Christology: Nestorianism and Two the Natures of Christ

Nestorianism and Two the Natures of Christ

All theology is Christology. For the Sacramentarians (e.g. Baptist) the Lord’s supper, is merely a symbolic representation, that has been spiritualized.

Those churches who follow the theology of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin do not believe in the real corporal presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Rather, they believe in representation, that bread and wine only represent the body and blood of Christ. from his misunderstanding of the two natures in Christ. Zwingli revived the error of Nestorius, who denied there was a sharing of attributes between the two natures in Christ. Zwingli did not believe that the human nature of Christ could share in the attributes of his divine nature and still remain human. “the finite is not capable of the infinite”—(Latin: finitum non est capax infiniti).

Zwingli also interpreted Christ’s ascension into heaven and sitting at the right hand of God as Christ’s human nature being confined to a specific location in the universe. Thus, he reasoned, Christ could not be present in the Lord’s Supper if his human nature were confined at the right hand of God. Therefore, he reasoned, “This is my body … This is my blood” must mean that bread and wine merely represent the body and blood of Christ.

In the written scriptures, God reveals to us what we are to believe. Jesus gave the bread and said, “Take, eat; this is my body” (Matthew 26:26, ESV). And again Jesus gave the cup and said, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:27–28, ESV). Since Jesus says so it is so. Faith believes what Jesus says. For this reason, St. Paul asks the rhetorical question, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16, ESV). The Apostle knows the answer from the words of Jesus. The cup of blessing is in fact a participation (communion) in the blood of Christ and the bread is a participation (communion) in the body of Christ.

In Christology, the fundamental Calvinist/Zwigian principle is finitum no est capax infiniti, that is, the finite is not capable of the infinite. With this principle, Calvinists/Zwigian teach that the finite human nature of Christ is not capable of having real communion with the infinite divine nature. Thus, the human nature of Christ is not capable of being omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. For this reason, the Calvinists/Zwigians deny that the true body and blood of Jesus are given in the Sacrament of the Altar.

Likewise, for the Calvinist/Zwigians, the human nature of Jesus should not rightfully receive divine worship, honor, and glory. Based upon this principle, a Calvinist/Zwigians can only worship the divine nature of the Son of God. Since Calvinists/Zwigians teach that the divine attributes cannot be communicated to the human nature of Christ, by default, they confess that the Christ consists of two persons. They have fallen into the ancient heresy of Nestorianism which taught that the Christ is comprised of a divine person (the eternal Logos) and a human person (Jesus of Nazareth).

For those who teach the personal union between the divine and human natures (e.g. Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, *Anglicans*) confess that Christ is one person and has two natures. This personal union includes the communication of the divine and human attributes. For example, God in His essence is eternal. He cannot die. However, in the holy incarnation, God took upon flesh in order to die. Thus, we can correctly confess that God died on the cross. In contrast, the Calvinist/Zwigians can only say that the man Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross, because God cannot die. With this Calvinist/Zwigian principle that the finite is not capable of the infinite, the divine attributes are separated from the divine nature. Consequently, Calvinists/Zwigians would say that Jesus Christ has a divine nature, but He does not have the divine attributes. For this reason, Calvinists/Zwigians cannot confess that the human nature of the Christ is omnipresent which provides for the gift of the true body and blood of Jesus in the Sacrament of the Altar.

—————

Errors that affect the two natures in Christ
"Nestorianism separated the two natures in Christ so that there were two natures and two persons. Nestorius became patriarch of Constantinople in 428. He objected to calling Mary “the bearer of God” (theotokos in the Greek). He suggested that Mary be called “the bearer of Christ” (Christotokos in the Greek). By making this distinction, he was saying that a person must distinguish between Christ’s humanity and his divinity, that some of the things said of him are to be applied to the humanity and some to the divinity. This effectively divided Jesus into two beings whose unity consisted in agreement rather than a union in one person. Ultimately, if only the human nature of Christ died, we are not saved. It took God in the balances of divine justice to substitute for the whole human race. Jesus also had to be true man to get onto the scales of God’s justice in the first place. The Council of Ephesus in 433 condemned the error of Nestorius, who spent the rest of his life in exile. The Athanasian Creed specifically rejects this error when it says, “Christ is not two persons but one.”

The error of Nestorius was resurrected in the 16th century by Ulrich Zwingli. He also separated the two natures in Christ and denied that there was any sharing of attributes between the two natures. His error in Christology also led him to err regarding the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. If Christ’s human nature was not present everywhere, but confined to a place at the right hand of God, then the words “This is my body,” “This is my blood” must mean “This represents my body,” “This represents my blood.” Yet the Bible clearly teaches that Christ’s human body is also omnipresent (Mt 18:20), and the simple words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper also clearly teach that Christ’s corporal body and blood are present with the bread and the wine."

https://ref.ly/o/godsolovedworld/600947?length=1873 via @Logos

Imagine Jesus was actually GOD and could be Trusted for one minute. Whatever he says takes precedence above all senses despite whatever natural mechanics in place.

God tells you this is his body and this is his blood.

Jesus' own body is atoms and molecules. Some of those molecules and atoms still around today. God is outside of even the "LAWS" of having atoms and molecules at all. God literally is whatever he says he is. He speaks out existence.

If God says I'm that chicken and this staple its only going to be tough on those who don't trust him, just like they didn't trust him in John 6.

Even if God was only talking about a "representation" or "SYMBOL" That only points out to a superior reality, a LIFE in HD while we can only see things through an AM radio.

Its like a video game avatar, Our monitors have pixels, and you have your own self on the monitor, you are not those pixels. But someone who can do anything. He can be the pixels, the code, the full reality.

I don’t know any Baptist that believes Christ is two persons.

Concerning the Supper, Jesus said “do this in remembrance of Me”. He did not mean the bread and wine were His liberal body and blood, only they represented the same. It is intended to be a memorial of His sacrifice.

He said no “magic words…no hocus pocus” to transform them. There is no grace obtained, no salvation granted, by participating other than the blessing of following the commands of our Lord.

Jesus died once for all. His blood is not continually shed. His flesh is not continually bruised and tortured. He is not in the cross, that event is over. His flesh is now glorified. I’m not sure a glorified body even has blood, since flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

I appreciate your views. I consider them error.

peace to you

@VDMA,
There are a number of issues.
For one the Lord Jesus Christ is one distinct Person who is both an immortal man the Lord Jesus and fully God being the Son of God.
He before His human immortality instituted a remembrance of His death on the cross and it's purpose. And lost Judas was a partaker of it. And today genuine Christians being members of His body being His church remember what He did by means of this remembrance. And all genuine believers are a part of His real presence being born of God, 1 John 5:1; Romans 8:9; 1 John 5:12.

Bottom line…if the bread is literally human flesh and the wine is literally human blood doesn’t that mean Almighty God has literally commanded His children to be cannibals?

Peace to you

Interesting 'RCC Propaganda':

Actually, it was the proof of the Baptist misinterpretation of the Lords Supper and their belief that 'do this in remembrance of me' was all it was about. Paul made it clear that eating of the Lord's Supper unworthily made it much more than simply a 'memorial' of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Wake Up!

THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic

Walter said:

Interesting 'RCC Propaganda':

Actually, it was the proof of the Baptist misinterpretation of the Lords Supper and their belief that 'do this in remembrance of me' was all it was about. Paul made it clear that eating of the Lord's Supper unworthily made it much more than simply a 'memorial' of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Wake Up!

THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic

Click to expand...

Paul wanted believers to give the Lord’s Supper the respect it is due as a memorial that “proclaims the Lord’s death until He returns.”

That doesn’t reflect the Catholic belief of literal flesh and literal blood.

Again, if the bread is literal human flesh and the wine is literal human blood, doesn’t that mean Almighty God has literally commanded His children to be cannibals?

peace to you

canadyjd said:

Paul wanted believers to give the Lord’s Supper the respect it is due as a memorial that “proclaims the Lord’s death until He returns.”

That doesn’t reflect the Catholic belief of literal flesh and literal blood.

Again, if the bread is literal human flesh and the wine is literal human blood, doesn’t that mean Almighty God has literally commanded His children to be cannibals?

peace to you

Click to expand...

Paul SAID that the cup that 'we drink, is it not the blood of our Lord and the bread we break, is it not the body of our Lord?' Doesn't say anything about giving a 'memorial' respect. If that is what he meant, he would have said so. What is obviously so “hard” about this saying is that it suggests cannibalism. If Catholics believe the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ, then they believe they are eating human flesh and drinking human blood. The Romans accused Christians of cannibalism and that the charge has been made against Catholics in various ways ever since.

But while Holy Communion does involve eating human flesh and blood, it is not true that it is cannibalistic. How so?

The Eucharist is life. Cannibals eat what is dead. The Aztecs, the most notorious cannibalistic society in history, ate the beating hearts of victims, but they were still eating something doomed to die, and in the act of eating, it did die. By contrast, Christ, is alive. He rose on the third day, and is present in the Eucharist as fully alive (indeed, He is Life itself). Our reception of the Eucharist doesn’t destroy or change that in any way.

The Eucharist is the whole body and blood of Jesus Christ. Cannibals only take a part of their victims. But even the smallest particle of the Eucharist contains the entire body and blood of Christ. The familiar characteristics of space and matter don’t apply: consuming a larger Host does not mean you get more of Christ’s body and blood, nor does consuming a small Host mean you get less. Even receiving from the Precious Cup is unnecessary: by “concomitance,” when a communicant receives the Host, he also receives the Precious Blood.

The Eucharist is the glorified body of Jesus Christ. Concomitance is possible because Christ’s living and eternal body is forever reunited with His blood; hence, receiving the former entails receiving the latter. Christ’s risen body is not a resuscitated corpse like that of Lazarus, but an utterly transformed “spiritual body” (I Cor. 15:44) far different from the spatio-temporal “body of our lowness.” (Phil. 3:21) Therefore, when a Catholic receives the Eucharist, he is receiving not just flesh but glorified flesh, a resurrected and transfigured “super body” that foreshadows the new reality of a new Heaven and a new earth. Cannibalistic practices don’t do that.

canadyjd said:

Paul wanted believers to give the Lord’s Supper the respect it is due as a memorial that “proclaims the Lord’s death until He returns.”

That doesn’t reflect the Catholic belief of literal flesh and literal blood.

Again, if the bread is literal human flesh and the wine is literal human blood, doesn’t that mean Almighty God has literally commanded His children to be cannibals?

peace to you

Click to expand...

Thats the exact same accusation the romans made of the first Christians. Thats the same objection from John 6.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?


Some of us are obedient to God. God says do something we do it because he said it. Its not gold diggers who size up whats in it for me.

Even if the command was only to "remember" its done everyday around the world. Not once a year with crackers and koolaid.

And we do it because he SAID do it, not because its written somewhere he said it, because that was US, we were there when he said it. If you have to "check" scripture for something Jesus put down himself its already veering off his command. He said DO THIS, not DO THAT.


For folks who swear up and down its about "FAITH", Not seeing the body and blood is laughable.

Jesus even counters that he would do a miracle to prove it.

61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Did Jesus SYMBOLICLY ascend to heaven too?

Walter said:

Paul SAID that the cup that 'we drink, is it not the blood of our Lord and the bread we break, is it not the body of our Lord?' Doesn't say anything about giving a 'memorial' respect….. .

Click to expand...

What passage of scripture are you quoting here?

In 1 Corinthians 11:23-27, Paul states He directly received the ordinance from Jesus, and repeats His instructions to the disciples, saying “do this in remembrance of Me.”

He further explains that by doing so they proclaim the Lord’s death until He returns.

peace to you

Walter said:

….
The Eucharist is the glorified body of Jesus Christ. ….

Click to expand...

So, when Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper, prior to His death, burial and resurrection, the bread and wine His disciples consumed were literally His glorified body…. even though His physical body had not yet been glorified?

And the words of our Lord Jesus concerning the supper He instituted, “do this in remembrance of Me” in no way means He intended it to be a memorial supper symbolically representing His sacrifice for our sins?

peace to you

utilyan said:

Thats the exact same accusation the romans made of the first Christians. Thats the same objection from John 6.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?


Some of us are obedient to God. God says do something we do it because he said it. Its not gold diggers who size up whats in it for me.

Even if the command was only to "remember" its done everyday around the world. Not once a year with crackers and koolaid.

And we do it because he SAID do it, not because its written somewhere he said it, because that was US, we were there when he said it. If you have to "check" scripture for something Jesus put down himself its already veering off his command. He said DO THIS, not DO THAT.


For folks who swear up and down its about "FAITH", Not seeing the body and blood is laughable.

Jesus even counters that he would do a miracle to prove it.

61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Did Jesus SYMBOLICLY ascend to heaven too?

Click to expand...

Jesus said in John 6:63 “It is the Spirit that quickenieth. The flesh profits nothing. The words I speak are Spirit and they are life”.

Jesus was commenting on His statements concerning “eating His flesh and drinking His blood.” Clearly, He was telling them He wasn’t literally speaking of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He said His words were spiritual.

Since the “flesh prophets nothing”, He isn’t telling us to literally eat His flesh.

peace to you

Walter said:

…

The Eucharist is life. ….

The Eucharist is the whole body and blood of Jesus Christ. ….

The Eucharist is the glorified body of Jesus…….

Click to expand...

These statements directly contradict the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ in John 6.

In this passage, Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He explains to His disciples what He meant.

Jesus said His words were “spiritual”. The Catholics claim they are literal. Whatever “spiritual” means, it cannot mean literal human flesh and literal human blood.

Jesus also said the “flesh profits nothing” and His “words were life”. You directly contradict His teachings by claiming the flesh gives life and His words mean nothing.

peace to you

Walter said:

Paul SAID that the cup that 'we drink, is it not the blood of our Lord and the bread we break, is it not the body of our Lord?'

Click to expand...

No such text.

Walter said:

. . . eating of the Lord's Supper unworthily . . . .

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 11:20-22, ". . . When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. . . ."
1 Corintians 11:34, ". . . And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."
Now Judas was known to Jesus to be an unbeliever at His remembrance, Luke 22:21.

37818 said:

No such text.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 10:16 16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

I suspect that any threads in which Catholics debate will be shut down citing 'Catholic Propaganda' as has been the norm lately. The board seems to be heading back to the days when all Catholics were banned from this site. Hope that is not the case. BTW, the banning of Catholics seemed to coincide with a number of BB members that became Catholic as a result of overwhelming evidence that the Catholic Church had biblical answers to evangelical objections. I eventually became one of those people myself. I did not become Catholic for years after the 'purge of all Catholics' but did so after Baptists on this board began discussing the Catholic Church and Baptist members (like Thinkingstuff) and others began to take issue with how the Catholic Church was portrayed. He eventually became Catholic himself. Eventually, the board decided that only Baptist that became Catholic would be allowed to stay on this board as they were 'grandfathered' in and I'm sure in effort to win them back.

Hope I'm wrong about another purge on the way, but it's starting to look that way. Hopefully, this one place on the BB where other denominations are allowed to participate will remain open to all.

Walter said:

1 Corinthians 10:16 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

Click to expand...

That is different.
1 Corintians 10:16-17, ". . . The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. . . ."
It is not the bread and cup, but genuine believers being as parts of the body of Christ in fellowship [communion] of the remembrance.
[Romans 8:9, 1 John 5:12.]

37818 said:

That is different.
1 Corintians 10:16-17, ". . . The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. . . ."
It is not the bread and cup, but genuine believers being as parts of the body of Christ in fellowship [communion] of the remembrance.
[Romans 8:9, 1 John 5:12.]

Click to expand...

Interesting the early christians were accused of cannibalism. Wonder why?

Walter said:

Interesting the early christians were accused of cannibalism. Wonder why?

Click to expand...

What was that citation and when. Was not in the first century.