius apparently held to a scheme that was form of proto-Pelagianism, and that was what was wrong with his view of salvation. In other words, his faulty view of the nature of Christ led to a faulty view of redemption in Christ. This is what the professor said concerning those views:



> Those models have been criticized a lot, and they may be too simplistic to be useful in all that many cases. (For example, neither one fits Augustine very well.) But they fit Theodore and Cyril marvelously. Theodore sees the human calling as one of advancing from the first age to the second age. So creation (act 1 or stage 1) is a condition of the possibility for fellowship with God, NOT the actuality of it. Humanity is then called to advance from possibility to actuality (this is act 2). And Christ (the divinely-inspired man) is the leader who goes before us and leads us upward. (Notice how much like 19th-century thought this sounds.) Theodore does not see the fall as an actual event. Rather, it is a metaphorical way of describing the fact that we have always been mortal, sinful, and separated from God. (Again, notice the parallels to 19th-century liberalism.) In my opinion, this creates insoluble theodicy problems, and I remember talking to you about this one day after class.
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast, Cyril (3-act scheme) sees creation (act 1) as placing humanity in fellowship with God, the fall (act 2) as the loss of that fellowship as humanity fell into a predicament from which it could not extricate itself, and redemption (act 3) as more-or-less a restoration to the original condition of fellowship with God. I write “more-or-less” because Cyril (and everyone else) sees what we have in Christ as being, in some ways, more than what we had in Adam. But the point is the basic similarity of the two conditions—Rev. 21-22 parallels Genesis 1-2.
> 
> 
> 
> So the basic idea is like this: 2-act – creation, elevation
> 
> 3-act – creation, fall, restoration
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the 3-act scheme automatically places more emphasis on God’s action (we could not get out of the pit we fell into), and the 2-act automatically places more emphasis on human action (it is our job to rise up to God). That’s why the 2-act shows up in pure form only in heretics like Arius, Theodore, and Pelagius.



My advice is that, beyond this, you procure the works of the prof and then after digesting them, you correspond with him with further questions. That will be far more effective than having me play intermediate.


----------



## johnbugay

Pastor Phillips -- I do appreciate you running this past Dr. Fairbairn; There is no need for you to follow up with him any further. I do hope to try and purchase his work on Cyril. But in the meantime, I do have a few comments: 



Marrow Man said:


> johnbugay said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know what is detestable in this. Note that he qualifies his own belief with Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you have heard this before, John, but every heretic quotes Scripture. The fact that someone quotes verses is no guarantee of orthodoxy (the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons who come to my door do that). Arius did that. It should be no surprise that Nestorius would do so as well.
Click to expand...


I have heard that "every heretic quotes Scripture." But in the present context, I don't think that's a sufficient response. It should be possible, through exegesis, to show precisely what it is that Nestorius is saying that is heretical. 



> I asked (one final time) for the prof to give a summary of what he termed 2-act and 3-act salvation schemes in this early church folks. In an earlier post, I mentioned that Nestorius apparently held to a scheme that was form of proto-Pelagianism, and that was what was wrong with his view of salvation. In other words, his faulty view of the nature of Christ led to a faulty view of redemption in Christ. This is what the professor said concerning those views:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those models have been criticized a lot, and they may be too simplistic to be useful in all that many cases. (For example, neither one fits Augustine very well.) But they fit Theodore and Cyril marvelously. Theodore sees the human calling as one of advancing from the first age to the second age. So creation (act 1 or stage 1) is a condition of the possibility for fellowship with God, NOT the actuality of it. Humanity is then called to advance from possibility to actuality (this is act 2). And Christ (the divinely-inspired man) is the leader who goes before us and leads us upward. (Notice how much like 19th-century thought this sounds.) Theodore does not see the fall as an actual event. Rather, it is a metaphorical way of describing the fact that we have always been mortal, sinful, and separated from God. (Again, notice the parallels to 19th-century liberalism.) In my opinion, this creates insoluble theodicy problems, and I remember talking to you about this one day after class.
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast, Cyril (3-act scheme) sees creation (act 1) as placing humanity in fellowship with God, the fall (act 2) as the loss of that fellowship as humanity fell into a predicament from which it could not extricate itself, and redemption (act 3) as more-or-less a restoration to the original condition of fellowship with God. I write “more-or-less” because Cyril (and everyone else) sees what we have in Christ as being, in some ways, more than what we had in Adam. But the point is the basic similarity of the two conditions—Rev. 21-22 parallels Genesis 1-2.
> 
> 
> 
> So the basic idea is like this: 2-act – creation, elevation
> 
> 3-act – creation, fall, restoration
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the 3-act scheme automatically places more emphasis on God’s action (we could not get out of the pit we fell into), and the 2-act automatically places more emphasis on human action (it is our job to rise up to God). That’s why the 2-act shows up in pure form only in heretics like Arius, Theodore, and Pelagius.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My advice is that, beyond this, you procure the works of the prof and then after digesting them, you correspond with him with further questions. That will be far more effective than having me play intermediate.
Click to expand...


I do find this "two-act" and "three-act" comparison helpful. But again, Nestorius and Theodore were not condemned for "Pelagianism". To do so now completely misses the point of what was argued at the time. And there are many other theologians in the early church who held to various forms of what later became "Pelagian". In fact, there is not, to my knowledge, a single church father who held what any of us would consider to be a totally orthodox theology. 

So concerning what I have seen from the Professor, he condemns Nestorius and Theodore for Pelagianism, which the councils did not do.


----------



## Marrow Man

The comment about "every heretic quotes Scripture" is simply to point out that simply because someone quotes Scripture (which virtually every heretic has done) lends nothing little to the discussion. If Arius wants to point out that Christ is the firstborn of all creation in order to justify claiming Him to be less than God, that does mean he is using Scripture accurately. You are right, that does not address the issues; it was simply to state that just because Nestorius points to the Scriptures does not mean he is using them correctly.

Also, no one is specifically accusing them of "Pelagianism" (which dealt with the denial of original sin). However, there an aspect of human nature that runs through all centuries that follows the two-stage paradigm. Pelagianism, Finneyism, Social Gospel liberalism, etc. seem to follow after this type of thinking with regard to salvation (though for different reasons sometimes). I believe the point of the good doctor is that because Nestorius' view of the natures of Christ was erroneous, this affected his doctrine of salvation, which led to the two-act view.

I have often told people that no doctrines are held in isolation. If someone holds to a faulty view of the Trinity, for instance, this leads to serious problems in other areas of their theology. In Pelagius' case, his heretical anthropology led to an incorrect view of salvation. The argument here, if I am not overstating, is that Nestorius' view of the natures of Christ did something very similar.


----------



## Philip

Two things should be noted:

1) Ephesus actually did confirm the Council of Carthage's condemnation of Pelagianism. There was a second article of business on the agenda: a retrial of Caelestius, a disciple of Pelagius, which ended in a condemnation of CaelestiusN and Pelagianism.

2) Eastern Orthodoxy in general is semi-Pelagian, so calling Nestorius such is to state the obvious.


----------



## johnbugay

P. F. Pugh said:


> Two things should be noted:
> 
> 1) Ephesus actually did confirm the Council of Carthage's condemnation of Pelagianism. There was a second article of business on the agenda: a retrial of Caelestius, a disciple of Pelagius, which ended in a condemnation of CaelestiusN and Pelagianism.
> 
> 2) Eastern Orthodoxy in general is semi-Pelagian, so calling Nestorius such is to state the obvious.



Thank you, I will have to look this up.


----------

