Page 41 - Christology - Student Textbook

Response to Apollinarianism
The human soul or mind is unarguably one of the components of a human body. Jesus Christ
became a high priest touched with our infirmities, and was tempted in all points as we are, yet
without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Grudem notes, “we have the statement that he was truly man, of a
reasonable soul and body . . .consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto
115
us (The word consubstantial means “having the same nature or substance).

In a Journal article, Mark S. G. Nestlehutt quoted the response from twenty-three bishops in
attendance at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. They maintained that:

there is only one Son, therefore denying subordinationism, Arianism, and Nestorianism; that the
Logos is impossible and immutable; that there are two distinct natures in Christ; that Jesus Christ
was fully human, possessing a real human body with mind and soul, thus ruling out
Apollinarianism; and that the Son is co-eternal with God the Father, while also born of a human
116
being, Mary, or theotokos. It also retains the understanding from Nicea of two natures in union.

Nestorianism
Nestorius was a popular preacher and bishop in Antioch. He postulated views that were
unsubstantiated by scriptures on the two natures of Jesus. He suggested that “there were two
separate persons in Christ.”
117

Response to Nestoriamism
In the Scriptures, we do not find places where a plural pronoun is used to refer to a singular person.
What we find is the use of singular pronoun, “I.” But when Jesus is referring to both Himself and God
the Father, He did use “we” (John 14:23), but never did He use the plural pronoun when referencing
Himself.

Nestorius’s teaching is foreign to the Scriptures. Grudem maintains that “Nowhere in Scripture do
we have an indication that the human nature of Christ, for example, is an independent person,
deciding to do something contrary to the divine nature of Christ.” Further, “Nowhere do we have
118
an indication of the human and divine natures talking to each other or struggling within Christ, or
119
any such a thing.”

According to Walvoord, “the human nature always remains human, and the divine nature always
remains divine. Christ is therefore both God and Man, no less God because of His humanity and no
less human because of His deity.”
120

Monophysitism (Eutychianism)

115 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 557.

116 Nestlehutt, “Chalcedonian Christology,” 177-78.
117 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 554.

118 Ibid., 555.
119 Ibid.

120 Walvoord, Jesus Christ our Lord, 115.

40