Spiritual Son of His Father (Check) Biological Son of Mary (Check) Two Souls (NO! Naughty! Bad!)

[Grip Docility]

Nestorianism is defined as such...

Nestorianism is a Christian heresy that originated in Asia Minor and Syria in the 5th century AD. It's named after Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople from around 386–451 AD, whose teachings inspired the movement. Nestorianism emphasizes the independence of Christ's divine and human natures, believing that they are two distinct persons sharing one body, but not united in essence. Nestorians also believed that Mary was only the "bearer of Christ" (Christotokos), not the "bearer of God" (theotokos), because calling her the mother of God would put her above Nestorius. This led Nestorians to conclude that it was only the human Jesus who suffered and died on the cross, not the divine Son.

To understand how this came about, we have to understand how the Heresy of Gnosticism crept into the church and what it is.​

​

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.​

​

Gnostics taught two simple matters. God is the source of Sprit and Satan is the provider of Flesh. You can chop this up in as many different ways possible, but pure Gnosticism teaches that Flesh itself is Satanic and Evil. This led to what is known as a teaching about Christ having two distinct hypostases.

"Nestorianism" refers to the doctrine that there are two distinct hypostases in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other human. The teaching of all churches that accept the Council of Ephesus is that in the Incarnate Christ is a single hypostasis, God and man at once. That doctrine is known as the Hypostatic union.

Hypostases refers to substance of reality. Soul is an acceptable term to simplify this matter. The idea that Sin is a DNA, Flesh infused wickedness, led people to look beyond the fact that the very system of this Power Hungry world is enough to propagate sin, and to the idea that Sin is sarx itself. This essentially is unknowingly saying that God's very substance of Creation is Evil.

Doctrine was formulated to suggest that Jesus (God with us, God the Son, The fulness of the Godhead Bodily) was not God with us, but 1 Body, containing two souls. One Human and the other divine. This is taught no where in scripture and it is a specific suggestion that Jesus Christ was NOT the Fulness of the Godhead Bodily.

Jesus was the Son of His Father
Jesus was the Son of His mother

Jesus was God with Us

It is right to say Son of God.
It is right to say God.
It is right to say Son of Man.

It is WRONG to divide God into two separate beings, walking as ONE.

The Creator was Born the very Miraculous union of Creator and Creation. Jesus was born God and is God, always has been God... and God became FLESH.

The Trinity is not divisible. There is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and as surely as (for examples sake) our Body is not our Soul, nor our Soul our Zoe (Spirit), nor our Zoe (Spirit) our Body, so the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit the Son or Father. Yet, the fulness of the Godhead is always present where ever Father, Son or Holy Spirit are, because the Triune substance of our ONE Mono-Theistic God is INDIVISIBLE.

To say that Jesus was not Fully God and Fully Man is to deny the very finishing of our Salvation in Doctrine, if such Gospel Doctrine is properly understood. The Man didn't Die on the Cross. The Word of God (The Son of God, God the Son), Who became FLESH, Died on the Cross. If this is not so, then the Old Covenant could have never been fulfilled and the very "Last Will and Testament" of the Creator, would not be in full effect (The New Covenant).

 

[The Liturgist]

Nestorianism is defined as such...

Nestorianism is a Christian heresy that originated in Asia Minor and Syria in the 5th century AD. It's named after Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople from around 386–451 AD, whose teachings inspired the movement. Nestorianism emphasizes the independence of Christ's divine and human natures, believing that they are two distinct persons sharing one body, but not united in essence. Nestorians also believed that Mary was only the "bearer of Christ" (Christotokos), not the "bearer of God" (theotokos), because calling her the mother of God would put her above Nestorius. This led Nestorians to conclude that it was only the human Jesus who suffered and died on the cross, not the divine Son.

To understand how this came about, we have to understand how the Heresy of Gnosticism crept into the church and what it is.​

​

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.​

​

Gnostics taught two simple matters. God is the source of Sprit and Satan is the provider of Flesh. You can chop this up in as many different ways possible, but pure Gnosticism teaches that Flesh itself is Satanic and Evil. This led to what is known as a teaching about Christ having two distinct hypostases.

"Nestorianism" refers to the doctrine that there are two distinct hypostases in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other human. The teaching of all churches that accept the Council of Ephesus is that in the Incarnate Christ is a single hypostasis, God and man at once. That doctrine is known as the Hypostatic union.

Hypostases refers to substance of reality. Soul is an acceptable term to simplify this matter. The idea that Sin is a DNA, Flesh infused wickedness, led people to look beyond the fact that the very system of this Power Hungry world is enough to propagate sin, and to the idea that Sin is sarx itself. This essentially is unknowingly saying that God's very substance of Creation is Evil.

Doctrine was formulated to suggest that Jesus (God with us, God the Son, The fulness of the Godhead Bodily) was not God with us, but 1 Body, containing two souls. One Human and the other divine. This is taught no where in scripture and it is a specific suggestion that Jesus Christ was NOT the Fulness of the Godhead Bodily.

Jesus was the Son of His Father
Jesus was the Son of His mother

Jesus was God with Us

It is right to say Son of God.
It is right to say God.
It is right to say Son of Man.

It is WRONG to divide God into two separate beings, walking as ONE.

The Creator was Born the very Miraculous union of Creator and Creation. Jesus was born God and is God, always has been God... and God became FLESH.

The Trinity is not divisible. There is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and as surely as (for examples sake) our Body is not our Soul, nor our Soul our Zoe (Spirit), nor our Zoe (Spirit) our Body, so the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit the Son or Father. Yet, the fulness of the Godhead is always present where ever Father, Son or Holy Spirit are, because the Triune substance of our ONE Mono-Theistic God is INDIVISIBLE.

To say that Jesus was not Fully God and Fully Man is to deny the very finishing of our Salvation in Doctrine, if such Gospel Doctrine is properly understood. The Man didn't Die on the Cross. The Word of God (The Son of God, God the Son), Who became FLESH, Died on the Cross. If this is not so, then the Old Covenant could have never been fulfilled and the very "Last Will and Testament" of the Creator, would not be in full effect (The New Covenant).

Correct, Nestorianism is extremely toxic and pernicious.

 

[jas3]

This is a good post, I just want to clear up some vocabulary:

Hypostases refers to substance of reality. Soul is an acceptable term to simplify this matter.

The first sentence is vague and the second sentence is not really accurate. A hypostasis in this context is more like a "particular instance" of a substance. In English it is commonly rendered "person," although to make matters more confusing the Greek word "prosopon" is also theologically important and is also translated "person."

But overall, your summary is correct. Nestorianism itself is an interesting subject because it is the earliest Christological controversy that is still around today in that the Church of the East broke communion with the larger Church over it. It would probably be too much of a digression to go into the nuances of their Christology (and I am not really qualified to speak on it much at all) but from what I understand even they don't teach as much of a separation between the divinity and humanity of Christ as Nestorius did.

 

[Grip Docility]

This is a good post, I just want to clear up some vocabulary:

The first sentence is vague and the second sentence is not really accurate. A hypostasis in this context is more like a "particular instance" of a substance. In English it is commonly rendered "person," although to make matters more confusing the Greek word "prosopon" is also theologically important and is also translated "person."

But overall, your summary is correct. Nestorianism itself is an interesting subject because it is the earliest Christological controversy that is still around today in that the Church of the East broke communion with the larger Church over it. It would probably be too much of a digression to go into the nuances of their Christology (and I am not really qualified to speak on it much at all) but from what I understand even they don't teach as much of a separation between the divinity and humanity of Christ as Nestorius did.

Jas3, thank you for your observations. I agree that the initial verbiage didn’t actually cover the full meaning of the word hypostasis. I sometimes simplify concepts by omitting details that would draw the reader away from the direct verbiage of an idea.

In this case, because the OP is geared towards our precious Incarnation, I really pondered how to convey the incorrect view of Nestorianism. I settled on the idea that most afflicted with the heresy say “two separate natures” while essentially implying that Jesus had two souls.

Now, the substance of reality depth of Hypostatis is a far more robust word that, as you have stated goes far beyond the concept of the soul. I appreciate that you stated this.

Perhaps some readers that don’t understand the more precise verbiage might look those words up and develop a more clear view of things, thanks to your implying the need to study the concepts more deeply than just the OP specific use of words.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you Sibling in Him.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Correct, Nestorianism is extremely toxic and pernicious.

Tragically, Nestorianism has infiltrated some communities due to the members' desire to evade any semblance of error and idolatry.

 

[Grip Docility]

Tragically, Nestorianism has infiltrated some communities due to the members' desire to evade any semblance of error and idolatry.

In direct reference to another thread in play, currently, I noticed exactly what you are speaking of. Some individuals would say in one breath that Jesus is God and Mary is the God bearer. Then, as discussion became more precise on the matter, those same individuals would resort to dividing Christ per the standards of Nestorianism. It seemed that by holding to the biblical conclusion about our Precious Incarnation they could project the necessary respect for Mary that would follow and thus, dropped away from Canon and back to ideas that supported their man made doctrinal understandings.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In direct reference to another thread in play, currently, I noticed exactly what you are speaking of. Some individuals would say in one breath that Jesus is God and Mary is the God bearer. Then, as discussion became more precise on the matter, those same individuals would resort to dividing Christ per the standards of Nestorianism. It seemed that by holding to the biblical conclusion about our Precious Incarnation they could project the necessary respect for Mary that would follow and thus, dropped away from Canon and back to ideas that supported their man made doctrinal understandings.

When God is confined to human reason and understanding, He becomes an idol. No Christian can truly claim that their mind can fully comprehend God and define His nature; however, many have attempted this and consequently fallen into error and heresy.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is a good post, I just want to clear up some vocabulary:

The first sentence is vague and the second sentence is not really accurate. A hypostasis in this context is more like a "particular instance" of a substance. In English it is commonly rendered "person," although to make matters more confusing the Greek word "prosopon" is also theologically important and is also translated "person."

But overall, your summary is correct. Nestorianism itself is an interesting subject because it is the earliest Christological controversy that is still around today in that the Church of the East broke communion with the larger Church over it. It would probably be too much of a digression to go into the nuances of their Christology (and I am not really qualified to speak on it much at all) but from what I understand even they don't teach as much of a separation between the divinity and humanity of Christ as Nestorius did.

Fortunately the Church of the East moved past Nestorianism, and actually did so by adopting what was in effect a Syriac translation of Chalcedon by Mar Babai the Great, which displaced the earlier Greek-language Nestorian Christological formula composed by the pro-Nestorian theologians fired from the Catechtical School of Antioch, who set up the 5th century equivalent of Seminex (the Seminary in Exile founded by disgruntled and disaffected LCMS faculty who resented the renewed focus on orthodoxy at the main Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod Concordia Seminary in the 1970s, something my friends @MarkRohfrietsch (who is from the LCC, which is the Canadian equivalent of the LCMS, except I like to joke with him they should have called it the Manitoba Synod) and @Ain't Zwinglian are likely familiar with on a historical level.

Furthermore, since 1974, with the consecration of Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, as Catholicos of the Assyrian Church of the East (following the tragic assassination of the last hereditary Catholicos, Mar Shimun XXIII) who I met a year before he reposed, at one of his last Patriarchal Divine Liturgies, additional clarifications were made that further eliminated most remaining traces of Nestorianism. Likewise, Mar Addai II, memory eternal, Catholicos of the Ancient Church of the East, a traditionalist group founded after it was realized that the hereditary leadership of the church was in violation of its own canons, as well as the canons of the ancient church such as one will find in the Eastern Orthodox nomocanon known as the Rudder, which preclude a bishop from choosing his own successor, made such reforms as were sufficient for Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas, memory eternal, of the Syriac Orthodox Church, to have ecumenical dialogues with him.

Basically, where all churches agree is that in the Incarnation, Jesus Christ put on our humanity, and thus is fully God and fully man, with his humanity and divinity united hypostatically, without change, confusion, separation or division. This satisfies the requirements of St. Athanasius concerning the Incarnation: that God became man so that we might become god, and that what is not assumed is not healed. This is why the Roman Catholics will allow their members to receive communion from the Assyrian (and presumably the Ancient) Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox, although in practice only the Church of the East will normally permit this. The Assyrian Church of the East specifically will allow anyone who is a baptized Christian, who accepts the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to partake.*

* This approach, which falls short of open communion by implementing a clear requirement, strikes me as being in the right direction of facilitating intercommunion, although I think a few additional strictures are desirable, and such a model ought to be regarded as closed communion, insofar as it is restricted to members of churches whose beliefs are compatible with those of the Orthodox Church at the Council of Ephesus, and who thus renounce Nestorianism, Iconoclasm and other related errors.

 

[The Liturgist]

When God is confined to human reason and understanding, He becomes an idol. No Christian can truly claim that their mind can fully comprehend God and define His nature; however, many have attempted this and consequently fallen into error and heresy.

Indeed, the Orthodox Church agrees on this point, and teaches that the divine essence of God is by nature entirely beyond human understanding. However, God has made himself visible to us through His incarnation in the person of the Son. Additionally, we can experience and cooperate with his uncreated energies, such as the grace and love of the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand some of the less skillful Scholastic Catholic theologians seemed to risk contradicting what you were saying with their emphasis on Absolute Divine Simplicity, which implies comprehensibility. However, if I recall the way St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, as he is venerated by the Roman Catholic Church, dealt with this in the Summa was elegant.

There is a book I have been meaning to get, which is An Orthodox Reading of Thomas Aquinas, which shows the alignment between many aspects of Thomism and Orthodox theology. It is the case, for example, that both Aquinas and St. Gregory Palamas, who is in many respects the Orthodox equivalent, made use of Aristotle.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

]@MarkRohfrietsch[/USER] (who is from the LCC, which is the Canadian equivalent of the LCMS, except I like to joke with him they should have called it the Manitoba Synod) and @Ain't Zwinglian are likely familiar with on a historical level. Familiar, yes and Missouri North is a term that is often used regarding LCC.