Nestorianism in Light of Modern Christian Apologetics (Part 2)

In a previous post, I commented on an inter-Christian theological controversy regarding modern Christians and the heresy of Nestorianism. Many Christians were unaware that such a debate existed within their faith today, primarily between the Protestant sects of Lutheranism and Reformed/ Calvinist theology. I had first raised my argument using the study of the philosophy of religion regarding the ontology (nature of being) of the incarnate Christian God during my recent debate with Dr. Tony Costa. Quite a few lay-Christians thought I’d misidentified orthodox Christian beliefs (Dr. Costa and his supporter Anthony Rogers are guilty in this regard), that I as a Muslim did not understand Christian beliefs and as such my claim was based out of ignorance. Rather, through my subsequent posts a number of Christians have come to realise that I had actually raised an argument that Christian theologians themselves had raised, it was in fact the lay-Christians who were ignorant of their own modern day Christological controversies. In his erudite work on Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof wrote:

1. UP TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. The Reformation did not bring any great changes in the doctrine of the person of Christ. Both the Church of Rome and the Churches’ of the Reformation subscribed to the doctrine of Christ as it was formulated by the Council of Chalcedon. Their important and deep-seated differences lay elsewhere. There is one peculiarity of Lutheran Christology that deserves special mention. Luther’s doctrine of the physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper led to the characteristically Lutheran view of the communicatio idiomatum, to the effect “that each of Christ’s natures permeates the other (perichoresis), and that His humanity participates in the attributes of His divinity.” It is held that the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence were communicated to the human nature of Christ at the time of the incarnation.

Even prominent Calvinist theologian RC Sproul wrote in, “What Is the Trinity?”:

I have Lutheran friends, and I always refer to them as “my monophysite friends.” They refer to me as their “Nestorian friend,” but I always say, No, I don’t separate the two natures, I just distinguish them.”

It’s not an argument or claim invented by myself, it’s quite a well known common argument that many Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christian sects regard Calvinists as Nestorians. It is not difficult to see why. I tried to convey an argument that lay-Christians would be able to understand during my debate with Dr. Costa, but I will have to use a little bit of mathematics to better illustrate my point. The heresy of Nestorianism, entails that despite Christ having two natures, they are distinguished from each other to the point that Jesus becomes two Persons. Jesus with a divine nature and Jesus with a human nature. Surely in Islam, this enters the realm of polytheism. For the time being, let’s express how Reformed/ Calvinistic Theology about Jesus’s Hypostatic Union is Nestorian.

  • Jesus is a Person.
  • Jesus has a Divine Nature.
  • Jesus has a Human Nature.
  • Jesus = {Divine Nature, Human Nature}

If we were to say that Jesus suffered, does that mean the Person of Jesus with two natures suffered? Calvinists would readily say yes, but they would then additionally say, as James White has claimed, that only the human nature suffered. Thus, logically speaking it is a contradiction in thinking.

  • Jesus the Person with a Divine and Human Nature suffered.
  • Jesus the Person’s Divine Nature did not suffer.
  • Jesus the Person’s Human Nature did suffer.

Thus, this in effect breaks Jesus up into two Persons. They speak of Jesus in terms of only his human nature and of Jesus in terms of only his divine nature. Hence, regardless of their cries of orthodoxy, their ideas concerning the nature of Christ are inherently self-defeating and self-contradicting, thus eliciting charges of advocating the Nestorian heresy. In conclusion, as we have seen, Christians themselves did not know of these inter-Christian debates. That’s why I raised the argument in the first place. To bring attention to a problem that only their scholars seem to argue about, I merely wanted to demonstrate that Christians after 2000 years fundamentally disagree about the nature of God and cannot reconcile the God-man doctrine about Christ.

Why wrestle with confusion, when the solution is simply, there is no God but Allah….

and Allah knows best.


  • “jesus is a Person.
    jesus has a Divine Nature.
    jesus has a Human Nature.
    jesus = {Divine Nature, Human Nature}”

    the question i have is

    did the unseen spirit of your christian god BECOME weak?
    if your god is spirit, then did it’s spirit become WEAK?

    WHAT in this god BECAME weak?

    if nothing became WEAK in the unseen MIND, power and abilities of god, then what does INCARNATION mean?

    why don’t they ever refer to jesus the man as “added flesh” ?

    why do they point to the man jesus and say ” god WALKED the earth”?

    if the son is experiencing divine nature then he is experiencing in his spirit human nature, right?

    so the sons person learns, forgets and remembers in his divinity, right?

  • Brother ijaz done a good joy may allah bless u…. please concentrate more about san network (sakshi apologtics network ) in india

  • Great article, one which I view was extremely detrimental to the very foundations of Christianity. On a side note, but relevant to the christian perception of Jesus, is the Christian claim “God did not die, the human nature died.” If so, where is the human soul of Jesus now? We have the Father, the son, the holy spirit, PLUS the human soul that departed the body of Jesus. This creates the very problematic possibility that the trinity has to be modified to include that human soul of Jesus: Trinity, then, should be changed to qaudinity. Unless, of course, the Christian likes to believe that the human soul of Jesus simply disappeared. Not a strong, plausible, intellectually gratifying solution, but then again, such lofty ideals simply do not exist in Christianity. Btw, I am very much aware that the human soul of Jesus would not be a god, and therefore, not necessarily have to be included in the trinity, however, where is that soul? Is it still part of Jesus, but separate from him? Is it allowed to inhabit a different fleshly body somewhere in paradise? Is it allowed to wander, for eternity, without ever becoming part of Jesus again?

  • @Adam, I’ll have to do some reading before I can properly answer your question. I will consult the books I cited. Maybe we should discuss this topic with a Christian, but they all seem to have differing beliefs and none of them can agree.

  • 1 Tim 3 v 16 : And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

  • why don’t you worship the place which held one of the pagan gods in trinity?

    your god is a bad copy of a copy of a copy of a copy which is a copy of an original god which is unable to interact with creation unless he becomes a bad copy

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s