Charges of Nestorianism

[JM]

I don't know about you guys but I've seen the charge that Calvinism leads to a Nestorianism Christology. Rev. Fisk on Worldview everlasting repeats that charge often enough but I've seen it repeated online recently.

"Folks, one isn’t Nestorian unless one believes in Christ having two separate persons. And it isn’t Nestorian to say that something can happen to one nature and not the other, any more than it is Nestorian to say that Jesus sometimes acts according to one nature, and sometimes acts according to the other nature. What is true for the activities of Jesus is also true of the passivities, especially since Jesus actively took upon Himself the suffering.

One must make a distinction, if you will pardon the pun, between the distinction of Christ’s two natures (which is Chalcedonian!), as opposed to the separation of the two natures (which is Nestorian). But again, here we must say that just because something happens to one nature and not the other does not mean that we are separating the two natures. That is a definite confusion I am seeing in some of the comments. Just because one does not scrape one’s violin bow across the tuning pegs of a violin does not mean that one has separated the violin strings from the tuning pegs. Now, every analogy will break down, of course. My only point here is that positing suffering of only the human nature of Christ does not constitute Nestorianism in any way, shape, or form."

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2.../nestorianism/

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Considering historical Calvinism, considering the Reformed confessions and catechisms, I'd say Rev. Fisk, is way out of his league, and I hope a Calvinist will come his way with the good news of historical Calvinism to put Rev. Fisk in his proper place, and set him straight, for the sake of those listening to Mr. Fisk if for no other reason. Of course, Mr. Fisk will try to save face, pride is an ugly green monster.

 

[JM]

True.

Here's something to throw back at the Lutherans who want to name call:

On the Lutheran side, there is the opposite Monophysite tendency either in a Docetist or Kenotic direction.There is here a tendency to speak of a real exchange of attributes between the two natures rather than a merely verbal one.Diverse writers, for instance, have accused Martin Luther himself of believing that the person of Christ is the result of the union of the two natures – the unity of the person results from the unity of the natures rather than vice versa.

Philosophical Orthodoxy: Why the Reformed Tend to be Nestorian and the Lutherans Monophysite: The Degeneration of Christological Language in Incarnation-Talk

 

[hedrick]

You’ve identified tendencies correctly, I think. But I'm not so sure about your proposal.

I should note that in addition to Reformed, Aquinas definitely sees the human nature as an actual substance, much as many Reformed do. This was apparently common in late medieval Western theology. And the same classification of some actions as human, some divine, and some joint, that you observe in Calvin was present in Athanasius, and in Constantinople 3. “for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly.” Indeed the letter of Pope Agatho (part of the documents of Constantinople 3) says that when Christ says “Not my will, but thine be done” it is only his humanity that is submitting to his Father, and cites Athanasius, and ends up saying that in “My soul is sad” he wills something different from what the Father wills.

The danger with your proposal is that it tends to lead to a monothelite Christology. According to Constantinople 3, there is a distinct human will and distinct human actions (“natural operations&#8221. This leads that council to use precisely the kind of language you criticize. In my opinion, a center of will and action has a certain degree of metaphysical reality. If we have separate human wills and actions, I think we’re committed to a be more complexity than your proposed solution allows for. I believe that’s why the tendencies you observe are so widespread. Indeed I would argue that Calvin reflects Constantinople 3 pretty accurately.