The Protestant Achilles' Heel

According to ancient Greek legend, the great warrior, Achilles, was invulnerable against attack, except for one area of weakness—his heel. That weakness would be exploited near the end of the Trojan War by Paris. As the story goes, he shot Achilles in the heel with an arrow, killing his seemingly undefeatable foe.

Okay, so referring to Sola Scriptura as the Protestant Achilles's Heel is not a perfect analogy. There are many weak spots in Protestant theology. But the use of the image of "Achilles's Heel" in prose today is employed not only to accentuate a singular weakness in an otherwise impenetrable person or institution, but a particularly acute weakness. It is in that sense that I think the analogy fits.

Sola Scriptura was the central doctrine and foundation for all I believed when I was Protestant. On a popular level, it simply meant, “If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!” And it seemed so simple. Unassailable. And yet, I do not recall ever hearing a detailed teaching explicating it. It was always a given. Unchallenged. Diving deeper into its meaning, especially when I was challenged to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism, I found there to be no book specifically on the topic and no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors.

Once I got past the superficial, I had to try to answer real questions like, what role does tradition play? How explicit does a doctrine have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? How many times does it have to be mentioned in Scripture before it would be dogmatic? Where does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How do we know what the canon of Scripture is using the principle of sola scriptura? Who is authorized to write Scripture in the first place? When was the canon closed? Or, the best question of all: where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible? These questions and more were left virtually unanswered or left to the varying opinions of various Bible teachers.

In answer to this last question, “Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?” most Protestants will immediately respond as I did, by simply citing II Tm. 3:16:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

“How can it get any plainer than that? Doesn’t that say the Bible is all we need?” Question answered.

The fact is: II Timothy 3—or any other text of Scripture—does not even hint at sola scriptura. It says Scripture is inspired and necessary to equip “the man of God,” but never does it say Scripture alone is all anyone needs. We’ll come back to this text in particular later. But in my experience as a Protestant, it was my attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism that led me to conclude: sola scriptura is 1) unreasonable 2) unbiblical and 3) unworkable.

When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. One cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Koran, and other books claim inspiration. This does not make them inspired. One must prove the point outside of the text itself to avoid the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Thus, the question remains: how do we know the various books of the Bible are inspired and therefore canonical? And remember: the Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura in the process.

II Tim. 3:16 is not a valid response to the question. The problems are manifold. Beyond the fact of circular reasoning, for example, I would point out the fact that this verse says all Scripture is inspired tells us nothing of what the canon consists. Just recently, I was speaking with a Protestant inquirer about this issue and he saw my point. He then said words to the effect of, “I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth as Jesus said in Jn. 16:13. The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them to gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired word of God. God would not leave us without his word to guide us.”

That answer is much more Catholic than Protestant! Yes, Jn. 16:13 does say the Spirit will lead the apostles—and by allusion, the Church—into all truth. But this verse has nothing to say about sola scriptura. Nor does it say a word about the nature or number of books in the canon. Catholics certainly agree that the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to canonize the Scriptures because the Catholic Church teaches that there is an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit. The obvious problem is my Protestant friend did not use sola scriptura as his guiding principle to arrive at his conclusion. How does, for example, Jn. 16:13 tell us that Hebrews was written by an apostolic writer and that it is inspired of God? We would ultimately have to rely on the infallibility of whoever “the Holy Spirit” is guiding to canonize the Bible so that they could not mishear what the Spirit was saying about which books of the Bible are truly inspired.

In order to put this argument of my friend into perspective, can you imagine if a Catholic made a similar claim to demonstrate, say, Mary to be the Mother of God? “We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth.” I can almost hear the response. “Show me in the Bible where Mary is the Mother of God! I don’t want to hear about God guiding the Church!” Wouldn’t the same question remain for the Protestant concerning the canon? “Show me in the Bible where the canon of Scripture is, what the criterion for the canon is, who can and cannot write Scripture, etc.”

The Protestant response at this point is often an attempt to use the same argument against the Catholic. “How do you know the Scriptures are inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular because you say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so and then say the Scriptures are inspired and infallible because the Church says so!”

The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so, and the Scriptures are inspired because the infallible Church says so.” That would be a kind of circular reasoning. The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so.

Having said that, it is true that we know the Scriptures to be inspired because the Church has told us so. That is also an historical fact. However, this is not circular reasoning. When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired. As any reputable historian will tell you, the New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history. To deny the substance of the historical documents recorded therein would be absurd. However, one cannot deduce from this that they are inspired. There are many accurate historical documents that are not inspired. However, the Scriptures do give us accurate historical information whether one holds to their inspiration or not. Further, this testimony of the Bible is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christians and non-Christian writers like Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and more. It is on this basis that we can say it is an historical fact that Jesus lived, died, and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over 500 eyewitnesses. Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the veracity of the Christ-event (see Lk. 1:1-4, Jn. 21:18-19, 24-25, Acts 1:1-11, I Cr. 15:1-8).

Now, what do we find when we examine the historical record? Jesus Christ—as a matter of history–established a Church, not a book, to be the foundation of the Christian Faith (see Mt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18. Cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10,20-21; 4:11-15; I Tm. 3:15; Hb. 13:7,17, etc.). He said of his Church, “He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk. 10:16). The many books that comprise what we call the Bible never tell us crucial truths such as the fact that they are inspired, who can and cannot be the human authors of them, who authored them at all, or, as I said before, what the canon of Scripture is in the first place. And this is just to name a few examples. What is very clear historically is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for him (see Lk. 20:29-32, Mt. 10:40, 28:18-20). It was members of this Kingdom—the Church—that would write the Scripture, preserve its many texts and eventually canonize it. The Scriptures cannot write or canonize themselves. To put it simply, reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle because one cannot determine what the “scriptura” is using the principle of sola scriptura.

Let us now consider the most common text used by Protestants to “prove” sola scriptura, II Tm. 3:16, which I quoted above:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The problem with using this text as such is threefold: 1. Strictly speaking, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. 2. It does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. 3. The Bible teaches oral Tradition to be on a par with and just as necessary as the written Tradition, or Scripture.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood (italics added) you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

In context, this passage does not refer to the New Testament at all. None of the New Testament books had been written when St. Timothy was a child! To claim this verse in order to authenticate a book, say, the book of Revelation, when it had most likely not even been written yet, is more than a stretch. That is going far beyond what the text actually claims.

As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, emphasis added). Analogously, when the Bible says Scripture is inspired and profitable for “the man of God,” to be “equipped for every good work,” we Catholics believe it. However, the text of II Tim. 3:16 never says Scripture alone. There is no sola to be found here either! Even if we granted II Tm. 3:16 was talking about all of Scripture, it never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith. A rule of faith, to be sure! But not the sole rule of faith.

James 1:4 illustrates clearly the problem with Protestant exegesis of II Tim. 3:16:

And let steadfastness (patience) have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to II Tm. 3:16 we would have to say that all we need is patience to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, etc.

Of course, any Christian would immediately say this is absurd. And of course it is. But James’s emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than St. Paul’s emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola to be found in either text. Sola patientia would be just as much an error as is sola scriptura.

Not only is the Bible silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but Scripture is remarkably plain in teaching oral Tradition to be just as much the word of God as is Scripture. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, St. Paul said:

And we also thank God… that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God… (I Thess. 2:13)

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

According to St. Paul, the spoken word from the apostles was just as much the word of God as was the later written word.

When it comes to the tradition of Protestantism—sola scriptura—the silence of the text of Scripture is deafening. When it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition, the Scriptures are clear. And when it comes to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the biblical text is equally as clear:

If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone … But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you … If he refuses to listen … tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Mt. 18:15-17)

According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. But isn’t it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years ago—a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it?

For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable and unbiblical, but it is unworkable. The proof is in the puddin’!

If you liked this post and you would like to dive deeper into this topic and more, click here.

The first Adam addresses Eve as woman.
The last Adam addresses Mary as woman.
Logical Conclusion:Mary is the last Eve.

The problem with that syllogism is exclusivity of the conclusion, i.e., the premises do not force the conclusion. Consider:

Premise 1: Adam calls Eve Woman
Premise 2: Jesus calls Mary Woman

Do you notice the problem? Syllogisms are a mechanism for locking down exclusive solution sets. We want to be able at the end to say, "and no other solutions are possible." Can we really say that here? No. Adam the First and Jesus both belong to the category "Adam." So we agree on that term as the unified category "Adam" for purposes of this inquiry..

But now comes the hard part. Eve and Mary are the terms about which we wish to draw a conclusion. You imagine Eve to be a transferable category as Adam was. That is an assumption that itself would need proving. But assuming for argument such a category exists, you still need to get Mary into that category. And that's a problem, because although we know Eve is Eve the First, by identity, we cannot assume Mary is Eve the Second. That is the very point we wish to prove, and we must prove it by finding it to be the only possible way to reconcile premises 1 and 2. Put another way, if any other solutions are possible, the result is considered equivocal, i.e., not proof. You need to lock it down to one solution, or the syllogism fails to say what you want it to say.

So, what are the possible solutions? The most obvious reason Adam categorized Eve as woman is because she was a woman. So that kind of goes nowhere. Yes, she is a woman. At the time she was the only woman, so expressions like "the woman you gave me" make perfect sense. So far we are looking at strict fact. Nothing mystical. Just Adam talking about a woman because she was one. Can you see where I'm going to go next?

Why did Jesus call Mary woman? What are the reasonable possibilities? Is it possible He did so for some reason other than to establish an association with Eve, as you theorize? We note that Jesus addressed other women besides Mary, and in each recorded case except two, He called them "Woman."

1. The woman who anointed His feet (note the address here is indirect):

When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
(Matthew 26:10)

2. The woman He healed from a longstanding disease (here the address is direct):

And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
(Luke 13:11-12)

3. The Samaritan woman (also direct address):

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
(John 4:21)

As one exception, the woman healed from the issue of blood He called daughter:

For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
(Matthew 9:21-22)

The other exception is also the only time Jesus is ever recorded as addressing a woman by name, and He was not speaking to His mother, but to Mary Magdalene:

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
(John 20:1)
......
Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
(John 20:16)

These demonstrate that it was customary and usual for Jesus to directly address a woman as "woman." Therefore, one cannot conclude from the use of "woman" alone that He meant anything other than His usual and customary way of addressing women.

So, to get to your "proof," you need to unpack the extra hidden premise sandwiched in between your two original premises. And this gets to the root of why your logic fails to prove your conclusion:

Premise 1: Adam calls Eve Woman
Premise 1.1 : Jesus only uses Woman when addressing Eve-category women.
Premise 2: Jesus calls Mary Woman
Conclusion: Therefore Mary belongs to the Eve-category.

As we have demonstrated from Scripture, implied Premise 1.1 is false. Jesus uses "woman" to address women in general. His use of the term provides no evidence of some interior motive, other than ordinary address, and under the rule of Occam's Razor, the simplest solution that works is probably correct. He called them women, including Mary, because that is what they were. What could be more simple than that?

But your logic has further problems. I have granted you your theoretical Eve-as-category for the sake of argument, but it too is unjustified. There is in Scripture a justification for speaking of both a First and Last Adam.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
(1 Corinthians 15:45)

And so we have direct textual justification for an Adamic category that prefigures Christ. No such equivalent exists for Eve. This was a decision of the Holy Spirit in providing us with Holy Scripture, and it is dangerous presumption to ignore it. There is no warrant to assume Eve prefigures anyone or anything. Therefore, yet another hidden premise, that there is such a category, assumes facts not in evidence, and should be rejected as speculation until and unless solid, unequivocal proof can be offered.

Which gets us to the true difference between eisogesis and exegesis. "Reading something into the text" (eisogesis) is something we all do. It is instinctive, and it is dangerous. The best defense against it, intellectually speaking, is to hold ourselves to a high standard of proof for the things we believe. The premises must lead inevitably to the conclusion, or else the conclusion cannot be considered binding. There are many areas of doctrine where the syllogisms do form solid, exclusive conclusions, such as would bind the Christian conscience, and require our belief. The Trinity is one of those solid inferential conclusions. Getting Eve out of "Woman" is a bridge too far, as demonstrated above. When the conclusion posits new information that is not compelled by well formed premises, that is eisogesis. Exegesis is nothing more than the art of truing the conclusions to their supporting premises.

But if that was all there was to it, we'd all agree on everything. Unfortunately, we also know there is a spiritual dimension. One can bring all the logic in the universe to bear, but without the aid of the Holy Spirit, not just for the teacher, but for each and every student of the word of God, that logic will not move the understanding to the place it should be. Having the Holy Spirit is not optional for the believer. But in having Him indwell us, we are assured that at some point, we will hear His voice, and will not listen to false shepherds. And so in the end we do not put our faith in logic, but in Christ, to lead us to the right understanding.

Peace,

SR

I have been meaning to get back to your post, but didn’t have time to for a few days so it ended up getting pushed to the side for a bit.

No, those who believe in some form of sola scriptura don’t hate the Catholic Church, and that’s not where the criticisms of it come from. I came to know and understand the Bible first and was neutral about RCC teaching then. But as time went on I came to see more and more how it was in error. And those conclusions weren’t arrived at in knee-jerk reaction, superficially, but in serious consideration and humility, with the thought that the intial appearance of error doesn’t mean there’s error. It takes a lot of examination to reach those conclusions. Seeking to discern what’s true according to God is not in any way a light matter.

One thing about Catholic apologetics is that when both ordinary Catholics and so many of the clergy do it, they tend to not mention that sources like a Catholic encyclopedia (for example, newadvent.org) will say that there isn’t conclusive proof from the Bible for a Catholic teaching. Yet, Catholics will so very often argue just that sort of thing, that by Scripture alone, even independent of Catholic tradition, the Catholic teaching is proven true. But in actuality, they are attempting to use Scripture and Catholic tradition to prove Catholic tradition’s interpretation of Scripture. Not the same thing. That’s actually saying that Catholic tradition teaches something, and you can also make a case for it from the Bible, so therefore Scripture itself says Catholic teaching is correct.

But this thinking, so common in Catholic apologetics, violates proper logic. Proper logic goes:

All bassett hounds are dogs.
Spot is a bassett hound.
Therefore, Spot is a dog.

But this is very often Catholic reasoning on things:
All dogs are beagles.
Spot is a dog.
Therefore, Spot is a beagle!

Spot could be a beagle, because he’s a dog, but it’s a logical possibility, not a certainty, from that information. Yet Catholics will argue that because the Catholic Church says he’s a beagle, and the Bible indicates that it’s talking about a type of hound, and a beagle is a hound, that the Bible therefore proves he’s a beagle. That’s backward. The real questions that need to be answered are how the tradition truly formed, so that it can be shown to have been a faithful belief when it was, and if it is in accordance with Scripture. Much of doctrine can be implied, according to sola scriptura beliefs, but some measure of implication doesn’t make any old interpretation true.

The Bible tends to teach many of the same lessons over and over, often with new little points made here and there, and then even demonstrating how different lessons relate to each other. If you take a passage or even a few, and come up with an implied interpretation from them, it shouldn’t directly contradict major lessons from the Bible. Nor should an implied interpretation teach things that go beyond what the Bible has revealed.

That’s the case in Revelation 12. You will admit other possible meanings for the woman, but they’re actually trivial as the one and only interpretation that matters is that it’s Mary, to Catholic thinking. But although it is indeed reminiscent of her, again, other things about it don’t fit. And much is a deliberate mystery left by the Lord. I wholeheartedly believe He means it to be something that we partly but cannot fully grasp here. This “woman,” if she really is an actual woman, was apparently with child before Satan drew the fallen angels out of Heaven, and she appeared in Heaven and then later was on earth.

Really, though, the problem in discussing these things with many Catholics, to put the logic and sola scriptura issues another way, is that they look at it all through confirmation bias, so for the most part they simply can’t see the issues at hand, and the different implications of those issues that are involved. Rather than truly investigating in an impartial sense the claims of the Catholic Church, including on how doctrine was created, many Catholics go looking at the evidence merely to defend Catholicism. No true investigation is going on.

So, if that’s the case, the matters involved in Revelation 12 just can’t be grasped when such Catholic thinking is used. I see Revelation 12, and Revelation on the whole, as revealing a lot of things, but they’re wrapped in mysteries. Many answers are given, but maybe just as many questions are raised. And for now, that clearly seems to me what God’s will is for us, in how much we are to know. The grappling with what different things mean, without being able to come to definite conclusions, though, is good for us spiritually. It causes us to study and dwell on what different things might mean.

Then, for another example, if you take the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it didn’t really come along until relatively recently, and then it was optional at first, as some supported and some opposed it, and then it became a mandatory belief. If you read the Bible, and consider the very low priority given to the matter at the Church’s beginning, versus all that we can see that they gave high priority to, then just by that the whole issue must be seen as a distraction, something to pull the attention of Christians away from far more important matters.

On implied doctrine, then, what should be considered is how something is implied. Is the Trinity just something barely mentioned one time, that Scripture is inconclusive about? No, over and over again, with support from the Old Testament, too, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are clearly described. The Trinity is never identified and defined, but it clearly demonstrated for us. And, considering how much the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are spoken of in Scripture (they are virtually the entire focus of the New Testament, in one way, while in another mankind and Satan may also of course be considered as very important in the New Testament, too), then it is no far reach to accept the Trinity. It’s clearly there, and undeniably of the greatest importance. It’s also an implication that arises by itself, out of Scripture.

Your religion doesn't think things thru too much...

Haha well, let's just see what our "poor thinking", according to you, has produced:

From here: Nestorianism

We have no difficulty in defining the doctrine of Nestorius so far as words are concerned: Mary did not bring forth the Godhead as such (true) nor the Word of God (false), but the organ, the temple of the Godhead. The man Jesus Christ is this temple, "the animated purple of the King", as he expresses it in a passage of sustained eloquence. The Incarnate God did not suffer nor die, but raised up from the dead him in whom He was incarnate. The Word and the Man are to be worshipped together, and he adds: dia ton phorounta ton phoroumenon sebo (Through Him that bears I worship Him Who is borne). If St. Paul speaks of the Lord of Glory being crucified, he means the man by "the Lord of Glory". There are two natures, he says, and one person; but the two natures are regularly spoken of as though they were two persons, and the sayings of Scripture about Christ are to be appropriated some of the Man, some to the Word. If Mary is called the Mother of God, she will be made into a goddess, and the Gentiles will be scandalized.

...It will probably be only just to Nestorius to admit that he fully intended to safeguard the unity of subject in Christ. But he gave wrong explanations as to the unity, and his teaching logically led to two Christs, though he would not have admitted the fact. Not only his words are misleading, but the doctrine which underlies his words is misleading, and tends to destroy the whole meaning of the Incarnation. It is impossible to deny that teaching as well as wording which leads to such consequences as heresy. He was therefore unavoidably condemned. He reiterated the same view twenty years later in the "Bazaar of Heraclides", which shows no real change of opinion, although he declares his adherence to the Tome of St. Leo

It is for these reasons, especially those in bold, that his work was condemned heretical. Words mean things and unless the dogma (of the Trinity) is made clear, and all logical consequences thereof are rigorously defended, then the potential to slip back into old heresies remains. This is why Nestorius was condemned. Not because what he taught was antithetical to the dogma of the Trinity, but because the way he taught it (explained it) wrt Christ's personhood, it left it (the dogma of the Trinity) open to misunderstanding and therefore heretical interpretation. The fact he didn't recant on this point is a testiment to his pride, not a "political persecution". He was too proud in his work to disallow any correction to his explainations of Christ's personhood.

This is actually an excellent example of how titles given to Mary actually are educative about her son Jesus, and thus don't make her into some kind of "goddess" as Nestorius (and others here) feared and fear today. They (the titles) help describe her son more perfectly, thus glorify God, not Mary. Which is how it can be reasonably said that devotion to Mary is devotion to Christ because in every way, she points to Him.

But he gave wrong explanations as to the unity, and his teaching logically led to two Christs, though he would not have admitted the fact.

I had, like you, thought for a long time that Nestorius was a heretic. But the current body of evidence strongly suggests that Nestorius did NOT in fact advocate "two persons" in the person of Christ, that rather there was a systematic misunderstanding of technical terms between the parties which led to that erroneous conclusion. Please read the following article if you are interested in a detailed examination of the issue:

http://lukebray.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/nestorius-understanding-of-the-person-of-christ-34/

Bottom line, the two-nature/one-person formula of Chalcedon is the Nestorian formulation, not that of Nestorius' principal opponent, Cyril of Alexandria, whose solution tended toward the obscuring of the human nature of Jesus. In point of fact, the "winner" of the political contest was the true heretic. To ignore the difference in political skill between the two men, as if it were not a factor, is to miss a major part of the story. In the end, the dispute was "arbitrated" by invoking the Roman emperor against Nestorius, which is completely contrary to Paul's admonition that believers settle such disputes without appeal to human civil authorities. It invalidates the entire process.

That Nestorius maintained his innocence of heresy unto the end is not an act of pride, but an honest heart crying out for justice. There is talk even now of eventual reconciliation with the Nestorian churches, because the severity and injustice of the misunderstanding is in our day coming to full light. Nestorius' concern about the potential for abuse in "Theotokus" was the spark that ignited the controversy, and it was well grounded in an orthodox Christology. If territorial politics had not been a factor, if the Greek terminology noted in the link above had not interfered with good mutual understanding, and if the party for veneration of Mary had not been so bent on institutionalizing that veneration, I am confident the outcome would have been significantly different.

Peace,

SR

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.