Nestorius and the “Dual Nature of Christ” Popular Controversies in World History Entry 2.08A PRO: Nestorius did not intend to argue that Christ had a dual nature, but that view became labeled Nestorianism. Introduction History is rarely kind to heretics, even less so to heresiarchs, those who devise systems of belief which lead the faithful astray. Their stories are usually told not by themselves, but by their opponents. In the process, they are condemned for questioning the religious status quo or offering innovative solutions to theological problems. Their beliefs are minutely scrutinized to discredit their views and they are often accused of immoral behavior, as further evidence of their heretical thinking. Since those who triumph over the heretics often destroy most or all of their works, one can only evaluate them through the lens of their opponents. A list of heresiarchs from early Christianity would probably include Marcion, Montanus, Valentinus, Arius and Nestorius. Undeniably, some of these men taught things diametrically opposed to the Bible, often involving alien systems of thought like Gnosticism. Much of what the Bible states about God, Christ, humanity and salvation requires that apparently opposite truths are held in dynamic tension with each other. Any attempt to legitimately define the Scriptural position on a subject frequently involves embracing paradox (for example, affirming that God knows all things and yet allows humans genuine free will). In addressing such paradoxes, heresiarchs have often devised explanations which emphasize one side of the biblical perspective to the exclusion of the other side, resulting in theological imbalance. Most of those in the list above are universally regarded by scholars as clearly opposed to the basics of the Christian faith as outlined in the Bible and interpreted by the Church since apostolic times. However, about Nestorius there is much less consensus; for the past century theologians have held widely divergent views on his teachings. Was he truly a heretic or rather a victim of church politics whose views have been subsequently misinterpreted, in part due to the exalted status of his opponent, Cyril of Alexandria? This article proposes the latter view; Nestorius does not deserve to be labeled a heretic, because he did not teach what he is accused of. Before going further, the statement that this article argues in favor of needs a comment. The wording is misleading, since Nestorius undeniably argued that Christ had a dual nature. This position, known as Dyophysitism (from Greek dyophysitai, “two natures,” referring to the divine and human natures of Christ), is also the orthodox Christian position articulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and considered a primary article of faith by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Churches today. It stands in contrast to the Miaphysitism (from Greek mia physis, “one nature”) of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian and Armenian Orthodox), who affirm only one nature in Christ. By contrast, Nestorius is accused of teaching that there were two persons, not two natures, in Christ (a crucial terminological distinction, as explained below). This article therefore disputes the accusation that Nestorius taught “two persons in Christ.”