Theotokos and neo-Nestorianism

PilgrimToChrist · Apr 7, 2010

A fundamentalist Baptist who I spar with on Facebook posted a link to this article

Quoting from the article:

Now, this is what the Counsel of Ephesus in 431 declared (and Im quoting from the Counsel): If anyone does not confess that the Immanuel Christ in truth is God, and the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (theoticas), he is to be judged, essentially, is what it says. Serious. Anybody who denied that she was the mother of God! Now, thats a heavy statement, folks. She was the mother of the human Jesus, but it is not accurate to say she is the mother of God for that indicates that God was born.

(The following is my response to him, I just posted this last night, he hasn't responded yet.)

Well, the transliteration of the Greek Θεοτόκος is "Theotokos", not "theoticas" -- I don't know what happened there... The literal translation is "Theos" - "God", and "tokos" - "birth", so "Theotokos", "The one who gives birth to God" or "God-bearer" or "Mother of God".

But more fundamentally, yes, "that indicates that God was born". Indeed, it is the fundamental, primary assertion of Christianity that God the Son, who was and is being eternally born of God the Father was also born in ("the fullness of") time as a man. He "became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man", as the Council of Nicea put it. The distinction here that the author makes between the "human Jesus" as distinct from the "divine Jesus" (as we can infer) is the very same Nestorian heresy that the Counsel of Ephesus was trying to combat!

Nestorius did not go as far as some Gnostics did who distinguished between the human Jesus and the divine Christ, still his separation between Christ's human and divine natures was too strong. By saying that Mary only gave birth to the human Jesus, he was accused of adoptionism -- claiming that a human Jesus *became* God.

On the other hand orthodoxy asserts a complete *union* of the human and divine natures (though they remain distinct) such that, yes, God Himself was born a mewling infant child. Indeed, it is that total union of the human and divine natures that is the basis of our salvation, it is not an obscure thing to argue how important it is that we understand that Christ is fully human and fully divine, eternally united in one person, with two wills. Assault on the nature of Christ undermines the foundation of our faith. That is why the Christological crises were so important to the Church.

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" ~ Lk 1:43

laconicstudent · Apr 7, 2010

I question whether the pastor read the article before posting it.

This,

She was the mother of the human Jesus, but it is not accurate to say she is the mother of God for that indicates that God was born.

looks like classic Nestorianism. And being born does not contradict having existed previously for eternity necessarily.

That, and the author thinks the word "bull" and a comma is part of the name of a papal bull.

Pope Pius IX, in one of his—I think it was called “bull, Ineffabilus”

I'm just going to suggest that when someone makes such a painful mistake they may actually have no idea what they are talking about.

E.C. · Apr 7, 2010

Nestorius and modern day Protestants, while both being in error, are in error for differing reasons.

Nestorius was just a heretic plain and simple. Protestant pastors, such as the one quoted, are just wrong and preaching heresy, yet not heretics themselves because a heretic must knowingly deny the truth. Not knowing the truth and denying it is different from knowing the truth and denying it.

Moving on...

Before Nestorius Mary had always been called "Theotokos", yet Nestorius challenged this title due to his rationalistic tendencies of trying to understand the Logos, that is, Christ's incarnation. Out of that he believed that it is wrong to call Mary the "Theotokos" and that it is more correct to call her "Christokos" because, according to him, Mary only gave birth to Christ and not God.

Here's the rub: Christ is God and Man united in one body with both a divine nature and a human nature. While Mary certainly did not give birth to the entire Godhead or Trinity, she still bore Christ in her womb therefore she bore God.

Protestantism rejects any veneration of Mary due to how the Roman Catholic Church operated in the Dark and Medieval Ages. However, when Protestants deny the title Theotokos and all the consequences of the title, they are doing two things.
1) They are denying the unity of Christ's divinity and humanity.

2) They are inadvertently adopting Nestorianesque thinking.

Another thing that most Protestants either do not realize or fail to take note of is that any honor due to Mary goes to Christ. In every icon of the Theotokos Christ is present. The one exception to that is the icon of the Annunciation. If we deny that Mary bore God in her womb, than we deny that Christ is God. This does not mean that she bore the entire Trinity. She bore God the Son and God the Son only. By denying her being the Theotokos we either deny Christ's divinity, His unity of two natures in one body or both.

lionroar0 · Apr 7, 2010

PilgrimToChrist said:
A fundamentalist Baptist who I spar with on Facebook posted a link to this article

Quoting from the article:

(The following is my response to him, I just posted this last night, he hasn't responded yet.)

Well, the transliteration of the Greek Θεοτόκος is "Theotokos", not "theoticas" -- I don't know what happened there... The literal translation is "Theos" - "God", and "tokos" - "birth", so "Theotokos", "The one who gives birth to God" or "God-bearer" or "Mother of God".

But more fundamentally, yes, "that indicates that God was born". Indeed, it is the fundamental, primary assertion of Christianity that God the Son, who was and is being eternally born of God the Father was also born in ("the fullness of") time as a man. He "became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man", as the Council of Nicea put it. The distinction here that the author makes between the "human Jesus" as distinct from the "divine Jesus" (as we can infer) is the very same Nestorian heresy that the Counsel of Ephesus was trying to combat!

Nestorius did not go as far as some Gnostics did who distinguished between the human Jesus and the divine Christ, still his separation between Christ's human and divine natures was too strong. By saying that Mary only gave birth to the human Jesus, he was accused of adoptionism -- claiming that a human Jesus *became* God.

On the other hand orthodoxy asserts a complete *union* of the human and divine natures (though they remain distinct) such that, yes, God Himself was born a mewling infant child. Indeed, it is that total union of the human and divine natures that is the basis of our salvation, it is not an obscure thing to argue how important it is that we understand that Christ is fully human and fully divine, eternally united in one person, with two wills. Assault on the nature of Christ undermines the foundation of our faith. That is why the Christological crises were so important to the Church.

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" ~ Lk 1:43

On another level it says:

Catholics got it wrong She's not the mother of God. They need Christ brought to them, because they obviously worship Mary. They think she gave birth to the Trinity.

PilgrimToChrist · Apr 8, 2010

My Baptist friend said:
Jesus IS God and there is prove of this in the Bible. Mary was nothing more than a sinner, saved by grace who was chosen to give birth to the PHYSICAL BODY of Jesus. She is NOT the mother of God because that would indicate that God is a created being and that He had a beginning.

Here is my reply:

If Jesus is God and Mary is Jesus' mother, then Mary is the Mother of God. St. Elizabeth calls Mary, "mother of my Lord" (μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίο&#965. She does not say, "mother of my Lord's body" because it makes no sense to do so. Mary did not give birth to a soulless zombie -- a dead body -- she gave birth to a *person* and people are, by definition, body and soul together. It was the adoptionists who claimed that Mary gave birth to a human Jesus, who was united with the divine Christ at some point during his life (most popularly, at his baptism).

The Athanasian Creed summarizes orthodox Trinitarian and Christological definitions. It says,

"For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ;"

If the divine and human natures of Christ are not totally and eternally united, then how can we be saved? It is Christ who united man and God in his body, if there is no hypostatic union between Christ's divine and human natures, then how can our human nature be united with God?

"For he is our peace, **who hath made both one**, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities in his flesh" ~ Eph 2:14

Christ is fully human and fully divine, two natures in union in one person. You cannot say that Mary only gave birth to "the human Jesus" because there is only *one* Jesus. It was Nestorius who said that Jesus was not one person but two -- that the human and divine natures were not in a full union. It was against this heresy that the Council of Ephesus was convened and the anathemas of St. Cyril against Nestorius were written. This is why the traditional title of "Theotokos" ("God-bearer", "Mother of God") was upheld against Nestorius' attacks on the unity of Christ.

Kristos · Apr 8, 2010

then who was crucified? Just the physical body? The debate with the Nestorians wasn't just about the term "Theotokos" it was about the Incarnation - from the Annunciation forward. How can God be impassible yet suffer? - God only know for He confounds the wisdom of men with His glory.

PilgrimToChrist · Apr 8, 2010

My Baptist friend said:
You refer to "The Athanasian Creed". I assume this is a catholic thing? You need to search outside the catholic church at times. They have been wrong before ( remember Galileo and Hitler? ).

My reply (entirely ignoring the completely irrelevant mention of Galileo and Hitler):

I am saying that the Athanasian Creed, named after and not written by St. Athanasius, summarizes orthodox Trinitarian theology and Christology. It has existed since the sixth century, so long before the Protestant rebellion.

It is affirmed by the Lutheran councils (Ausberg Confession, Formula of Concord, etc.), it is also used by Reformed churches (Belgic confession). So you are going against traditional Protestantism as well, into the confused territory of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and others who have abandoned orthodox Trinitarianism and Christology. This is probably territory that you want to avoid. I do not know what type of Baptist you are, but a simple Google search for "Baptist 'Athanasian Creed'" reveals affirmation by everyone from Primitive Baptists to the SBC. So you may want to re-think your rejection of it.

We affirm one Jesus Christ, you suppose there are two. This is a problem. Again, I ask, if there is a human Jesus and a divine Christ who are not united, how then can Jesus be the one "who hath made both one" -- uniting humanity and divinity in his body, crucifying the enmities between us and God, and thus reconciling us to Him? If there are two Jesuses, then what St. Paul wrote was not true, and Christ has not "made both one" but rather we and God are still separate.

The Trinitarian and Christological crises in the Church, the definitions of the early Councils of what is orthodox theology, these things are not unimportant, esoteric or obscure. A false Christology denies the gravity and reality of the Incarnation and it is on the Incarnation that the entire Christian religion is founded. To deny the unity of Christ -- two natures, one person -- is to deny Christianity.

SeraphimSarov · Apr 8, 2010

Kristos said:
then who was crucified? Just the physical body?

I have talked to Prots who believe this.

PilgrimToChrist · Apr 8, 2010

SeraphimSarov said:
I have talked to Prots who believe this.

But that's nothing, you can find a Prot who believes anything you can come up with. One of the foundations of Protestantism is that everyone is supposed to read the Bible and believe whatever they come up with for themselves. Often these are re-occurrences of ancient heresies, for example, Valentinus said that Jesus passed through Mary "like water through a pipe", taking nothing from her. Menno Simons, the founder of the Mennonites, also revived this heresy. I have run into that same idea in a debate online, where a woman said that Jesus took nothing from Mary but that His humanity was created ex nihilo, entirely new and unlike ours. She said she didn't get this from her church but simply by interpreting the Bible herself.

The problem is when people think that they are speaking orthodox theology and they are not. A simple lack of education is apparent in many Prots and even quite a few Catholics. Orthodox have generally not had the disintegration of theology and liturgy that has occurred in Protestant and Catholic churches. After the October Revolution, radicals in the Russian Church tried to change the Liturgy, dragging the Altar in front of the iconostasis and other liturgically destructive moves, but their efforts have been a failure, much to the success of the Orthodox Church. Liturgy and faith go hand in hand -- a destruction or strengthening of one benefits the other, lex orandi, lex credendi.

Hilaire Belloc, in "The Great Heresies", explains that the Christological crises were not simply esoteric wranglings but rather that they strongly effect the rest of the religion.

Hilaire Belloc said:
The Arian attack proposed a change of fundamental doctrine, such that, had the change prevailed, the whole nature of the religion would have been transformed. It would not only have been transformed, it would have failed; and with its failure would have followed the break-down of that civilization which the Catholic Church was to build up.

The Arian heresy (filling the fourth, and active throughout the fifth, century), proposed to go to the very root of the Church's authority by attacking the full Divinity of her Founder. But it did much more, because its underlying motive was a rationalizing of the mystery upon which the church bases herself: the Mystery of the Incarnation. Arianism was essentially a revolt against the difficulties attaching to mysteries as a whole though expressing itself as an attack on the chief mystery only. Arianism was a typical example on the largest scale of that reaction against the supernatural which, when it is fully developed, withdraws from religion all that by which religion lives.

I have said before and I will repeat again, orthodoxy is one thing and one thing alone -- the correct understanding of the Incarnation.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) said:
The Word does not simply become flesh in some way or other, just to achieve a new status. The dynamic of sacrifice is comprehended in the Incarnation. Hidden within it again is the saying from the psalm: "A body have you prepared for me" (He 10:5; Ps 40). Thus, the entire Gospel is contained within this single statement [Jn 1:14 - "The Word became flesh..."]; we are reminded of the saying of the Fathers that the Logos has contracted, has become small. This is true in two senses: the infinite Logos has become small, become a child. But also: the immeasurable Word, the entire fullness of Holy Scripture, has contracted itself within the compass of this one sentence, which gathers together the law and the prophets. Being and history, cult and ethics are united and are present without abbreviation there in the christological center.

In his apocalyptic novel, "Lord of the World", Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson writes in the mouth of an priest-turned-Freemason:

Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson said:
Well, what they call the Incarnation is really the point. Everything else flows from that. And, once a man believes that, I must confess that all the rest follows -- even down to scapulars and holy water.

Orthodoxy is a proper understanding of the Incarnation; heresy is a failure to understand, or rejection of, the Incarnation.

laconicstudent · Apr 9, 2010

There are actually people who believe that only Jesus' body was crucified? That's actually somewhat shocking.

MrPolo · Apr 9, 2010

PilgrimToChrist said:
One of the foundations of Protestantism is that everyone is supposed to read the Bible and believe whatever they come up with for themselves.

That's actually one of the foundational principles of the Westminster Confession. All historical Christians' interpretations of Scripture must be tested---against Scripture---and the cycle necessarily continues like that, leaving each individual to his own interpretation.

At any rate, if only undivine human flesh was crucified, none of us are going to heaven. This fundamentalist is chock full of illogic, and I would recommend either bailing out or trying to focus on one topic at a time and stay on it. For example, he says if Mary is the mother of the Incarnate second person of the Trinity it means God therefore cannot have existed prior. Huh? It doesn't even make any sense. And you may find your self in conversation with someone who does not have sense which may be frustrating.

Kristos · Apr 9, 2010

laconicstudent said:
There are actually people who believe that only Jesus' body was crucified? That's actually somewhat shocking.

Yes, there are. And it all starts with the rejection of Christ as God-Man from His conception by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.

Dorothea · Apr 9, 2010

Kristos said:
Yes, there are. And it all starts with the rejection of Christ as God-Man from His conception by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.

Does this mean that these people are denying Christ (unintentionally, it would seem)?

Kristos · Apr 9, 2010

It would seem that way

PilgrimToChrist · Apr 9, 2010

(The next volley)

Baptist friend said:
<sigh>. I have never even heard of this creed. You are still trying to label me as a denomination. When did i say there were two Jesus's? I am saying that the rcc does NOT follow the Jesus Christ of the bible because you deny many of things He said and done, like forgiving ALL sins, dieing ONCE, being the ONLY savior, etc.

(My response, again, trying to stay on topic.)

Your ignorance of the Athanasian Creed is one example of how clear it is that you are speaking from ignorance and not conscious heresy. For example, if you were Jehovah's Witness, you would be consciously dissenting from the established theological orthodoxy of Trinitarianism by embracing Arianism. But you are only expressing the heresy of Nestorianism by reason of ignorance about what orthodox Christology is, as defined by the early Church Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon -- specifically the teachings of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon regarding the hypostatic union.

The article said that Mary did not give birth to God but only to "the human Jesus", this implies that there are not one but two Jesuses. It could even be taken as far as the Gnostics, who said that there is a human Jesus united with the divine Christ. The Nestorians were more subtle. They denied the unity of the human and divine natures of Christ, largely in part because they could not understand how an impassible God could suffer. Therefore, they said, only the Jesus' human nature suffered on the Cross, not his divine nature because God cannot suffer. The orthodox, following St. Cyril (Patriarch of Jerusalem) and affirmed at the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius (Archbishop of Alexandria), said that you cannot make such a strong distinction between Jesus' humanity and divinity. Jesus' humanity is not just connected to His divinity in terms of a united mask (prosopon) as an external unity, but rather united internally as well (hypostatic union).

The confusion of this heresy has far-reaching implications. How can only Christ's humanity suffer and die on the Cross? Rather, Christ suffered and died *through* His humanity, but not solely *in* it. Christ, the whole Christ, died. His body lie in the grave and His soul descended into Hades, where He freed the souls therein (Eph 4:9, Apostles' Creed). Furthermore, if Christ's natures were not united, how can we be united with God? Christ joined humanity and divinity in order to unite them eternally, not only for Himself, but for all of humanity. It is through our union with Christ (2Cor 3:18, Rom 6:4, 8:29, Gal 2:20, et al.) in His humanity that we can we be united with Him in His Divinity. The union of the human and divine natures in Christ becomes our bridge for our humanity to participate in the Divine live of the Trinity, to "partake of the divine nature" (2Pe 1:4).

Thus to deny the hypostatic union and assert a disunity in Christ, such that it can be said, as in the article you linked to, "She [Mary] was the mother of the human Jesus, but it is not accurate to say she is the mother of God" creates major issues with the Crucifixion and Redemption of humanity and our future state of glory.

"Then the creator of all things commanded, and said to me: and he that made me, rested in my tabernacle" ~ Ecclus. 24:12

Uphill Battle · Apr 22, 2010

EC said:
Another thing that most Protestants either do not realize or fail to take note of is that any honor due to Mary goes to Christ.

not necessarily so. There are instances of praising Mary for Mary's sake.

something that springs to mind is the Mariologial society, "America Needs Fatima" etc.

EC said:
This does not mean that she bore the entire Trinity. She bore God the Son and God the Son only. By denying her being the Theotokos we either deny Christ's divinity, His unity of two natures in one body or both.

exactly why it bothers me when a fellow protestant (of whatever ilk) gets up in arms about the title.

it's a mountain out of a molehill, Mary did indeed bear Jesus the Christ, who is God.

on the flip side, I've too oft seen fingerwagging because the title is NOT used (or the like.) I don't ever use it, but then I don't typically use ANY greek in my everyday vernacular.

PilgrimToChrist said:
One of the foundations of Protestantism is that everyone is supposed to read the Bible and believe whatever they come up with for themselves.

utterly false.

Uphill Battle · Apr 22, 2010

E.C. said:
Nestorius and modern day Protestants, while both being in error, are in error for differing reasons.

Nestorius was just a heretic plain and simple. Protestant pastors, such as the one quoted, are just wrong and preaching heresy, yet not heretics themselves because a heretic must knowingly deny the truth. Not knowing the truth and denying it is different from knowing the truth and denying it.

Moving on...

this doesn't make sense.

Take Pelagius (sp?) he firmly believed that original sin was a farce.

he was labled a heretic, not for knowingly denying the truth, but denying what someone else said was the truth (or, rather, for having his own "truth."

laconicstudent · Apr 22, 2010

Uphill Battle said:
not necessarily so. There are instances of praising Mary for Mary's sake.

I have never encountered, or even heard of, a single one

Uphill Battle said:
something that springs to mind is the Mariologial society, "America Needs Fatima" etc.

I hate to tell you this, but America Needs Fatima is a Roman Catholic organization.

Uphill Battle said:
utterly false.

Um, most Protestants would disagree with you and claim Sola Scriptura as a defining characteristic, I'm afraid.

Standing Up · Apr 22, 2010

Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist

One of the foundations of Protestantism is that everyone is supposed to read the Bible and believe whatever they come up with for themselves.

MrPolo said:
That's actually one of the foundational principles of the Westminster Confession. All historical Christians' interpretations of Scripture must be tested---against Scripture---and the cycle necessarily continues like that, leaving each individual to his own interpretation.

Uhh, no. If you're testing you're interpretation against Scripture, you're not left to your own interpretation, but rather to God's word.

OTOH, if you're not doing that, then you're left with traditions of men, etc.

laconicstudent · Apr 22, 2010

Standing Up said:
Uhh, no. If you're testing you're interpretation against Scripture, you're not left to your own interpretation, but rather to God's word.

That doesn't make the slightest sense. Interpretations are made by people in order to understand what they read, not the other way around.

The only significant difference from that is those Christians who subordinate their personal opinions to that of the Church which has existed from the Apostolic era.

Theotokos and neo-Nestorianism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Coffee drinker

Well-Known Member

Servant

Well-Known Member

Пресвятая Богородица, спаси нас...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Servant

One of God's handmaidens

Servant

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

On and on

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency