And how do you know Nestorius was wrong and the Western Mediterranean Church was right?
For the purpose of our conversation, I’m not saying Nestorius was right or wrong. I’m just trying to straighten out definitions here. Person = hypostasis and Nestorius was condemned for denying that the persons are united in nature.
It does not seem to be man’s place to define God.
The word “person” is not meant to restrict God or make God something to be out that He isn’t. It’s simply to use a familiar term to help understand what the different identities of the Trinity are. A person, in the human sense, tends to have things they favor and do not favor, moral beliefs, ways of thinking, etc.
That is funny, defining God based on parts of speech from the first creation story. Why not use the second creation story to prove God physically planted the garden of Eden and did surgery on Adam, proving God has hands?
We are qualified to accept what he has told us about himself, and we have been over that more than once, in particular the Fatherhood of God (and the personhood of fathers).
Do you pray? If not to a Person or Persons, then what?
Are 03Cobra and ErikNelson two names for the same person? Why do you take something written to ErikNelson as being about you? You are making stuff up again – this time contradicting my words in the post you quoted from. I am not only an Evangelical Protestant but I agree with the EO more often than with RC on doctrinal issues.
As for your appeal to the church of the East, derived from the Nestorian conflict, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the agreement of Nicea 325 AD and the doctrine of the Trinity which I take to define Christianity, because the Nestorian conflict is a split that happens later and thus the Nestorian church is included as one of the branches of Christianity. If it is your intention to use this church as a basis for disputing the doctrine of the Trinity then that is pure deception, much like your claims that India, Persia, Armenia and Africa were not represented in the council of Nicea 325 AD.
Now… if you wanted to make such a claim for later councils and creeds then I have already spoken to the divisive nature of these.
And if you insist on bringing me into the discussion on the Nestorian conflict and demand my position on that issue then I would have to say my response is complex because the issue is complex, with Nestorianism being described in different ways (and to be sure I care nothing about Nestorius but only the actual theological issues).
Nestorianism is sometimes described as the doctrine that there were two separate persons, one human and one divine, in the incarnate Christ. I couldn’t have more antipathy to this teaching. This is as bad as Adoptionism (man become God). No there is only one person of God who gave up power and knowledge in order to become a helpless human infant because power and control means nothing to God and certainly does not define Him. God chooses love and freedom and will sacrifice any amount of power and knowledge for the sake of love.
Theotokos – this teaching that Mary is the mother of God which bothered Nestorius also bothers me. I can get behind it as a way of reinforcing the idea that Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. But I don’t really think this justifies calling Mary the mother of God. The incarnation of God in the person of Jesus is not an act of Mary but an act of God.
Then there is the Nestorian teaching that the two natures, human and divine, were joined by will rather than personhood. I think this talk of two natures is confusing the artifacts of language with reality. Instead I would say that God being without limitations can be anything He chooses and thus the incompatibility between these two so called natures is entirely one sided. Finite man cannot be infinite God but infinite God can be finite man, if He chooses. Thus you can say I disagree with both dyophysitism and monophysitism completely. Jesus is God, but that means he can have whatever nature He chooses, thus in being born to Mary He chose a human nature. That He can do such a thing is an expression of His divine nature. But to say that in order to be God requires that Jesus must also have a divine nature which conflicts with human nature is all wrong. Otherwise what you have is something concocted by and enslaved to human theology.
You mean your definition is based on what you say the Bible says God is and not what someone else says the Bible says God is. Let’s try for a little more honesty here.
I believe he was referring to ‘defining’ God as being a personal entity, which is indeed what the Bible says. Anyone who identifies as being a Christian and does not affirm that is beyond heterodox.
Well you know I certainly agree that God is not sub-personal as in lacking personal attributes of intellect, will, emotion, agency or language (all of which seem to require the use of time). And my reading of the Bible certainly agrees with this. Though being Trinitarian means I do not merely believe in a personal god made in our image but in a trans-personal God, not limited to a singularity of personhood as we are – and I think there is a basis for this in the Bible also.
But this does not preclude the honesty of acknowledging that this is my reading of the Bible. Though I admit to considerable skepticism about the idea of people getting a sub-personal God (such as a force or energy only) from the Bible. That sounds more like a product of philosophy, except that those who say the God is without time, without an ability to take risks, or unable to feel regret doesn’t sound like either a personal God or the God of the Bible either. So what shall I say when they claim to get that sort of thing from Bible?
We disagree, as I see that the specific definition of the Trinity is a basis for the divisive and inappropriate excommunication of Nestorius.
I am happy to see that we agree that the declaration that Mary was the Mother of God is bothersome. I embrace the agreement. Thanks.
I don’t know if Nestorius was right or wrong. I do know that excommunicating him over that disagreement was wrong. Fortunately, the Church of the East rejected the excommunication.
I have been staring at this trying to even understand what this description (from Wikipedia) means and all I am getting is that description of Nestorianism in number 1 that there are two persons of different natures. Though I think the implication that otherwise this means they are not joined by will seems a bit strange to me. I see no reason why the two natures cannot be joined in one person by an act of will. But like I said before, I don’t really like any of this talk of joining two incompatible natures anyway.
My point, Mitchell, is that we aren’t able to fully understand Jesus and God.
Nestorius might be right or wrong. A subset of the church decided:
He was wrong and
He should be excommunicated if he disagreed with their “formula” for Jesus.
That decision was divisive and haughty and sinful.
We are called to believe on Jesus and to follow Jesus and to love one another. We are never called to break fellowship with other followers of Jesus on such silly, technical definitions.
I think even Nestorius would disagree with you. He insisted that He was entirely orthodox in his belief.
Like most of these excommunications, including Origen and Pelagius, the results look more political than anything else. So I would agree that it was inappropriate. But Nestorius never had any problem with either the doctrine of the Trinity or the Nicean creed.
Yeah, the whole things strongly suggests that this had more to do with the veneration of Mary in Catholic ritual and practice, probably sublimating a goddess culture in the Roman past.
Ok, so it’s the Nestorian Church? I’ve written about this before. Is this your religious identification?
The 4th ecumenical council, the Council of Chalcedon in 451, rejected the monk Nestorius and his teaching, and Nestorius and his followers got kicked out.
However…the Nestorians were recognized by the Islamic Caliphate in Persia, and were even allowed to send missionaries to China and India!!! There are archaeological remains of a Nestorian church in China.
Most Christians today recognize the first 4 ecumenical councils , including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestants, and maybe some Evangelicals.
A formal definition of Nestorianism is “The view that the divine and human natures of Christ are separable rather than hypostatically united.”
The controversy over Nestorian teachings was the precursor to the “Definition of Faith” at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It might be better to read the Chalcedon definition and the original letters and the sermons that led up to it instead of googling around.
See “The Christological Controversy” by Richard A. Norris Jr.