which he has given life. Gore, Incarnation, 93 ? ?Apollinaris suggested that the archetype of manhood exists in God, who made man in his own image so that man?s nature in some sense preexisted in God. The Son of God was eternally human and he could fill the place of the human mind in Christ without his ceasing to be in some sense divine. The church denied this, man is not God nor is God man. The first principle of theism is that manhood at the bottom is not the same thing as Godhead. This is a principle intimately bound up with man?s responsibility and the reality of sin. The interests of theism were at stake.?
5. The Nestorians (Nestorius, removed from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, 431) denied the real union between the divine and the human natures in Christ, making it rather a moral than an organic one. They refused therefore to attribute to the resultant unity the attributes of each nature and regarded Christ as a man in very near relation to God. Thus they virtually held to two natures and two persons, instead of two natures n one person.
Nestorius disliked the phrase: ?Mary, mother of God.? The Chalcedon statement asserted its truth, with the significant addition: ?as to his humanity.? Nestorius made Christ a peculiar temple of God. He believed in suna>feia , not e]nwsiv ? junction and indwelling, but not absolute union. He made too much of the analogy of the union of the believer with Christ and separated as much as possible the divine and the human. The two natures were, in his view, a]llov kai< a]llov , instead of being a]llo kai< a]llo , which together constitute ei=v ? one personality. The union which he accepted was a moral union, which makes Christ simply God and man, instead of the God-man. John of Damascus compared the passion of Christ to the felling of a tree on which the sun shines. The axe fells the tree but does no harm to the sunbeams. So the blows, which struck Christ?s humanity, caused no harm to his deity; while the flesh suffered, the deity remained impassible. This leaves, however, no divine efficacy of the human sufferings and no personal union of the human with the divine. The error of Nestorius arose from a philosophic nominalism, which refused to conceive of nature without personality. He believed in nothing more than a local or moral union, like the marriage union, in which two become one or like the state, which is sometimes called a moral person, because having a unity composed of many persons. See Dorner, Person Christ, B. 1:53-79, and Glaubenslehre, 2:315, 316 (Syst. Doct., 3:211-213); Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 4:210; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 152-154.
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?