Posted on 01/09/2012 10:38:02 PM PST by rzman21
Nestorius of Constantinople, Second epistle to Cyril of Alexandria WRITTEN BY NESTORIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Nestorius sends greeting in the Lord to the most religious and reverend fellow-minister Cyril. I pass over the insults against us contained in your extraordinary letter. They will, I think, be cured by my patience and by the answer which events will offer in the course of time. On one matter, however, I cannot be silent, as silence would in that case be very dangerous. On that point, therefore avoiding longwindedness as far as I can, I shall attempt a brief discussion and try to be as free as possible from repelling obscurity and undigestible prolixity. I shall begin from the wise utterances of your reverence, setting them down word for word. What then are the words in which your remarkable teaching finds expression ?
“The holy and great synod states that the only begotten Son, begotten of God the Father according to nature, true God from true God, the light from the light, the one through whom the Father made all things, came down, became incarnate, became man, suffered, rose.”
These are the words of your reverence and you may recognise them. Now listen to what we say, which takes the form of a brotherly exhortation to piety of the type of which the great apostle Paul gave an example in addressing his beloved Timothy: “Attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. For by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers”. Tell me, what does “attend” mean? By reading in a superficial way the tradition of those holy men (you were guilty of a pardonable ignorance), you concluded that they said that the Word who is coeternal with the Father was passible. Please look more closely at their language and you will find out that that divine choir of fathers never said that the consubstantial godhead was capable of suffering, or that the whole being that was coeternal with the Father was recently born, or that it rose again, seeing that it had itself been the cause of resurrection of the destroyed temple. If you apply my words as fraternal medicine, I shall set the words of the holy fathers before you and shall free them from the slander against them and through them against the holy scriptures.
“I believe”, they say, “also in our Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son”. See how they first lay as foundations “Lord” and “Jesus” and “Christ” and “only begotten” and “Son”, the names which belong jointly to the divinity and humanity. Then they build on that foundation the tradition of the incarnation and resurrection and passion. In this way, by prefixing the names which are common to each nature, they intend to avoid separating expressions applicable to sonship and lordship and at the same time escape the danger of destroying the distinctive character of the natures by absorbing them into the one title of “Son”. In this Paul was their teacher who, when he remembers the divine becoming man and then wishes to introduce the suffering, first mentions “Christ”, which, as I have just said, is the common name of both natures and then adds an expression which is appropriate to both of the natures. For what does he say ? “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped”, and so on until, “he became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”. For when he was about to mention the death, to prevent anyone supposing that God the Word suffered, he says “Christ”, which is a title that expresses in one person both the impassible and the passible natures, in order that Christ might be called without impropriety both impassible and passible impassible in godhead, passible in the nature of his body.
I could say much on this subject and first of all that those holy fathers, when they discuss the economy, speak not of the generation but of the Son becoming man. But I recall the promise of brevity that I made at the beginning and that both restrains my discourse and moves me on to the second subject of your reverence. In that I applaud your division of natures into manhood and godhead and their conjunction in one person. I also applaud your statement that God the Word needed no second generation from a woman, and your confession that the godhead is incapable of suffering. Such statements are truly orthodox and equally opposed to the evil opinions of all heretics about the Lord’s natures. If the remainder was an attempt to introduce some hidden and incomprehensible wisdom to the ears of the readers, it is for your sharpness to decide. In my view these subsequent views seemed to subvert what came first. They suggested that he who had at the beginning been proclaimed as impassible and incapable of a second generation had somehow become capable of suffering and freshly created, as though what belonged to God the Word by nature had been destroyed by his conjunction with his temple or as though people considered it not enough that the sinless temple, which is inseparable from the divine nature, should have endured birth and death for sinners, or finally as though the Lord’s voice was not deserving of credence when it cried out to the Jews: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. He did not say, “Destroy my godhead and in three days it will be raised up.”
Again I should like to expand on this but am restrained by the memory of my promise. I must speak therefore but with brevity. Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord’s economy, speaks of the birth and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God. Hear these words that the gospels proclaim: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” It is clear that God the Word was not the son of David. Listen to another witness if you will: “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. “ Consider a further piece of evidence: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child of the holy Spirit.” But who would ever consider that the godhead of the only begotten was a creature of the Spirit? Why do we need to mention: “the mother of Jesus was there”? And again what of: “with Mary the mother of Jesus”; or “that which is conceived in her is of the holy Spirit”; and “Take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt”; and “concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh”? Again, scripture says when speaking of his passion: “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh”; and again “Christ died for our sins” and “Christ having suffered in the flesh”; and “This is”, not “my godhead”, but “my body, broken for you”.
Ten thousand other expressions witness to the human race that they should not think that it was the godhead of the Son that was recently killed but the flesh which was joined to the nature of the godhead. (Hence also Christ calls himself the lord and son of David: “ ‘What do you think of the Christ ? Whose son is he ?’ They said to him, ‘The son of David.’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘How is it then that David inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand”?’”. He said this as being indeed son of David according to the flesh, but his Lord according to his godhead.) The body therefore is the temple of the deity of the Son, a temple which is united to it in a high and divine conjunction, so that the divine nature accepts what belongs to the body as its own. Such a confession is noble and worthy of the gospel traditions. But to use the expression “accept as its own” as a way of diminishing the properties of the conjoined flesh, birth, suffering and entombment, is a mark of those whose minds are led astray, my brother, by Greek thinking or are sick with the lunacy of Apollinarius and Arius or the other heresies or rather something more serious than these.
For it is necessary for such as are attracted by the name “propriety” to make God the Word share, because of this same propriety, in being fed on milk, in gradual growth, in terror at the time of his passion and in need of angelical assistance. I make no mention of circumcision and sacrifice and sweat and hunger, which all belong to the flesh and are adorable as having taken place for our sake. But it would be false to apply such ideas to the deity and would involve us in just accusation because of our calumny.
These are the traditions of the holy fathers. These are the precepts of the holy scriptures. In this way does someone write in a godly way about the divine mercy and power, “Practise these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. This is what Paul says to all. The care you take in labouring for those who have been scandalised is well taken and we are grateful to you both for the thought you devote to things divine and for the concern you have even for those who live here. But you should realise that you have been misled either by some here who have been deposed by the holy synod for Manichaeism or by clergy of your own persuasion. In fact the church daily progresses here and through the grace of Christ there is such an increase among the people that those who behold it cry out with the words of the prophet, “The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the water covers the sea”. As for our sovereigns, they are in great joy as the light of doctrine is spread abroad and, to be brief, because of the state of all the heresies that fight against God and of the orthodoxy of the church, one might find that verse fulfilled “The house of Saul grew weaker and weaker and the house of David grew stronger and stronger”.
This is our advice from a brother to a brother. “If anyone is disposed to be contentious”, Paul will cry out through us to such a one, “we recognize no other practice, neither do the churches of God”. I and those with me greet all the brotherhood with you in Christ. May you remain strong and continue praying for us, most honoured and reverent lord.
But let’s not forget, Calvin was initially a Catholic..
>>So was Nestorius.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Did God tell us who Jesus was? Did the Holy Spirit tell the apostles what to write?
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.<<
"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: That the man of GOd may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - I John 2:27
19th century Presbyterian historian Philip Wace Schaff classifies Nestorianism as a form of adoptionism in his book “History of the Christian Church.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.xii.html
The following article was written by Mar Bawai Soro, a former Assyrian (Nestorian) bishop, regarding the Church of the East’s view of Nestorius:
http://bit.ly/z9ySVH
“As individuals, individual ideas of what scripture means abounds”
Yes. And we will be JUDGED by God as individuals.
“Again, one man thinks some days of more importance than others. Another man considers them all alike. Let every one be definite in his own convictions. If a man specially observes one particular day, he does so “to God”. The man who eats, eats “to God”, for he thanks God for the food. The man who fasts also does it “to God”, for he thanks God for the benefits of fasting. The truth is that we neither live nor die as self-contained units. At every turn life links us to God, and when we die we come face to face with him. In life or death we are in the hands of God. Christ lived and died that he might be the Lord in both life and death.
10-12 Why, then, criticise your brother’s actions, why try to make him look small? We shall all be judged one day, not by each other’s standards or even our own, but by the standard of Christ. It is written: ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God’. It is to God alone that we have to answer for our actions.” - Romans 14
As for the Trinity...that there is one God and one God only is explicit and obvious. That God the Father is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, and that the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are referred to as persons is also obvious.
How that works out is not taught or discussed by scripture. I take that to mean it isn’t very important to our salvation or to becoming like Christ - and those are apparently more important in God’s eyes than our being able to dissect God.
“If a person says that Christ was a man, “adopted” as God’s son, do you believe that has no effect on their salvation?”
That would suggest Christ is not eternally God, which contradicts scripture. At some point, believing in Jesus means believing accurately enough to be believing in the REAL Jesus, and not a fake.
What matters for salvation is getting the right Jesus. When I converted at 12, I didn’t have a clue about any discussion of the Trinity - but I had met the real Jesus. With time, my theology - knowing about God - has hopefully improved. Had I believed in the ‘wrong’ Jesus, either the scriptures and teachings of men gifted by the Holy Spirit to teach would have converted me to the real Jesus, and THEN I would be saved, or I would have rejected the REAL Jesus and insisted in following the fake.
When discussing a CHURCH, I find the Trinity to be one of the most accurate ways of discerning if the church is true or false. Three Persons, One God - that makes no sense to me, or to anyone really. It is beyond my imagination. I have never seen a church or teacher who denied the Trinity who wasn’t also in error in many other areas. I believe the Catholic Church is in error in many areas, but it has held firm to the basics of the Trinity...although it may have also tried to add to what little God has revealed. Still, it gets that right, and that is why I believe that there are still many Christian Catholics. It is knowing God that saves us, not getting high scores on a systematic theology test.
But an individual may be saved without having clue one about what is meant by the Trinity, or to what extent it is taught in scripture. I was. In time, God used both the scriptures and godly men to teach me that Three Persons / One God is true, even if it makes no sense to me.
But I trust the concept because it is revealed in scripture. I do not trust the more detailed explanations offered by church councils.
From my perspective, there is ample truth about God and how He would have me live revealed in scripture that I am not living by right now. That is sin. God wants me to take that sin seriously, and to change me into the image of Jesus Christ. “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” - Romans 8
I am more concerned about the sin in my life that shames God than I am in a detailed, intellectual description of the nature of God Himself. The God-breathed scriptures make it obvious that God cares more about that as well.
Religion makes salvation way more complicated than God intended it to be.
Romans 10:8-13 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Amen and Amen! Well put!
U dib;t understand why this thread has turned into an open thread rather than an ecumenical thread with now antagonism.
I really don’t understand your ping to me to this Ecumenical thread unless the purpose is to elicit an antagonistic response and get my comment pulled.
If that is the case then the Ecumenical tag should be changed.
So why exactly are you pinging me when so far I’ve not chosen to comment on this thread?
no, i did not hit the abuse button, never have, never will. i would let those that oppose the Body of Christ expose themselves. that’s just me.
but if someone is going to post on FR, they need to follow the rules of FR.
just saying.
the JW’s and Mormons think they are following sola scriptura. they condemn sacred tradition and Church Councils.
Those that oppose God’s Body, also, opposes His Word with man-made doctrine that voids His Word for them. Can’t serve two masters.
Keeping the RF rules in mind when posting and not just for finger pointing is what I’m saying.
Nestorian doctrine is built on a pagan Aristotelian framework that Evangelicalism, despite its commitment to abhor paganism and be unphilosophical, has imbibed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2831700/posts?page=1
“the JW’s and Mormons think they are following sola scriptura. they condemn sacred tradition and Church Councils.”
Actually, JWs change scripture to read what they want, and Mormons place their other scriptures above the Bible, saying the Bible is good only as far as it is correctly translated - which mean only until it disagrees with one of their teachings.
Neither accepts sola scriptura. The Book of Mormon isn’t exactly under the doctrine of sola scriptura, is it?
Pinging me to another ecumenical thread when the rules have not been clearly defined but what I’ve seen so far is catholics feel antagonized when TRUTH is spoken. Who you kidding?
Worshiping idols is pagan. Maryology is pagan. Bowing to a man/pope is pagan.
Worshiping idols is pagan. Maryology is pagan. Bowing to a man/pope is pagan.
>>Your response amounts to antagonism.
Exactly, JW and Mormonism do their own thing, just like catholicsm. However, from what I’ve seen - these threads don’t take kindly to TRUTH.
TRUTH is antagonism? God’s WORD is antagonism? I only know what paganism is by HIS WORD!
Actually, JWs change scripture to read what they want, and Mormons place their other scriptures above the Bible, saying the Bible is good only as far as it is correctly translated - which mean only until it disagrees with one of their teachings.
Neither accepts sola scriptura. The Book of Mormon isn’t exactly under the doctrine of sola scriptura, is it?
>>They are products of a culture built by Sola Scriptura individualism.
The JWs, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of Christ, etc. adhere to Sola Scriptura.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.