Nestorianism and Iconoclasm

[Atreyu]

While the CAF forums (fora?) were down, I spent my procrastination time searching through Jimmy Akin’s blog page. In the comments of an article by Michelle Arnold titled “Anti-Catholic Snobbery” (click me), Jonathon Prejean posted the following:

The conceptual origins of the distinction [of iconodulia/idolatry]come as a corollary from the denial of Nestorianism; one cannot inconsistently say that it is idolatry to venerate the created in Christ, which is what all rightful veneration does. White claims theology matters, and it surely does. Perhaps White will care to explain why he ridicules a basic Christological distinction (the iconodulia/idolatry distinction) that anyone who isn’t Nestorian is bound to endorse. Better yet, perhaps he can explain why his spiritual father Calvin couldn’t grasp this elementary theological distinction himself, leaving [sic: leading perhaps?] him to iconoclasm, denial of the Real Presence, denial of merit theology, denial of infused justification, etc., etc. Calvin’s Nestorian inability to distinguish nature and person also led to prelapsarian Pelagianism, distorting his concepts of the atonement, sin, righteousness, and salvation.

As I understand it, Prejean is saying that a belief in Iconoclasm implies a belief in Nestorianism. I don’t really understand how that works, so I’m going to attempt to explain it, and then hopefully people will be able to correct me where I go wrong.

First of all, “Nestorianism is the Christian doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person” (from Wikipedia). Now if you are an Iconoclast, you claim that it is Idolatry to venerate any and every created thing. So, if you must not venerate a created thing, therefore you must not venerate the created human Jesus - who is fully human. But Jesus is the divine Son of God, and therefore you must worship Him. Therefore, to be able to worship Jesus the divine - without worshipping Jesus the created - it is necessary to claim that Jesus himself was two persons: a created and a divine. If Jesus is only one person (the orthodox christology) with divine and human natures, it is impossible to worship the divine without worshipping or at least venerating the human.

Does this make sense? Is this what Prejean was arguing for?

 

[mosher]

While the CAF forums (fora?) were down, I spent my procrastination time searching through Jimmy Akin’s blog page. In the comments of an article by Michelle Arnold titled “Anti-Catholic Snobbery” (click me), Jonathon Prejean posted the following:

As I understand it, Prejean is saying that a belief in Iconoclasm implies a belief in Nestorianism. I don’t really understand how that works, so I’m going to attempt to explain it, and then hopefully people will be able to correct me where I go wrong.

First of all, “Nestorianism is the Christian doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person” (from Wikipedia). Now if you are an Iconoclast, you claim that it is Idolatry to venerate any and every created thing. So, if you must not venerate a created thing, therefore you must not venerate the created human Jesus - who is fully human. But Jesus is the divine Son of God, and therefore you must worship Him. Therefore, to be able to worship Jesus the divine - without worshipping Jesus the created - it is necessary to claim that Jesus himself was two persons: a created and a divine. If Jesus is only one person (the orthodox christology) with divine and human natures, it is impossible to worship the divine without worshipping or at least venerating the human.

Does this make sense? Is this what Prejean was arguing for?

I believe that you are on the right track here. I would make a single clarification in what you said. It is not correct to say that we at least venerate the created in Jesus. Rather it is a worship of the whole person so we do not worship the divine and at least venerate the created but rather we worship the whole Christ in His hypostatic unity not separating one from the other.

Now, on to what Prejean was asserting in the quoted text:

I do not think that it is an absolute that one who ascribes to a form of iconoclasm is Nestorain or even pseudo-Nestorian. Rather there is room in Reformed Theology to say that Jesus is the exception to the rule because it does not seem that there is an implication that there is anything other than a hypostatic Jesus in their formulations. Rather, Jesus is seen as an exception (as a new creation) in that Radical Depravity and the like did not touch him and hence the following errors are seen that were described in the quoted text. It seem that such theologians (so called) as Calvin were saying that the rejection of iconoclasm was not a good solution to the problem and rather the Augustinian distinction between dulia and latria were only word games.

 

[Atreyu]

Cheers Mosher. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

 

[adventistnomore]

Nestorius’ attempts to distinguish between Christ’s human and divine natures, led him to forge a theology that divorced the two. Each nature could, potentially, be thought of independently of one another.

Accusations of Nestorianism were railed by both parties in the Iconoclastic controversy of the 8th century. The iconoclasts claimed that any icon of God is false because only Christ’s humanity can be portrayed in a picture–not His divinity. This, they reasoned, meant that Iconodules (Catholics) were Nestorians: they only worshipped “half” of Christ (his humanity), and not the totality of his being (expressed in both divine and human natures).

Catholics (especially St. John Damascene) turned the argument back on them. They noted that Christ’s humanity and divinity are perfectly* united in the Incarnation. By contrast, the Iconoclast claim that one could worship Christ’s humanity but not his divinity (when venerating an icon) presumed that either could be thought of independently*** of one another.

Checkmate!

In Catholicism, Christ’s human and divine natures are so perfectly united in his being that to worship one is to worship the totality of Christ’s being. Therefore, venerating an icon representing the humanity of Christ is, in fact, venerating the entire Christ.

Make sense?

 

[Atreyu]

Yes, it makes perfect sense. Cheers! I wonder if there are any Iconoclasts here that would attempt a rebuttal…?