Nestorius, the fifth-century patriarch of Constantinople, has haunted Calvin’s Christology for centuries. A startling variety of theologians have accused him of Nestorianism, teaching that there are two Christs, two persons: one divine, the other human. Ironically, the first to charge Calvin with the heresy was Michael Servetus, though Servetus’ reasoning could be equally applied to any Chalcedonian Christology. However, even some Chalcedonian theologians would continue to use the accusation well after Servetus’ death and up to the present day. It is not uncommon to find claims that Calvin was in danger of being Nestorian or exhibited a ‘tendency’ or ‘leaning’ in that direction. Surprisingly, some conservative Reformed theologians like Robert Letham agree that there is some truth in the charge.
The controversy has been so long-running that it has seeped into the academic ‘groundwater’, yet the response of Calvin scholars has been inadequate. Some like François Wendel agree that Calvin’s Christology leads to ‘somewhat unorthodox conclusions’ because of the way he distinguishes the natures of Christ; however, Wendel does not go into detail. Others like Gerrish, Partee, and Thompson note the controversy but draw no conclusions about the charge. Still others like Emmen, Berkouwer, Edmondson, and Muller mention and dismiss it, but almost always in passing.The most commonly cited counter-analysis is by Willis, but even his treatment is somewhat secondary to his project and partial. Given the magnitude of the charge of Nestorianism and the consistency with which it has been laid, it is surprising that there are so few sustained analyses of Calvin’s thought dedicated to this issue.
Also, these prior responses do not properly recognize the concerns of Calvin’s critics and, thus, have tended to flatten them into a vague monolithic whole. These critics do agree that he is guilty of the Nestorian charge, but they point to different aspects of his thought as the culprit, including the so-called extra Calvinisticum, his version of the communicatio idiomatum, model of the hypostatic union, metaphysical presuppositions, conception of Christ’s atoning work, and more. A lack of awareness of this diversity among Calvin’s detractors hampers the ability of these prior studies to provide a unified response to the controversy, since they only deal with a few of the relevant aspects of Calvin’s thought. When Calvin is accused of Nestorianism, it is a multi-faceted charge and must be handled with careful attention to the unity and diversity behind the term. First must come the careful work of listening to Calvin’s critics. Is there a higher unity behind their diverse concerns that allows a central issue or set of issues to be identified? Only afterwards can Calvin’s thought be approached with the necessary questions to determine which aspects of his thought, if any, may be described as ‘Nestorian’ and in what way.
This paper will examine this controversy and argue that the applicability of the label ‘Nestorian’ to Calvin depends upon the nuances of the definition given to it by a theological system. This will be shown in the first half which will provide an analysis of Calvin’s critics and survey the two most prominent critiques of Calvin’s Christology: Lutheran and Neo-orthodox. It will show that there is limited higher unity between them, that they amount to distinct arguments, and that their accusations against Calvin reveal just as much, if not more, about their own confessional definitions and theological systems over against the Reformed tradition, as about Calvin’s own theology. These critiques of Calvin can be mitigated and complexified, but they are best handled at the level of inter-denominational dialogue. The paper will also argue that ‘Nestorianism’ is not an accurate description of Calvin’s Christology from a traditional, confessional Reformed perspective over against its more modern, Neo-orthodox offshoots or confessional Lutheranism. Calvin has a standard account of Christ’s unity that sits within the bounds of the Reformed confessions; however, his preference is to discuss it through Christ’s office of Mediator. This does result in some ambiguities in his exegesis of 1 Cor. 15:24–8, because Calvin describes mediation as ending, but these should be charitably read in light of his foundational, orthodox account of the hypostatic union. Read more»
Arthur Rankin | “Calvin’s Christology and the Accusation of Nestorianism,” The Journal of Theological Studies (March, 2025)
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›