Miaphysitism vs Dyophysitism

 

Ephesus:

It's the year 431 as Nestorius is about to be excommunicated. The debate was between Cryil of Alexandria and Nestorius as they discuss the natures of Christ. Cryil famously said,"One incarnate nature of the Word of God," and the council sided with Cryil since they thought Nestorius was separating Christ into two. This is the formula Miaphysites use to describe the nature of Christ. They believe in one composited nature with no mixture, change, or mingling. 

Chalcedon: 

It's the year 451, 20 years since the council of Ephesus. The Council of Chalcedon was held to reaffirm what they believed and to anathematize the monophysites (not miaphysites). The council held that Christ had two distinct natures after the union. This caused a big disagreement with the Miaphysites and lead up to the Schism of 451. The Non-Chalcedonian churches today are known as the Oriental Orthodox. 

Where do I stand? 

This was just a brief overview of the matter since there is more in depth history involved (may make a blog on the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon). Right now I lean more towards Miaphytism because of the formula that is used makes more sense if you believe Christ is fully man and fully God. Miaphytism still affirms two natures, but it is before the union rather than after. I think both views of Christology is attempting to stay far from heresy (Nestorianism and Monophytism). This is a brief summary of the topic, more will come out soon. God Bless!