Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Modern Miaphysites vs. Orthodox Dyotheletism/Dyoenergism


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#41 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:34 PM

Dear Jon

This post is probably best answered by a miaphysite since most of the questions are gear towards them. Im sure they do have their own fathers and teachers that have written treatise on these things through the ages. The OO and EO do say very close to the same thing and in actuality so do the Assyrians! But simply attributing these disagreements on semantics (as many in orthodox forums are quick to do), semantics is an oversimplification and overlooks the subtle variations.

For instance in (eastern) Orthodoxy, a person must accept both of the following formulas as orthodox; that Christ is OF two natures and that He is IN two natures. When applied correctly in context the former denounces nestorianism while the latter denounces monophysitism. In the 4th council, Dioscorus was condemned for eutychianism for only accepting the formula that Christ is of two natures but not accepting the formula that he is in two natures. In OO the latter phrase is a heresy, in the EO the rejection of such a phrase constitutes a soft monophysitism refusing to acknowledge that such a heresy exists or that nestorianism is a worse heresy making eutychianism a tolerable heresy.

OO believe in a composite nature, will & energy. Anotherwords there not comfortable with acknowledging a DISTINCTION between the 2 natures, wills and energies. Hence they label themselves as miaphyisites, mia= one nature (which can allow for a composite nature) as opposed to monophysite, mono- one in an absolute sense, 'one and only one'. As you can see there rejection for the label of monophysitism is that they are aware there are two natures, but act as one composite nature (mia) due to the uniqueness of the hypostatic union , but reject diophysite as this implys a discernable distinction.



From an Oriental Orthodox Perspective Eutychiansim is just as terrible a heresy as Nestorianism and Appolinariansim.

We acknowledge that Christ is completely God and Completely man, lacking nothing in either nature.

St. Cyril stated that we distinguish the two natures (two physis) is Christ "in throught alone" when speaking about the two natures.

#42 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 09:29 PM

... This is why saying that there is one mind in the incarnat Logos is Apollinarian. The Mind or Nous is not the person, as Apollinariaus thought. since the Nous is not the hypostasis and the nous is a faculty or power of the nature, since Christ has two natures, he has two minds, just as he has two intellects. The two minds are used or employed by the one divine Person.


Where you as a dyophysite speak of two nouses, we would speak of a Mia-nous. The Concrete Christ is One Person who is both God and Man. The Mind of the Losos, who Himself is the Mind of the Father fully united Himself with humanity such that He has a mind that is full God and fully Man. Like St. Cyril we speak of concrete realities. We do not deny the Chalcedonia way of speaking of the nous, we simply feel it is superflous and even at times could be dangerous as it could lead to speaking of two Minds in the sense of two hypostases, two persons in the one Christ. Nonetheless, the Oriental Orthodox understand that by talking of the two nouses and two minds, you are still referring to the two natures of the One Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate being one and only one self same Son of God.

The concrete reality of Christ is that He is One Person who is fully God and fully man including His Mind which is of God and Man.

Appolinarius believed that the Logo's mind alone in the human body of Christ was the only mind acting. Oriential Orthodox do not believe this. We believe that the Mind of the Logos Incarnate is Divine and Human, a mia-mind if you will, not a hybrid, but as with every other aspect of Christ, a complete hypostatic union of the two natures, of the Divine Mind and the Human mind.

We do expressly disavow and reject Apollinarianism in all its forms.

Edited by Jack R., 15 December 2011 - 09:42 PM.
Clarity


#43 Bryan J. Maloney

Bryan J. Maloney

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 31 December 2011 - 05:10 PM

We consider miaphysite language to be "dangerous", as it could lead to speaking of one Mind completely replacing or destroying the other.

#44 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 01 January 2012 - 09:38 PM

We consider miaphysite language to be "dangerous", as it could lead to speaking of one Mind completely replacing or destroying the other.


Peace, grace, and happy new year to you.

Likewise with the dyophysite language, it is also dangerous, as was clearly seen at the outset since the 5th and 6th centuries, in that the language can be used in a nestorian way. Today, there still exists a Nestorian Church and Nestorians approved of the Dyophysite formula, but in a heretical, twisted understanding.

The fact is the Eastern Orthodox Church's history has used BOTH phrases, Mia and Dyo in an Orthodox way. To exclude Miaphysite language from acceptable Orthodox terminology is to ignore Church History and the Fathers, pre- and post- Chalcedonian.

Dyophysite terminology is acceptable as long as the Dyophysites explain what they mean in an Orthodox Way
Likewise, Miaphysite terminology is acceptable as long as Miaphysites explain what they mean in an Orthodox Way

BOTH formulas are acceptably Orthodox in describing Christ as completely God and completely Man, both sides need to explain what they mean.

Both formulas can also be used heretically.

The certain fact is that Miaphysites and Dyophysites have the SAME CHRISTOLOGY. Jesus the Christ is completely, perfectly God, and fully completely Human, in body, soul, spirit, will, mind, etc. This is Orthodox Christology, regardless if one comes from a school that uses Miaphystie or Dyophysite Terminology. The Divinity is United to the Humanity without confusion, alteration, comixture, comingling, or separation, in the Hypostasis of the Logos Iincarnate. A Miaphysite will emphasize and contemplate on the unity of the two Natures, without denying the completness of the two natures, while a Dyophysite will emphasize the completenss of the two natures that work together in the Incarnate Logos without denying their unity.

Happy Feast of the Nativity and Happy Feast of Theophany.

Edited by Jack R., 01 January 2012 - 09:46 PM.
clarity


#45 Abraham Ghattas

Abraham Ghattas

    Junior Poster

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 04 January 2012 - 06:01 AM

Peace, grace, and happy new year to you.

Likewise with the dyophysite language, it is also dangerous, as was clearly seen at the outset since the 5th and 6th centuries, in that the language can be used in a nestorian way. Today, there still exists a Nestorian Church and Nestorians approved of the Dyophysite formula, but in a heretical, twisted understanding.

The fact is the Eastern Orthodox Church's history has used BOTH phrases, Mia and Dyo in an Orthodox way. To exclude Miaphysite language from acceptable Orthodox terminology is to ignore Church History and the Fathers, pre- and post- Chalcedonian.

Dyophysite terminology is acceptable as long as the Dyophysites explain what they mean in an Orthodox Way
Likewise, Miaphysite terminology is acceptable as long as Miaphysites explain what they mean in an Orthodox Way

BOTH formulas are acceptably Orthodox in describing Christ as completely God and completely Man, both sides need to explain what they mean.

Both formulas can also be used heretically.

The certain fact is that Miaphysites and Dyophysites have the SAME CHRISTOLOGY. Jesus the Christ is completely, perfectly God, and fully completely Human, in body, soul, spirit, will, mind, etc. This is Orthodox Christology, regardless if one comes from a school that uses Miaphystie or Dyophysite Terminology. The Divinity is United to the Humanity without confusion, alteration, comixture, comingling, or separation, in the Hypostasis of the Logos Iincarnate. A Miaphysite will emphasize and contemplate on the unity of the two Natures, without denying the completness of the two natures, while a Dyophysite will emphasize the completenss of the two natures that work together in the Incarnate Logos without denying their unity.

Happy Feast of the Nativity and Happy Feast of Theophany.


Very well said Jack!

#46 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 05:16 PM

Agreed.



No. The One Mind of the Incarnate Logos is not Apollinarian. Apollinarianism would mean that the Mind of the Logs Incarnate is Divine only. Miaphysites teach that Christ is fully Divine and Fully Human, mind and all.

This is like saying that "to say that there is two minds of the incarnate logos smacks of Nestorianism"

If you ask Nestorius how many minds does Christ make use of, he will say two, two minds. We know when Easter Orthodox say this, they do not mean to be Nestorians, neither do Miaphysites espouse either Apollinarius nor Eutechiansim. Both Sts. Cyril and the recent agreements between the heads of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox agree that neither family is Nestorian nor Eutychian in what they intend by their terminology.


Well, that is not entirely accurate. Nestorious would speak of one prosopa and one mind in terms of that prosopa, that is, a single manifestation that was a product of the union. The problem though is that you are taking the Nous to be the person. The nous is not the person either in Christology or in Triadology.

#47 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 05:22 PM

Where you as a dyophysite speak of two nouses, we would speak of a Mia-nous. The Concrete Christ is One Person who is both God and Man. The Mind of the Losos, who Himself is the Mind of the Father fully united Himself with humanity such that He has a mind that is full God and fully Man. Like St. Cyril we speak of concrete realities. We do not deny the Chalcedonia way of speaking of the nous, we simply feel it is superflous and even at times could be dangerous as it could lead to speaking of two Minds in the sense of two hypostases, two persons in the one Christ. Nonetheless, the Oriental Orthodox understand that by talking of the two nouses and two minds, you are still referring to the two natures of the One Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate being one and only one self same Son of God.

The concrete reality of Christ is that He is One Person who is fully God and fully man including His Mind which is of God and Man.

Appolinarius believed that the Logo's mind alone in the human body of Christ was the only mind acting. Oriential Orthodox do not believe this. We believe that the Mind of the Logos Incarnate is Divine and Human, a mia-mind if you will, not a hybrid, but as with every other aspect of Christ, a complete hypostatic union of the two natures, of the Divine Mind and the Human mind.

We do expressly disavow and reject Apollinarianism in all its forms.


The thesis that the Nous is the person is a distinctly Apollinarian thesis. It doesn't matter if the nous you speak of is composite after the union or not. The fundamental mistake is still present, namely taking thenous as the person in the first place. since Chalcedonians deny that the Nous is the person saying taht there are two minds in Christ in no way could imply that there were two persons.

In point of fact, Apollinariaus took there to be nous in a higher and lower sense, the former being divine and the latter being human.

If the mind is the person, then to speak of one "mia-mind" after the union smacks of Nestorianism, where Christ is a product of the union. This results from the fundamental mistake of confusing the categories of person and nature. Nous is what is used by the person, it is not the person.

#48 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 05:26 PM

Peace, grace, and happy new year to you.

Likewise with the dyophysite language, it is also dangerous, as was clearly seen at the outset since the 5th and 6th centuries, in that the language can be used in a nestorian way. Today, there still exists a Nestorian Church and Nestorians approved of the Dyophysite formula, but in a heretical, twisted understanding.

The fact is the Eastern Orthodox Church's history has used BOTH phrases, Mia and Dyo in an Orthodox way. To exclude Miaphysite language from acceptable Orthodox terminology is to ignore Church History and the Fathers, pre- and post- Chalcedonian.

Dyophysite terminology is acceptable as long as the Dyophysites explain what they mean in an Orthodox Way
Likewise, Miaphysite terminology is acceptable as long as Miaphysites explain what they mean in an Orthodox Way

BOTH formulas are acceptably Orthodox in describing Christ as completely God and completely Man, both sides need to explain what they mean.

Both formulas can also be used heretically.

The certain fact is that Miaphysites and Dyophysites have the SAME CHRISTOLOGY. Jesus the Christ is completely, perfectly God, and fully completely Human, in body, soul, spirit, will, mind, etc. This is Orthodox Christology, regardless if one comes from a school that uses Miaphystie or Dyophysite Terminology. The Divinity is United to the Humanity without confusion, alteration, comixture, comingling, or separation, in the Hypostasis of the Logos Iincarnate. A Miaphysite will emphasize and contemplate on the unity of the two Natures, without denying the completness of the two natures, while a Dyophysite will emphasize the completenss of the two natures that work together in the Incarnate Logos without denying their unity.

Happy Feast of the Nativity and Happy Feast of Theophany.


Jack, the fact that both sets of terms can be abused is not at issue. Nor does that fact make them equally acceptable or correct. What is required would be a demonstration that the Coptic position amounts to the same teaching, despite differences in terms. This is why I have asked why they will not affirm two wills in Christ?

It is hard for me to see, along Severian lines, how Christ is said to be consubstantial with us. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.

#49 Perry Robinson

Perry Robinson

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 21 January 2012 - 05:29 PM

Jack, Also, the concrete reality that is Christ is the person of the Logos and not the natures which exist in and united to the person. One could only think that the incarnation would be along miaphysite lines if the concretization were in terms of natures coming toegether. But this is the same confusion between the categories of person and nature that plagued Arius, Apollinarius and Nestorius, as well as Eutyches, and I would say Severus to boot.

If saying that the person forms the concretization of the union isn't sufficient, then neither is it sufficient to speak of three persons in the Trinity on the very same basis.

#50 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 03:27 AM

Jack, the fact that both sets of terms can be abused is not at issue. Nor does that fact make them equally acceptable or correct. What is required would be a demonstration that the Coptic position amounts to the same teaching, despite differences in terms. This is why I have asked why they will not affirm two wills in Christ?

It is hard for me to see, along Severian lines, how Christ is said to be consubstantial with us. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.


In both Severan and Cyrillain Miaphysite Chistology, The Incarnation of the Logos is like a seemless garment- both divine and human united hypostatically. The two natures, the two wills are there- compleltely- but are a "mia-will" a "mia-nature" where there is no seem. In Chalcedonian/dyophysite Christology, the distinction is overemphasized to the point where the two wills, the two minds, the two nouses, appear to be spoken of in practice as applying to two persons, as opposed to being two nouses that belong to the one person.

Applinarius believed that the reasoing capacity of the Logos, the 'nous' in Greek/Platonic thought, was the only one present in the Incarnate Logos, not Human and Divine. Appolinarius' Christology is lacking. He was not teaching a Mia-Nous or a Mia-nature.

The two 'nouses', the two wills of the incarnate logos in Miaphysite Christology are completely there, but would be referred to as a Miaphysitic terms as in a seemless garment.

The way that dyophysite terminology along the lines of the Tome of Leo portray that two nouses that belong to the one person as though they belong to different persons, although we understand that this is not what is intended. It creates a seem to a seemless garment that is contrary to St. Cyril's statement of the two natures after the union being distinguided in thought alone.

Yes there are two nouses. Yes there are two wills in the One Person of the Incarnate Logos. But they are distinguished, as St. Cyril states, in thought alone.

When the Logos Incarnate spit on the ground and used mud to heal the man born blind, We do not speak as to say that the the human intelect and nature agreed with the divine nous to spit, while the divine nous or intellect and nature willed to heal. The two natures, seemlessly work as one, and we way say the Incarnate Logos willed to spit and to heal. Speaking in this way, we do not deny the complete human will and the complete divine will acting in Christ, but we affirm that hypostatic unity of the two woking as one.




#51 Fr Raphael Vereshack

Fr Raphael Vereshack

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,420 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Monastic Cleric

Posted 23 January 2012 - 03:31 PM

In Chalcedonian/dyophysite Christology, the distinction is overemphasized to the point where the two wills, the two minds, the two nouses, appear to be spoken of in practice as applying to two persons, as opposed to being two nouses that belong to the one person.


This thread has continued for some time now and I haven't read in detail through every post in it. But I don't recall that we have yet made the crucial point that in Orthdox theology there must be a consistency between Christology and Trinitarian theology. This is fundamental in the Holy Father's discussions of this topic from the earliest days up to our own.

In any case one crucial aspect of this consistency is that will always goes with nature. Otherwise the Most holy Trinity is three gods, not one.

In other words in Orthodox theology these two go together- Holy Trinity- one nature- one will; Christ- two natures- two wills. Just as the one nature of the holy Trinity does not deny the Three Persons, so the two natures of Christ do not deny that He is one Person.

This however is not a reality in reflection of human reason (as anyone can see) but of a basic theological reality without which neither the Trinity nor Christ as One of the Holy Trinity is capable of saving anyone.

I say this not to make a polemical point, but only rather to say what is fundamental to Orthodox theology so that we are actually speaking of a Christ Who saves mankind.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

#52 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:41 PM

...in Orthodox theology these two go together- Holy Trinity- one nature- one will; Christ- two natures- two wills. Just as the one nature of the holy Trinity does not deny the Three Persons, so the two natures of Christ do not deny that He is one Person."


This is a good point, but how do we fit this equation with human nature? Some humans will evil, some humans will good, yet they all have the same human nature and yet they have different or at least distinct wills. They all share the nature of humanity.

I don't mean to rebut or argue, I am just trying to think and grasp the concept.

It has been said that if this were absolutely true that the will is equated with nature, then 'no human being would want to go to war with another human being. If every human being has the same human nature, then every human wants the same thing. To resolve this conundrum [we] have two choices. Either every human wants war (which is not true) or humans can want and act against their nature. If the will always goes with nature, then humans would not be capable of wanting something against their nature. Therefore, the will [may be] independent from nature.

In Romans 7. St Paul might be seen to be having a conflict between nature and will. In the end it is his person or hypostasis that acts according to his nature, not his will. In verse 15-17, St Paul says, "For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, ... it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me." ... St Paul could have but doesn't need to say, "For what my will wants to do my hypostasis does not do, but what my will hates my hypostasis does. And if my hypostasis does what my will does not want to do...it is no longer my hypostasis who does it but it is my sinful nature living in me." ... We can conceptualize how each part acts in specific times.'


Wishing all a blessed Pascha.

#53 Anna Stickles

Anna Stickles

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:01 AM

This is a good point, but how do we fit this equation with human nature? Some humans will evil, some humans will good, yet they all have the same human nature and yet they have different or at least distinct wills. They all share the nature of humanity.


Consider these quotes
From Tertullian's On the Soul chapter 16

That position of Plato’s is also quite in keeping with the faith, in which he divides the soul into two parts—the rational and the irrational. To this definition we take no exception, except that we would not ascribe this twofold distinction to the nature (of the soul).

It is the rational element which we must believe to be its natural condition, impressed upon it from its very first creation by its Author, who is Himself essentially rational. For how should that be other than rational, which God produced on His own prompting; nay more, which He expressly sent forth by His own afflatus or breath?

The irrational element, however, we must understand to have accrued later, as having proceeded from the instigation of the serpent—the very achievement of (the first) transgression—which thenceforward became inherent in the soul, and grew with its growth, assuming the manner by this time of a natural development, happening as it did immediately at the beginning of nature.

But, inasmuch as the same Plato speaks of the rational element only as existing in the soul of God Himself, if we were to ascribe the irrational element likewise to the nature which our soul has received from God, then the irrational element will be equally derived from God, as being a natural production, because God is the author of nature.

Now from the devil proceeds the incentive to sin. All sin, however, is irrational: therefore the irrational proceeds from the devil, from whom sin proceeds; and it is extraneous to God, to whom also the irrational is an alien principle. The diversity, then, between these two elements arises from the difference of their authors.One can notice here how rationality is seen as intrinsic to God's nature and is connected with the breathing of the Spirit of God into man, and how the interference of the devil allowed an irrational element in.


From St Macarius homily 15

...For the sin which gained entrance, being a sort of power and an intelletual creation of Satan, sowed the seeds for all evils. It works in a hidden manner in the inner man and in the mind and contends with thoughts. Hoever, men are unaware that they are being moved by a certain foreign power when they do things, but they think these are done naturally and they do them with a certain self-determination.


Notice here how will and nature are connected. A change in both has occured at the Fall, not a change in nature absolutely, but rather now there is something added to what God originally made that comes from Satan and has become so intwined with our nature and will that to be and act according to it seems natural to us.

#54 Anna Stickles

Anna Stickles

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:06 AM

I am not sure I am understandin right but it seems to me that in Orthodoxy "The Devil made me do it" is not an excuse, but simply an admission of our fallen condition. Albeit there is, as the saint says, a certain amount of our own agreement and self-determination.

In other words just as righteousness and goodness are not seen as coming from man's will and nature alone, but only as man receives these from God and wills in cooperation with Him, evil also is not seen as being from man's will and nature alone but man's will in cooperation with Satan.

#55 Rdr Daniel (R.)

Rdr Daniel (R.)

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:22 PM

In Romans 7. St Paul might be seen to be having a conflict between nature and will. In the end it is his person or hypostasis that acts according to his nature, not his will. In verse 15-17, St Paul says, "For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, ... it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me." ... St Paul could have but doesn't need to say, "For what my will wants to do my hypostasis does not do, but what my will hates my hypostasis does. And if my hypostasis does what my will does not want to do...it is no longer my hypostasis who does it but it is my sinful nature living in me." ... We can conceptualize how each part acts in specific times.'

In regard to Saint Paul we must heed that words are used another way in New Testament to when used by the Holy Fathers. I know there is some Patristic in one of the conferences of Saint John Cassian of that verse that may explain it better.

In Christ.
Daniel,

#56 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:22 PM

As Father Peter Farrington has pointed out,

"The OFFICIAL position of all of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, since it has been synodally received by all, is the statement:

Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.



the 6th Council says..

And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

Now we [Oriental Orthodox] tend not to speak of 'two natural wills' because these terms, this very wording about Christ has seemed to us to already define a division of will into two personal centres, which to us can lead to and sounds quite Nestorian, but the substance of this passage is entirely what has always been confessed in the Oriental Orthodox communion, according to Father Peter Farrington

#57 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:25 PM

Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally

and

Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

#58 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:29 PM

As explained in post number 13 of the thread on this forum, "The Relationship of two wills in Christ,

"What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human Nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever between the will and the action of both - H.H. Patriarch Shenouda III,

Fr. P. Farrington, commenting on this states,

"
Here we see that both the Divine and the human nature choose, that is have the faculty of will. But Pope Shenouda describes the will as one because there is no contradiction between these two faculties which act in union.

"He is not speaking here about faculty of will, but of the object of the will, and the object of the human will in Christ is the same as that of the Divine will. Indeed what I find most odd about those who try to suggest that the Oriental Orthodox believe what we actually reject as heresy is that while in human spirituality we stress that the human will should become united with the Divine will in terms of object of willing without ceasing to be truly a human faculty, but in Christ it is often suggested that the human will of Christ must not only be a faculty which preserves its integrity, as if of course the case, but must have an independent activity, which is frankly Nestorian.

To be truly human is not to will differently to God, but to freely will in accordance with the will of God in a human manner. This is what we believe is found in Christ."

#59 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:34 PM

Father Peter, continues, there is "no difference in this matter between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. I do not believe that Christ has one will if this means that He does not have the natural will and energy which are proper to His humanity. Neither does my priest, nor my bishop, nor my Synod.

But it is still proper to speak of 'one will' since this describes the union of will, not the elimination or confusion of natural faculty. ...

It is also possible to speak of two wills, as long as this is allowed to describe the integrity of natural faculty and not the independent and contrary activity of the human will. That is Nestorianism."

#60 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 08 May 2012 - 02:26 PM

According to the Biblical witness, Christ's human will and His Divine will were in conflict on occasion. The only difference is that He made the right choices in each case, vs. a human propensity to make the wrong choices, i.e. take what is perceived at the time as the easier path. I see this witness as absolutely essential to our need to identify with Christ, and not to assume that we cannot also make the right choices. I am somewhat surprised that, in certain OO statements quoted above, it is asserted that there cannot be and never was any conflict between Christ's two wills, or any internal conflict of will. Christ struggled, just as we struggle. He made the right choices, so can we. I'll leave the technical theological explanation to others.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users