Nestorius: Heretic or Misunderstood?

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Hi, all! I'm trying to learn about the Nestorian heresy, and I'm having a hard time figuring it out. I have heard some really interesting comments in here about the impact Nestorianism has had on heterodox churches. I would really like it if y'all could discuss that in more detail.

Here's what I've come across about Nestorius and his teaching:

[font=Palatino Linotype,serif]3) Nestorius and His Theological Influences[/font]

• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Nestorius, a Syrian monk from Antioch, was elected Patriarch of Constantinople in 428, possibly because he was a popular preacher. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Prior to his election, he had been a relatively obscure priest. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Upon election to his new position, he embarked on a campaign of persecution against Arians and other heretics. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]He had been influenced by the Christology of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, under whom he probably studied. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Diodore presented Christ as having two natures, human and divine; the divine Logos indwelt the human body of Jesus in the womb of Mary, so that the human Jesus was the subject of Christ's suffering, thus protecting the full divinity of the Logos from any hint of diminishment. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Theodore, the father of Antiochene theology, taught two clearly defined natures of Christ: the assumed Man, perfect and complete in his humanity, and the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, perfect and complete in his divinity, the two natures (physis) being united by God in one person (prosopon). [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Theodore maintained that the unity of human and divine in Jesus did not produce a "mixture" of two persons, but an equality in which each was left whole and intact. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Diodore and Theodore were considered orthodox during their lifetime, but came under suspicion during the Christological controversies of the fifth century. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]The Syriac Fathers (including Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius) used the Syriac word kyana to describe the human and divine natures of Christ; in an abstract, universal sense, this term embraces all the elements of the members of a certain species, but it can also have a real, concrete and individual sense, called qnoma, which is not the person, but the concretized kyana, the real, existing nature. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]The Greek word prosopon (person) occurs as a loan word parsopa in Syriac; thus, the Syriac Christological formula was "Two real kyana united in a single parsopa, in sublime and indefectable union without confusion or change." [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Whereas Antioch taught that Christ had two natures (dyophysitism), Alexandria interpreted their position as teaching that he had two persons (dyhypostatism). [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Whereas the Syriac Fathers were willing to leave the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in the realm of mystery, the Alexandrians sought a clear-cut doctrine that would guard the church against heresy. [/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][/font][font=Palatino Linotype,serif]4) The Teaching of Nestorius[/font]

• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]At the time, Theotokos ("bearer/mother of God") was a popular term in the Western Church (including Constantinople) used to refer to the Virgin Mary, but it was not used in Antioch. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Nestorius maintained that Mary should be called Christotokos ("bearer/mother of Christ"), not Theotokos, since he considered the former to more accurately represent Mary's relationship to Jesus. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Nestorius promoted a form of dyophysitism, speaking of two natures in Christ (one divine and one human), but he was not clear in his use of theological terms. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Nestorius spoke of Christ as "true God by nature and true man by nature... The person [parsopa] is one... There are not two Gods the Words, or two Sons, or two Only-begottens, but one." [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Alexandria understand him to mean that the second person of the Trinity was actually two persons: the man Jesus who was born, suffered and died and the divine Logos, eternal and unbegotten. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Part of the problem lay in his use of the Greek word prosopon (Syriac parsopa) for "person"; this word was weaker in meaning than hypostasis, the word used by his opponents. [/font]
• [font=Palatino Linotype,serif]At no time did he deny Christ's deity; he merely insisted that it be clearly distinguished from his humanity. [/font]

Now, the bolded parts seem to indicate that his teachings about the two natures of Christ were misunderstood. What do you guys think?

 

[Reader Nilus]

Nestorius maintained that Mary should be called Christotokos ("bearer/mother of Christ"), not Theotokos, since he considered the former to more accurately represent Mary's relationship to Jesus.

That is the problem with Nestorius right there. If that view is true, when did Jesus become God? Or did he become God at all? Mary gave birth to God, and therefore is the Most Holy Theotokos, Jesus was God in the flesh, His flesh was God. If Our Lord's flesh and blood were not God we are all still damned for what is not assumed is not saved.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

That is the problem with Nestorius right there. If that view is true, when did Jesus become God? Or did he become God at all? Mary gave birth to God, and therefore is the Most Holy Theotokos, Jesus was God in the flesh, His flesh was God. If Our Lord's flesh and blood were not God we are all still damned for what is not assumed is not saved.
Jeff the Finn

Yes, I agree with what you're saying. But I guess what confuses me is that after saying Mary should not be called Mother of God, he turns around and says this:
[font=Palatino Linotype,serif]

[font=Palatino Linotype,serif]Nestorius spoke of Christ as "true God by nature and true man by nature... The person [parsopa] is one... There are not two Gods the Words, or two Sons, or two Only-begottens, but one." [/font]

In this statement he seems to contradict his previous statement about the Theotokos. Was he confused or misunderstood? Or, perhaps he changed his mind at some point? [/font]

 

[countrymousenc]

If I remember correctly (and if I don't, somebody say so), Nestorius stated or wrote that he was concerned that "Theotokos" was too easily misunderstood by the uneducated. Now, whether that was his genuine concern or a dodge, only he and God can tell. I wouldn't be too quick to excuse him on that basis, because the use of "Theotokos" was (and is) so important to Trinitarian doctrine and teaching, and he was rebelling against the wisdom of the Church.

As for the rest of it, I'm like you; it's awfully complicated, and I'm still trying to understand the arguments. I'm sure I haven't put enough effort into it yet.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I'd also like to hear more about the presence of Nestorian ideology in heterodox churches.

 

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, GDE!

Nestorius theology can be considered an "eschizophrenic theology" - he believed that two "Christs" lived in the same body, but somehow separated.

By "two Christs" he didn't mean two natures as we define our Christology, but two hypostasis in the same individual ("prosópon", in Greek). This theology is faulty for many reasons.

See, for instance:

Bishop Kallistos Ware, "The Orthodox Church"

Excerpt from the chapter "The First Six Councils":

Alexandria’s second major success was won by the nephew and successor of Theophilus, Saint Cyril of Alexandria (died 444), who brought about the fall of another Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, at the third General Council, held in Ephesus (431). But at Ephesus there was more at stake than the rivalry of two great sees. Doctrinal issues, quiescent since 381, once more emerged, centering now not on the Trinity but on the Person of Christ. Cyril and Nestorius agreed that Christ was fully God, one of the Trinity, but they diverged in their descriptions of His manhood and in their method of explaining the union of God and man in a single person. They represented different traditions or schools of theology. Nestorius, brought up in the school of Antioch, upheld the integrity of Christ’s manhood, but distinguished so emphatically between the manhood and the Godhead that he seemed in danger of ending, not with one person, but with two persons coexisting in the same body. Cyril, the protagonist of the opposite tradition of Alexandria, started from the unity of Christ’s person rather than the diversity of His manhood and Godhead, but spoke about Christ’s humanity less vividly than the Antiochenes. Either approach, if pressed too far, could lead to heresy, but the Church had need of both in order to form a balanced picture of the whole Christ. It was a tragedy for Christendom that the two schools, instead of balancing one another, entered into conflict.

Nestorius precipitated the controversy by declining to call the Virgin Mary "Mother of God" (Theotokos). This title was already accepted in popular devotion, but it seemed to Nestorius to imply a confusion of Christ’s manhood and His Godhead. Mary, he argued — and here his Antiochene "separatism" is evident — is only to be called "Mother of Man" or at the most "Mother of Christ," since she is mother only of Christ’s humanity, not of His divinity. Cyril, supported by the Council, answered with the text "The Word was made flesh" (John 1:14): Mary is God’s mother, for "she bore the Word of God made flesh" (See the first of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas). What Mary bore was not a man loosely united to God, but a single and undivided person, who is God and man at once. The name Theotokos safeguards the unity of Christ’s person: to deny her this title is to separate the Incarnate Christ into two, breaking down the bridge between God and man and erecting within Christ’s person a middle wall of partition. Thus we can see that not only titles of devotion were involved at Ephesus, but the very message of salvation. The same primacy that the word homoousios occupies in the doctrine of the Trinity, the word Theotokos holds in the doctrine of the Incarnation.

And

Fr. Michael Pomazansky (+1988), "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology":

In the 5th century there arose the heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which was supported by Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople. They acknowledged the Lord Jesus Christ to be only the "bearer" of the Divine principle, and therefore they ascribed to the Most Holy Virgin the title of Christotokos (Birthgiver of Christ), but not Theotokos (Birthgiver of God). According to Nestorius, Jesus Christ united within Himself two natures and two different persons, Divine and human, which touched each other but were separate; and after His birth He was Man, but not God. St. Cyril of Alexandria stepped forward as the chief accuser of Nestorius. Nestorianism was accused and condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council (431).

Hope this helps.

In XC,
Rick

 

[NewToLife]

Hi,
Nestorius teachings are indeed quite muddled, he appears not to have thoroughly thought out his arguements which when followed to their conclusions by others were definitely heretical. Some modern western theologians would indeed say that Nestorius himself was not actually a Nestorian. He himself consistently denied that he held the beliefs attributed to him by his opponents but his arguements would tend to testify against him. When followed to their conclusion he does indeed split Christ in two, which is the heart of the Nestorian heresy.

In some modern churches Nestorianism appears to arise as a reaction against the veneration of Mary which is seen as 'too Roman Catholic'. Typically it begins with the refusal to call Mary the Mother of God which is seen as in someway idolotrous. This typically weakens the churches Christology spliting the second person of the Trinity off from humanity and the rest of creation.

Once this split is established people often slip into intrinsically gnostic beliefs in which spirit is seen as good and matter bad, typically our spirit is seen as somehow trapped within our bodies which are believed to be inherently evil rather than a gift from God and therefore intrinsically good ( confusion over St Paul's usage of flesh/sarx typically aggravates this error ). By extension the world also is seen as corrupt by nature. This devalues creation.

All of this can often lead to errors over the nature of the resurrection which is seen as spiritual only ( this denying the physical resurrection of both Christ and all mankind. ). Confused ideas about what happens to the reposed also tend to arise with man being thought to be judged upon his death and immediately consigned to heaven or hell for eternity, totalling ignoring the second coming, resurrection and final judgement.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

All of this can often lead to errors over the nature of the resurrection which is seen as spiritual only ( this denying the physical resurrection of both Christ and all mankind. ). Confused ideas about what happens to the reposed also tend to arise with man being thought to be judged upon his death and immediately consigned to heaven or hell for eternity, totalling ignoring the second coming, resurrection and final judgement.

Very good point! There does seem to be a connection between Nestorian beliefs and gnosticism. I know that my protestant background was very influenced by both. If a person would've referred to Mary as Mother of God in church, they would've been proclaimed an idol worshipper and booted out the door! There was also the belief that our bodies are merely like shells that are temporary, but our souls are immortal. It's amazing how these heresies have stuck around so long!

 

[Wisdom's Child]

I'd also like to hear more about the presence of Nestorian ideology in heterodox churches.

Well, if I may respond from my own heterodoxical viewpoint...

I believe that neither Nestorian nor Orthodox is truely correct.
(pause for audience gasps and shock to subside abit)

The problem with both positions is how to resolve both the Dual Nature of Christ and the Triune Nature of God without violating Doctrine, or making hamburger out of Sacred Cow(Dogma).

Where you place The Virgin Mary in the equation is the real issue here.

Nestor's position is Mother of Jesus which gets some in an uproar about separating Jesus/Man from Jesus/God.

The Orthodox position which causes an uproar in the heterodox community puts The Virgin Mary in the position of Mother of God, which raises issues about separating Son from Father and Spirit.

To be the Theotokos would mean that she is Mother to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well.

Basically the same issues and arguements against Nestorianism can be applied to Orthodoxy in regards to dividing the Trinity of God.

Does that help?

 

[countrymousenc]

Well, if I may respond from my own heterodoxical viewpoint...


To be the Theotokos would mean that she is Mother to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well.

No, it does not. She is the mother ("God-birth-giver") of God the Word, not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit.

Here is the problem with much of Protestant/Evangelical "Trinitarian" theology; it does not adequately distinguish between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Persons. The Triune God is One Unique and Ineffible Nature consisting of Three Divine Persons, from all eternity. The problem with western theology in general is that it insists upon rationalizing all mystery away, and will not accept a God it cannot fully explain. In this particular aspect, it must climb up to heaven on its own strength, or it will not step on the first rung of the ladder.

The Virgin Mary is correctly titled "Theotokos" because Christ did not compromise in any way his Divine Nature when he entered her womb. To refuse her this title is to compromise Trinitarian theology.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Well, if I may respond from my own heterodoxical viewpoint...

I believe that neither Nestorian nor Orthodox is truely correct.
(pause for audience gasps and shock to subside abit)

The problem with both positions is how to resolve both the Dual Nature of Christ and the Triune Nature of God without violating Doctrine, or making hamburger out of Sacred Cow(Dogma).

Where you place The Virgin Mary in the equation is the real issue here.

Nestor's position is Mother of Jesus which gets some in an uproar about separating Jesus/Man from Jesus/God.

The Orthodox position which causes an uproar in the heterodox community puts The Virgin Mary in the position of Mother of God, which raises issues about separating Son from Father and Spirit.

To be the Theotokos would mean that she is Mother to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well.

Basically the same issues and arguements against Nestorianism can be applied to Orthodoxy in regards to dividing the Trinity of God.

Does that help?

Hmmm...it doesn't exactly help, but you raise some interesting questions. As for the comment in bold above, Orthodoxy does not hold the belief that somehow Mary brought God the Father into existance. That wouldn't make sense: He has no beginning or end. I see what you're saying, being that we believe Christ was both fully God and fully man. Orthodox theologians probably don't want to go very deep in trying to figure out how Christ can be fully God; it is a divine mystery.

I'm *really* hoping some people will comment on the dividing of the Trinity, cuz now I'm a little confused on that, too.......

 

[gzt]

Wisdom's Child: As far as I can tell, Lutheranism and Calvinism disagree with you and accept the Orthodox position, at least in their confessional documents. What sort of Protestantism are you talking about?

 

[Oblio]

The Orthodox position which causes an uproar in the heterodox community puts The Virgin Mary in the position of Mother of God, which raises issues about separating Son from Father and Spirit.

In fact it does not, and is not a position diametrically opposed to the Nestorian WRT terminology. The reason is this, by affirming the Mary is the Theotokos (bearer of God) we know that He is Divine because we speak of God being born, and we know He is human because she bore Him and He took His flesh from her.

To be the Theotokos would mean that she is Mother to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well.

No, Christ the Person is not the Person of God the Father, nor God the Spirit. There is onr One God, manifest in three persons.

This is a common misconception held by many Protestants, that a Mother creates or is the source of a person. She is not, for we know that God is the source and creator of all who are born. Nor is the Theotokos a source of His Divinity by being called the Mother of God. Just as my mother is the mother of all of me yet not creating me, including that which I inherited from my father, so also is the Theotokos the Mother of Christ's Divinity without being the source or creator of that Divinity.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

No, Christ the Person is not the Person of God the Father, nor God the Spirit. There is onr One God, manifest in three persons.

There are 3 distinct Persons manifest from one God. Each of these Persons are still fully God, right? So Christ was God, but not God the Father........but still fully God........

EXTRA STRENGTH TYLENOL, ANYONE???

 

[katherine2001]

Each person of the Trinity is distinct. It was God the Son who took on human flesh by being conceived in the womb of Mary. Christ took on human flesh and a human nature from His mother. Oblio is right, no human being creates a child--only God can do that. However, a mother is mother to all of her child. We had this thread in the General Theology section of this board, and one guy acknowledged to me that in his opinion, Mary was mother only to Christ's human nature and God was only father to His divine nature. A parent is parent to all of their child, not just the parts that come from him or her. It would be a crazy, mixed-up child if each part of him or her only had one parent because each parent was only parent of the parts that came from him or her. If Christ had His divine nature at the time of His conception in her womb (which we believe He did), then she is mother to that as well, as a mother is mother to all that her child is and not just parts of her child. Actually, calling Mary by the title of Theotokos says much more about Christ Himself than it does about her. It says that there was never a time that Christ didn't have His divine nature. There were those who said that Christ was just a human being until a certain time when His divine nature was given to Him (some said this happened at His baptism when the Holy Spirit came to rest on His shoulder in the form of a dove).

GDE, you may want to take your questions about Nestorian and why he was wrong to your priest. He might get you less confused. We are not theologians on this list, and you can learn things that are wrong or that your priest would not agree with. I've belonged to Orthodox boards for about 4 years now, and asked my priest about something I read on one of the boards/lists, and got a very different answer from my priest when I asked whether what that person had said was true. Especially, when you are new to the faith, it can be best to ask your priest about things--it will be a lot less confusing. Could you make up a list of questions about Nestorianism that are confusing to you and then let him answer. If he has e-mail, maybe you could e-mail them to him and he could take the time to answer them. It could take him some time to do so and he could spend the time that he needs to answer them.

 

[Oblio]

There are 3 distinct Persons manifest from one God.

I need to nitpick (and I hope I pick correctly, please correct me folks where I err)

I think it is important that we say not from one God, but in one God. We know that God the Father is the source or Godhead, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is begotten of the Father, both eternally. The point being is that there are not three Persons (created) from one God.

 

[nyj]

To be the Theotokos would mean that she is Mother to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as well.

No, because the point you are missing here is that the word Theotokos means most accurately, God-bearer. If Jesus Christ is God, then Mary is the God-bearer. You can completely exclude the "God the Father" AND "God the Holy Spirit" issues from the equation.

 

[NewToLife]

You can completely exclude the "God the Father" AND "God the Holy Spirit" issues from the equation.

Unless of course you are a Modalist .

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I think this is another one of those things that I have to just accept that I'll probably never understand. One God, manifest in three Persons---each of which is fully God----is too complex or abstract for my pea brain. I'll just accept it as a divine mystery.

I have to admit that after seeing several websites (some Orthodox) that indicate Nestorius was simply misunderstood, combined with the new idea that the Monophysite issue was only a case of misunderstanding.......I'm left wondering if these are attempts at some sort of false ecumenism. It concerns me that some are so quick to dismiss ecumenical counsils as "political", or that the Holy Fathers were just confused or something.

 

[KennySe]

I have to admit that after seeing several websites (some Orthodox) that indicate Nestorius was simply misunderstood, combined with the new idea that the Monophysite issue was only a case of misunderstanding.......I'm left wondering if these are attempts at some sort of false ecumenism. It concerns me that some are so quick to dismiss ecumenical counsils as "political", or that the Holy Fathers were just confused or something.

Amen!

There are wolves in sheep's clothing everywhere.

I think of those theologians with their fancy degrees who went after Mel Gibson, with their talk of the "historical Jesus" vs. the "Biblical Jesus".

Mel called such scholars "letter laden".