I was asked by a Chalcedonian Orthodox why we are not willing to affirm two wills in Christ. They insist that the wills and the minds (nous) of Christ are not synonymous with the Person or Hypostasis of Christ but are properties of the two natures. They have very precise definitions for what peoperties belong to the natures and what belong to the hypostasis.
My initial thought were that the two wills, divine and human are hylostatically united into a Mia-will in accordance with Miaphysite Christology. However in Chalcedonian Christology they perceive this as somewhat Apolinarian such that we are confusing mind and will with the person or hypostasis. In their Christology, the two minds and wills belong to the Natures of Christ and the one Hypostasis or person of the Logos Incarate makes USE of the two natures. The one Hypostasis uses the human will and divine will in perfect harmony and the human mind and divine mind in perfect harmony but the two wills are still there and according to them Orthodoxy DEMANDS faith in the two wills for the following reason:
The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity have one will not three since the Three Persons are One God.
As the will of the Holy Trinity belongs to the One God, it follows that thw will belongs to the Divine Nature or Essence sine the Trinity is One Divine Essence in three Persons.
If we say that the will of Christ belongs to His own hypostasis as opposed to the Divine Nature, then it follows that we are affirming three wills belonging to each hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, which might amount to saying that their are three Gods. As this would be a heresy, it is absolutely essential that we say that the will of God belonfs to the Divine Nature of the Holy Trinity.
Therefore when the Hypostasis of the Logos became incarnate, the Divine will still belonged to the divine nature and the human will still belonged to the human nature.
How would we as Copts/ non-Chalcedonians respond to this?
Do we affirm one Divine-Human Mia-Will and one Divine-Human Mia-Mind/ nous in Christ?
Comments
The above, it was said, is absolutely necessary in order for there to be consistency between Orthodox Trinitarian Theology and Christology.
Can we as Copts affirm that there are two wills and two natures in Christ united in the One Person of Christ and after the Hypostatic Union?
One Coptic priest once told.me that both dyophysite and miaphysite Christology is fully acceptable as lomg as each side explains what it means.
Another stated about Christ that "He has two natures (essences)
Are we as Copts generally allowed to consent to such terminology and still remain faithful to Miaphysitism.
I usually answe simply that Christ is completely, fully Divine - will, mind/ nous, and all; and completely, fully Human- will, mind/ nous and all. But I am unable to difine if this means two minds and two wills.or one. What is the Orthodox definition on this issue given the above?
St. Cyril speaks of on will after the Incarnation and that of the God incarnate.
The reason we reject the Council of Chalcedon is because of this separation.
It is very dangerous to speak of the two wills because doing so would destroy the doctrine of salvation.
Let me illustrate:
The man born blind
When the Lord spat on the ground, which will was it? When He put the mud on the man's eyes, which will was in operation?
Walking on the water:
When the Lord was walking on the water, which will was it? When He ordered Peter to walk on the water, which will was in play?
On the Cross:
When He accepted the death of the cross, [He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.]. was this the will of man? If so, then we say that no man can save man. If it was the divinity, then how would God obey God?
Speaking of the two wills is likened to someone who is possessed and would do different things depending in the mood. How can one will be in operation without the other? Thus we say that the two natures united together without altering each other, without mingling and without changing. Both formed the will of the God incarnate.
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
The reason we reject the Council of Chalcedon is because of this separation.
It is very dangerous to speak of the two wills because doing so would destroy the doctrine of salvation.
Where we see separation they see distinction. Without the distinction of the two wills salvation is impossible, according to them because if the human will is not there then that part of our human narure is not saved.
For them, the human will of Christ has to struggle and be fully free to act while at the same time being united to the divine will. Both wills act together in the Incarnate Logos, according to them.
imikhail, so how would you explain Christ's prayer in Matthew 26:39?:
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
He's surrendering/submitting His will to the Father-- it's only one will.
imikhail, so how would you explain Christ's prayer in Matthew 26:39?:
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
I think as Miaphysites, we would say that the Logos Incarnate is speaking to His Father. We would not say that the Human nature alone is speaking.
But if this is the case would that mean that the Logos has a will and the Father has a will. This is problematic for Chalcedonians as it may imply that Each of the Three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity have their own will.
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, according to them.
If as Copts we agree that Christ has the full power of human choice, then Chalcedonians ask why we decline saying he has two wills? What else is the human power of choice than a human will? Why implicitly retain the idea that the will is hypostatic rather than natural?
Do we maintain that the will belongs to the hypostasis as opposed to them who believe that the will belongs to the nature?
Second, saying that Christ has a natural human will does not, according to them, imply that the human nature acts independantly since natures do not act, persons do.
Third, to say that the one mind of the incarnate Logos makes a decision is problematic for the Chalcedonians. First because it seems to them Apollinarianism. Nous or mind or intellect is of the nature and it is used by the person. hence Christ has two intellects or two minds, which is how he can be omniscient and ignorant, relative to the capabilities of both minds. The mind then is of the nature or natural. minds do not make decisions or acts because minds are not persons.
If minds were persons then there would be three intellects in the Trinity and three wills along with it, according to them.
imikhail, so how would you explain Christ's prayer in Matthew 26:39?:
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Before I give my answer .. I would like you to share how would you explain it?
Chalcedonians maintain that the fact that Christ is in two minds or intellects is not Nestorian and here is why: The Mind is not the person, but a power of the nature, which is why there is only one intellect in the Trinity. To say that that there is one mind in the incarnate logos sounds Apollinarian to them.
Then how did they accept this formula of the one nature in Ephesus?
[quote author=metouro link=topic=12883.msg151528#msg151528 date=1328559576]
Chalcedonians maintain that the fact that Christ is in two minds or intellects is not Nestorian and here is why: The Mind is not the person, but a power of the nature, which is why there is only one intellect in the Trinity. To say that that there is one mind in the incarnate logos sounds Apollinarian to them.
Then how did they accept this formula of the one nature in Ephesus?
They seem to interpret nature in ephasis as equivalent to Hypostasis. They say that St. Cyril spoke at times in terms of two ousiai in one hypostasis. The two ousiai comprise the divine will and the human will united in the one hypostasis or person of the Logos incarnate.
The reason we reject the Council of Chalcedon is because of this separation.
It is very dangerous to speak of the two wills because doing so would destroy the doctrine of salvation.
They argue that without the distinction (not separation) there is no salvation. Without the humanity, human nature or human will of Christ is free to act and will as a human, human will is not saved. Whatever is not assumed in the incarnation is not saved.
I answer that that Human will was assumed and Christ was free to act as a human being as he was fully human. Does this mean he has two wills? Or does this mean he has One Will that is both Divine and Human?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12883.msg151520#msg151520 date=1328554919]
Let me illustrate:
The man born blind
When the Lord spat on the ground, which will was it? When He put the mud on the man's eyes, which will was in operation?
Both. The Divine Will and the Human will acting together a Mia Will. But is this one will or two? Or are both answers correct?
The Incarnate Logos willed and acted to spit, make mud, and heal the man's eyes. The Incarnate Logos has one will that is Divine and Human (Mia-will). At the same time, the Incarnate (human will) Logos (Divine will) could be said by the Chalcedonians to have two wills?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12883.msg151520#msg151520 date=1328554919]
Speaking of the two wills is likened to someone who is possessed and would do different things depending in the mood. How can one will be in operation without the other? Thus we say that the two natures united together without altering each other, without mingling and without changing. Both formed the will of the God incarnate.
This will is in the nature or the hypostasis?
This one will is in both Divine and Human at the same time?
... we say that the two natures united together without altering each other, without mingling and without changing. Both formed the will of the God incarnate.
So then this will is both divine and human. A Mia-will?
On a different note, are our non-Chalcedonian and even prechalcedonian fathers used to speaking in terms of the "nous" and "ousiai"?
There are 2 simple reasons why 'Mia Physis' is a formula of St Cyril.
The first is, like all things God, we're speaking about a mystery. We know little about our own nature, let alone the hypostatic union.
The second is, if we believe God became man, we must show His oneness in the strongest possible way. Our need to explaining how and when He is acting according to humanity or divinity is a secondary concern.
It is beneath God, to approach this subject like Bohrs law. We can ponder when light is a wave or a particle in situations when considering this theory. In the case of Christ, we're not speaking about an understanding of the physical world. We cannot treat the unseen God, as if He can be reduced to such a concept, or His deeds, if they existed in such a way. We're not speaking about a natural phenomena, we're speaking about God who is beyond time and comprehension.
This is why our fathers insisted on the teaching 'ty theoria moni' or 'in contemplation alone'. All distinctions we make when we speak about Christ are like this because we cannot really understand its true nature. It is from that basis that we should reverently approach this subject.
Please pray for me,
LiD
The human nature is comprised of two natures the spiritual nature and the physical nature Yet, when we speak of the human nature, after the two natures have united, we do not separate them or make a distinction. Fr example, we do not say that the body of such and such ate, or such and such body is sleeping. Further, when so and so is thinking, we do not say that the soul of so and so is thinking. Rather we refer to the the one nature of the person in all circumstances.
When a person cries, we do not say it is the body crying while the soul is passive. The anguish is for both the soul and the body, yet the function of crying is carried out by the body. Therefore, when Christ cried, we cannot say that it was the human nature alone that was crying while the divine nature was passive. But both were involved in the emotional state but the crying itself was carried out through the human nature.
Thus, when the divine nature of the Son united with the human nature, we no longer speak of two separate natures but only one nature of God the Logos Incarnate as St Cyril put it.
On the cross, we cannot say that it was the human nature that was crucified, but it was God the incarnate being crucified. Yes, the physical suffering was applied to the body, for it is physical and it alone can accept physical pain. However, this body was not mere human but was united with the Divinity and both were undergoing the crucifixion.
[quote author=metouro link=topic=12883.msg151518#msg151518 date=1328554375]
It has been said that "will always goes with nature.
If this were absolutely true, 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 you 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 is independent from nature.
To illustrate this point, let's look at Romans 7. St Paul has 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."
You will also notice 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." Yes, in theory, every human has a human mind, a human nature, a human will, a physical body, a spirit and a soul. And we can conceptualize how each part acts in specific times. But in reality, one need only speak of a human as one unit that acts in specific times according to his mind, his will, his nature and his soul all at once. The reverse is true also. One hypostasis or One miaphysis nature does not deny the two natures of Christ. The Chalcedonians choose to focus on the two natures of Christ in one Person.The Orientals choose to focus on the one nature out of two natures. We are saying the same thing in reverse. I find it childish that Chalcedonians insist that in order to be Orthodox one must confirm two wills and two natures in Christ in their specific formula even though the Oriental formula repeats the same information in a different way. We don't need to make such decisions. The decision was already made by the bishops. We only need to understand, agree and be faithful to what our bishops instruct us to do.
:)
if anyone wants more details, try this:
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/orthodox-christology/10969273?productTrackingContext=author_spotlight_166367_
(by father peter)
Hatch, William H P. A Fragment of a Lost Work on Dioscorus. The Harvard Theological Review 19 (4): 377-381 (1926).
I was asked by a Chalcedonian Orthodox why we are not willing to affirm two wills in Christ. They insist that the wills and the minds (nous) of Christ are not synonymous with the Person or Hypostasis of Christ but are properties of the two natures. They have very precise definitions for what peoperties belong to the natures and what belong to the hypostasis.
My initial thought were that the two wills, divine and human are hylostatically united into a Mia-will in accordance with Miaphysite Christology. However in Chalcedonian Christology they perceive this as somewhat Apolinarian such that we are confusing mind and will with the person or hypostasis. In their Christology, the two minds and wills belong to the Natures of Christ and the one Hypostasis or person of the Logos Incarate makes USE of the two natures. The one Hypostasis uses the human will and divine will in perfect harmony and the human mind and divine mind in perfect harmony but the two wills are still there and according to them Orthodoxy DEMANDS faith in the two wills for the following reason:
The Three Persons of the Holy Trinity have one will not three since the Three Persons are One God.
As the will of the Holy Trinity belongs to the One God, it follows that thw will belongs to the Divine Nature or Essence sine the Trinity is One Divine Essence in three Persons.
If we say that the will of Christ belongs to His own hypostasis as opposed to the Divine Nature, then it follows that we are affirming three wills belonging to each hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, which might amount to saying that their are three Gods. As this would be a heresy, it is absolutely essential that we say that the will of God belonfs to the Divine Nature of the Holy Trinity.
Therefore when the Hypostasis of the Logos became incarnate, the Divine will still belonged to the divine nature and the human will still belonged to the human nature.
How would we as Copts/ non-Chalcedonians respond to this?
Do we affirm one Divine-Human Mia-Will and one Divine-Human Mia-Mind/ nous in Christ?
I LOVE these types of topics and discussions. It would be great if someone could just go through tasbeha.org (Fr. Peter would be a good candidate) and write a book that answers these questions.
I have written a book that answers many of these questions. But I haven't sold a lot.
Fr. Peter,
I buy most of my books now from the Apple Bookstore, or Kindle, or in PDF format. Its much more convenient.
Have you considered publishing it on there?
http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/orthodox-christology/17565035?productTrackingContext=author_spotlight_166367_
other books are all here...
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/orthodoxlibrary
Its available on my Lulu store as an e-book.
http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/orthodox-christology/17565035?productTrackingContext=author_spotlight_166367_
other books are all here...
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/orthodoxlibrary
The other books are invaluable. Are they also available in other formats?
I just like to have a book in my hand, which is why I first republished - The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined.
One Will of the Incarnated Logos,
One Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
This is the Orthodox Faith, The faith taught and held by St Cyril, St Dioscorus, and St Severus.
This is why we are Oriental Orthodox. Full Unity of the Incarnated Logos.