Nestorius v. Cyril

Nestorius is an early bishop in the Church, I think circa 4th century. Cyril is the biship who countered Nestorius. Nestorius is often considered a heretic for his teachings, but recent analysis of his claims have basically shown Nestorius to be confused. Once again reading about Christology always makes me wonder why doesn't the Church in America preach about this? Why do we preach 7 steps to financial freedom, instead of orthodox Christologies? Anybody who knows the answer to this please let me know...

BTW, this discussion is in a great book. Learning Theology with the Church Fathers, I would recommend anybody who is interested in theology to read this book. It is perhaps the best introduction to Christian Theology that I can think of.

One interesting thing that Cyril accuses Nestorius of doing is disregarding historical teaching in the church. This reminded me why I went into philosophy instead of theology. I am convinced that the only kind of theology that is worth doing now days is historical theology, unless one does pastoral theology which I consider to be a response to contemporary concerns. Moreover, most contemporary systematic theology is an attempt to be creative, i.e. the concern is not so much doing good theology, but doing theology that is new and different. This is an absolute shame, why mess with something that works. In our contemporary culture we often have an arrogance towards things and events that have taken place in the past. Instead of learning from history, we think that we are above history. This is why it is so important to understand that past theological debates, because the current debates are just a continuation, i.e. same game with different players.

I'll leave you with three questions that were asked in the Nestorius v. Cyril debate. Just to assert one thing, Cyril was extremely concerned that everyone understood the Incarnation to be fully God and fully man. That means the Incarnation, Christ, possessed everything that God possessed and everything that man possessed. Another aspect of this debate is a theological title given to Mary - is she the bearer of God? So, this implies two souls, if God has a soul, two minds, etc. Here are the questions:
(1) Was God born of Mary, or was a man born of Mary?
(2) Did God die on the cross, or did a man die on the cross?
(3) Should the human nature of Christ be worshipped?