Scripture and God in Christianity

political power to suppress all rational and curious inquiries into it and that had been made available
to several of the propounders of Logos theology in its traditional sense. This act of blaspheming
God, to use Nestorius' term, could have not been done by the Holy Spirit as always
claimed but by the political powers of secular and at times pagan emperors.
In conclusion it is worth quoting the famous passage from Nestorius, who wrote: "It is my earnest
desire that even by anathematizing me they may escape from blaspheming God [and that
those who so escape may confess God, holy, almighty and immortal, and not change the image of
the incorruptible God for the image of corruptible man, and mingle heathenism with Christianity...
but that Christ may be confessed to be in truth and in nature God and Man, being by nature
immortal and impassable as God, and mortal and passable by nature as Man- not God in both natures,
nor again Man in both natures. The goal of my earnest wish is that God may be blessed on
earth as in heaven]; but for Nestorius, let him be anathema; only let men speak of God as I pray
for them that they may speak. For I am with those who are for God, and not with those who are
against God, who with an outward show of religion reproach God and cause him to cease from
being God." 706 F. Young pays Nestorius homage in the following words: "It was a great Christian
who wrote those words. There have been many who were prepared to die as martyrs for what
they believed to be the truth, but Nestorius was prepared to live cursed and consigned to oblivion,
as long as God was not dishonored... In tribulation he showed a greater generosity of spirit
than many who have received the name saint rather than heretic." 707
The Council of Chalcedon:
The decisions of the general Council of Ephesus did not settle the issue of the person of Christ.
Just fifteen years after the agreement patched up in 433, the quarrel broke out again in 448 when
Eutyches, Archimandrite of a monastery in the neighborhood of Constantinople, vehemently opposed
Nestorianism or Antiochian party's "inspired man" Christology in favor of Cyrillianism or
Alexandrian God-man Christology. Kelly observes that "What Eutyches's actual doctrine was has
never been easy to determine. At a preliminary examination, before the envoys of the synod, he
declared that `after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ I worship one nature, viz. that of God made
flesh and become man'. He vigorously repudiated the suggestion of two natures in the Incarnate
as un-Scriptural and contrary to the teaching of the fathers. Yet he expressly allowed that He was
born from the Virgin and was at once perfect God and perfect man. He denied ever having said
that His flesh came from heaven, but refused to concede that it was consubstantial with us." 708
Flavian, the successor of Proclus, condemned him as Apollinarian. Kelly observes that Eutyches
was neither a Docetist nor Apollinarian. He was "a confused and unskilled thinker...blindly rushing
forward to defend the unity of Christ against all attempts to divide Him." 709 He actually upset
the required balance in connection with Christology. R.V. Sellers argues that "if we are to understand
Eutyches aright, we must not think of him as the instructed theologian, prepared to discuss
the doctrine of the Incarnation. Rather does he appear as the simple monk who, having renounced
the world, had also renounced all theological inquiry, and considered that it behoved him obediently
to follow what had been said by the orthodox Fathers, since these were the experts in matters
concerning the faith." 710
87