Nestorius, 386 AD – 450 AD was Archbishop of Constantinople (now Istanbul) from 10 April 428 to August 431. He was formally condemned for heresy by a majority of the bishops and was subsequently removed from his see.
Nestorius's opponents charged him with detaching Christ's divinity and humanity into two persons existing in one body, thereby denying the reality of the Incarnation. It is not clear whether Nestorius actually taught that.
His doctrine emphasizes a distinction between the human and divine persons of Jesus.
Calvin’s belief was that every time a baby was created at conception, God created its soul out of nothing. Calvin emphasized God’s direct involvement in the world, and this belief led him to favor God’s direct involvement in procreation.
This caused him to reject the traducianist theory, which Luther held. This view of the soul is transferred from generation to generation through procreation. This view naturally follows that humans are involved in the creation of babies apart from God’s extra intervention.
The way these views converge is that both the divine and human natures of Christ have had a tendency to be spoken of as if they were subjects of attribution in their own right and the unity of Christ has similarly been spoken of as if it was a matter of combining of the two natures to form one person out of this combination.
This tendency was taken to its logical conclusion in the theologies of Eutyches and Nestorius, where the person of Christ was seen as a result of a combining of divine and human natures, understood as distinct entities and subjects of attribution.
On this view, Christ is said to be divine because he is partly produced out of divinity and he is said to be human because he is partly produced out of humanity.
The difficulty of attaining a unified person out of this combination theologically was resolved by mingling the natures in some way. Nestorius does this not by an actual mingling of the two themselves by a mingling of their respective appearances, that of God and that of man, so as to produce the appearance of a single person, Christ.
Because of this, human predicates could be applied to the divinity and divine to the humanity, but this was only in appearances, a matter of words only. Strictly speaking, the divine only applied to the divinity and the human to the humanity, but because of the single appearance of Christ, they could both be applied to Christ. So one could say, for instance, “Christ died on the cross” or “The man died on the cross” in virtue of Christ being partly compounded out of the human, but not “God died on the cross”, even though one could also say “Christ is God” in virtue of being partly compounded out of the divinity. The subjects of the divine properties and human properties, respectively, however, remain the divine nature on the one hand and the human nature on the other.
On the Lutheran side, there is the opposite Monophysite tendency either in a Docetist or Kenotic direction. There is here a tendency to speak of a real exchange of attributes between the two natures rather than a merely verbal one.
In this regard the doctrines somewhat coalesce.