What do you think of Monophysites, Monothelites and Monoenergetics?

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
The main application I get from this thread is Jesus was like us so if He did it, so can we ... and apparently we can do even greater things since He went to the Father, and the Father sent the Holy Spirit.

This is an application related to faith attitude. Even if it doesn't happen, expect greater anyway.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
What does the OO believe about Monoenergism?

We generally don't. Everything after the third ecumenical council that happened in the Chalcedonian world is for you guys to argue about. Yes, even the things that involved us, since the olive branches offered were generally the source of further heresies, as when monothelitism spread in Armenia for a time, and lasted even longer in Lebanon, with the Maronites being Monothelites for a while, though some will deny it, and they, like the Armenians, don't believe such things anymore. As far as I can tell, the official Armenian Apostolic Church's affinity for Monoenergism didn't outlast the Catholicos who had signed the agreement with Emperor Heraclius, Catholicos Ezr (in 631-633), as it was rejected during the reign of the subsequent Catholicos, Nerses the Builder, via a council at Dvin in 648-649. It did, however, lead to the creation of separate anti- and pro-Monothelite camps in Armenia, as some apparently didn't want to give up this handy new heresy that the Patriarch of Constantinople and the by-then-dead Catholicos Paul had given them. So, y'know...thanks for that. :|:p

(For more info, see my source for the above, Sahe Ananyan "The Armenian Christological Tradition", in The Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, edited by Christine Chaillot, Volos Academy Publications 2016, pp. 301-316; available online here)

We are not now, and have never been, pro-"Mono-" anything, but to the extent that this topic has been broached very occasionally (e.g., HH Pope Shenouda III's writings mentioned it in passing), we are to understand any belief in Christ's energies and wills in light of our pre-existing Cyrillian miaphysite Christology, the same as I have heard EO priests say that EO believe in Christ's two wills and two energies because "if He has a human nature, He's got to have a human will!" ( -- Fr. Andrew S. Damick, "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" podcast on AFR.) Okay then. Like I said at the start, this really isn't an issue for us, except for historically among the Armenians, since they were specifically targeted with it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
They’re all heretics, the difference I find between heresy and Orthodoxy, is that heresy always falls one step short of being logical or ends up being contradictory eventually as you unpack it more and more. Where as Orthodoxy is consistent and stands back up no matter how much you hit it. I used to be Nestorian when I first entered Christianity myself mostly because it felt more sensical to me at the time when I felt that the Chalcedonian And Miaphysitism were contradictory, however after digging deeper I found that Nestorianism was the one contradictory and confusing not Chalcedonianism or Miaphysitism. If you had spoken to me a few years back I would have been calling Nestorius, Mar Nestorius or Saint Nestorius.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank God we have entered the era where the general public has possession of the Word of God. Not so in the world of monarchs and the only Bibles available were in a church, monastery or with the wealthy politically connected. Once the general public got access to Bibles they could read themselves starting 500 years ago. It gave them the power to overthrow the ancient order of things and create the free world. A world in which the earthly promises of God made to 100;s of generations of saints could finally start coming to pass in his peoples lives.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Thank God we have entered the era where the general public has possession of the Word of God. Not so in the world of monarchs and the only Bibles available were in a church, monastery or with the wealthy politically connected. Once the general public got access to Bibles they could read themselves starting 500 years ago. It gave them the power to overthrow the ancient order of things and create the free world. A world in which the earthly promises of God made to 100;s of generations of saints could finally start coming to pass in his peoples lives.
tGod revealed himself during a time people could not read the Bible by themselves, are you going to blame God for that?
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
tGod revealed himself during a time people could not read the Bible by themselves, are you going to blame God for that?
Why would I do that? I would like to point out though the Bible prophesied exactly when this age of freedom would come upon the world. When the fourth of the four empires named in scripture comes to its end. Whcih did not occur until 1453 AD when Constantinople that had been the capitol of the Roman Empire since 333 Ad fell. It was right at that point that the Bible started making its way into the hands of the general public. So the saints had this promise of a more just world than the despotic one they lived in. They just didn't quite know how it happen. We do because we have hindsight they did not.

So imperial churches, councils, kings that claimed Christianity, like ancient Israel all did their part in creating, compiling and preserving Gods Word. Preparing it for this time. One of Jesus' parables address this issue. You can see how in this link. You'll like it I think.
The Parable of the Laborers Hired To Work in the Field
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Why would I do that? I would like to point out though the Bible prophesied exactly when this age of freedom would come upon the world. When the fourth of the four empires named in scripture comes to its end. Whcih did not occur until 1453 AD when Constantinople that had been the capitol of the Roman Empire since 333 Ad fell. It was right at that point that the Bible started making its way into the hands of the general public. So the saints had this promise of a more just world than the despotic one they lived in. They just didn't quite know how it happen. We do because we have hindsight they did not.

So imperial churches, councils, kings that claimed Christianity, like ancient Israel all did their part in creating, compiling and preserving Gods Word. Preparing it for this time. One of Jesus' parables address this issue. You can see how in this link. You'll like it I think.
The Parable of the Laborers Hired To Work in the Field
This is just your interpretation, no where in the Bible, there is sorrow for people not being able to read the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Martinovich

Friend
Supporter
Oct 7, 2011
1,982
591
Southwest USA
Visit site
✟487,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is just your interpretation, no where in the Bible, there is sorrow for people not being able to read the Bible.
Really? What part is not in the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Really? What part is not in the Bible?
I think the point is really that Christians before the reformation, and indeed before widespread literacy did take the scriptures very seriously, and for most it was the word heard.

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?
Romans 10:14

It is an appalling arrogance on the part of a generation that can read to think that they somehow have a better handle on scripture and faith than those who treasured and responded to what they heard.

So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
Romans 10:17
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,478
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
NOBODY is a monophysite, monoergist, or monothelite today as defined and condemned by the Ecumenical Councils--if there ever were.

Even the Assyrian Church of the East is not Nestorian. The only true Nestorians I have found are some Protestants.

From what I have learned over the years, the evidence that Nestorians or Monophysites actually existed as a real movement, is fairly weak. Mostly it seems it was a proxy for church politics.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,724
✟188,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
It is an appalling arrogance on the part of a generation that can read to think that they somehow have a better handle on scripture and faith than those who treasured and responded to what they heard.

The Reformation happened for a reason, and it wasn't because the clergy were faithful to the scripture. Doctrine changed when people were able to test the sermons against the scripture, because the two did not match. It is no appalling arrogance that we are thankful to have the opportunity to know the truth against the lies of those who would abuse it.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
From what I have learned over the years, the evidence that Nestorians or Monophysites actually existed as a real movement, is fairly weak. Mostly it seems it was a proxy for church politics.
I have heard about it on college, the argument is as weak as the filioque being non theological at all.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The Reformation happened for a reason, and it wasn't because the clergy were faithful to the scripture. Doctrine changed when people were able to test the sermons against the scripture, because the two did not match. It is no appalling arrogance that we are thankful to have the opportunity to know the truth against the lies of those who would abuse it.
It leads us to argue everyday in Christian Forums.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
There was recently a discussion in the EO group, to which for obvious reasons I couldn't respond: Christological Question. It suggests that the arguments over the monothelite heresy weren't what I had assumed.

I thought the 6th Council had concluded that Christ had a normal human will. The actual phrase was "natural human will," which I naively assumed was emphasizing that it was in accordance with his human nature. In fact it appears that normal humans have both a "natural" and a "gnomic" will. So it was actually denying that he had the same kind of will as the rest of us: Gnomic will - Wikipedia.

As far as I can tell, this means that the entire EO may be monothelite in the sense I originally understood it. It appears to me that the history of theology consists of more and more subtle forms of doceticism. I hope I've misunderstood.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mathetes66

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 24, 2019
1,031
867
Pacifc Northwest
✟90,217.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Having an errant Christology leads to all sorts of weird doctrines.

Monophysites: believe Jesus had only one nature: divine. It is an error concerning the nature of Christ that asserts Jesus had only one nature & not two as is taught in the correct doctrine of the hypostatic union: Jesus is both God & Man in one person. In monophysitism, the single nature was divine & NOT human. It is sometimes referred to as Eutychianism, after Eutyches 378-452AD; but there are slight differences. Monophysitism arose out of a reaction against Nestorianism which taught Jesus was two distinct persons instead of one Person. Its roots can even be traced back to Apollinarianism which taught that the divine nature of Christ overtook & replaced the human one.

Monophysitism was confined mainly to the Eastern church & had little influence in the West. In 451, the Council of Chalcedon attempted to establish a common ground between the monophysitists & the orthodox, but it did not work and divisions arose in the Eastern church which eventually excommunicated the monophysitists in the 6th century. It was condemned as heresy at the 6th Ecumenical Council in 680-681.

The denial of the human nature of Christ is a denial of the true incarnation of the Word as a man. Without a true incarnation there can be no atonement of sin for mankind since it was not then a true man who died for our sins. It is a vital Christian doctrine & this is a serious heretical teaching.

Monothelites: (7th Century) This heresy emerged in response to the Monophysite heresy (see above), but it also taught something denied by the Scripture. The name is derived from a Greek root that means “one will”. Monothelitism taught Jesus had two natures but only one will.

Monothelitism – What is it?

Monothelitism is the teaching that Jesus has two natures but only one will. It was a teaching that began in Armenia and Syria in about 629 and remained popular among some until the Third Council of Constantinople at which it was officially condemned, with the church affirming dyothelitism (that Jesus has two natures and both a divine and human will).

This teaching falls within the larger theological area of study called Christology that deals with the person and nature of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that Jesus was human just like any other person, yet lived without sin (Hebrews 4:15). In addition, Jesus was often noted as divine and as eternal God (John 1:1). The question at that time was in how to understand this dual nature of Jesus (known as the hypostatic union). Did Jesus have only one will or did He have two wills, both a divine and human will?

The view of monothelitism held a compromise position that Jesus had two natures but only one will. This was in contrast with both the view that Jesus had only one nature (either human or divine) and that Jesus had two natures and two wills (dyothelitism).

Biblically, it can be shown that Jesus held both a human and divine nature, affirming dyothelitism and denying monothelitism. For example, in Luke 22:42 Jesus prayed to the Father, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." Jesus had a human will that desired not to die. He also had a divine will that was the same as the divine will of God the Father that would lead Him to die on the cross for humanity's sins.

Another example can be found in John 6:38 that reads, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me." The human desires of Jesus faced temptation as other people did (Matthew 4:1-10), yet He acknowledged His divine will to accomplish the work of God the Father.

Again, in John 10:17-18 we find, "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." Jesus had the same divine will as the Father, yet He also had to deal with His human will that did not desire to face suffering and death.

The Bible is clear that Jesus is both fully human and fully God, including both a divine and human will. Any view that some way makes Jesus less human or less divine stands in contrast with His revelations as God in human form (John 1:1; 14).

What is monothelitism?

To conclude, is the teaching of monothelitism biblical? There are numerous texts which could be cited to definitively prove that Christ possessed both a divine and a human will. In Hebrews 10:7, Paul applies to Christ the words of Psalm 40:7-8 – “Then I said, ‘Here I am, I have come – it is written about me in the scroll. I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.’” Here, both wills are distinctly marked—the divine (“I desire to do your will, O my God”) and the human will, subject to the divine will (“your law is within my heart”).

Christ Himself draws the same distinction in many places. For example, in John 6:38, Jesus declares, “I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.” In Matthew, Christ says, “My father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” And as Jesus declares in John 10:17-18, “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” Clearly, these texts show the divine will which Christ had, in common with the Father and, in contrast, the human will which He subjected to the will of His Father.

Monoenergetics: Christ, though existing in two natures, had one energy (divine & human).

This is shown to be false in Scripture in that Christ could become tired in his human energy (John 4:6) yet God in His divine energy does not become tired, in a physical or human sense. (Isaiah 40:28).

The Third Council of Constantinople, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council[1] by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, as well by certain other Western Churches, met in 680/681 and condemned monoenergism and monothelitism as heretical & defined Jesus Christ as having two energies & two wills (divine & human).

Heresy | CARM.org

Heresy is a false teaching. It is a belief or idea that is in contradiction to orthodoxy. In the context of Christianity, heresy is that which deviates from standard biblical teaching. Examples of heresy would be polytheism, a denial of the resurrection of Christ, a teaching that salvation is obtained by works, etc. The Christian church has experienced many attacks by heretics throughout the centuries, but it has fought them successfully.

"Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself," (Early 2nd century Church Father, Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2).

The word "heresy" comes from the Greek 'hairesis' which means "choosing" or "faction." At first, the term heresy did not carry the negative meaning it does now. But, as the early church grew in its scope and influence throughout the Mediterranean area, various teachers proposed controversial ideas about Christ, God, salvation, and other biblical themes. It became necessary for the church to determine what was and was not true according to the Bible. For example, Arius of Alexandar (A.D. 320 ) taught that Jesus was a creation. Was this true? Was this important? Other errors arose. The Docetists taught that Jesus wasn't human. The Modalists denied the Trinity. The Gnostics denied the incarnation of Christ. Out of necessity, the church was forced to deal with these heresies by proclaiming orthodoxy; and in so doing, condemnation upon these heresies and the heretics became a reality.

Culturally, when Christianity arose, it arose in the midst of a hostile environment. Judaism and the Roman Empire both warred against its people and its teaching. Persecutions arose and Christians were killed for their faith. In the Diaspora (dispersion) of the late first century, Christians were scattered throughout the Mediterranean area due to the persecutions in Israel. The Roman Empire with its theology of many gods was not friendly to Christianity's monotheism. Therefore, Christians were further persecuted.

Theologically, the Bible teaches condemnation upon false doctrines and false teachers. Gal. 1:8-9 says, "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." (See also 1 Cor. 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; Titus 3:10) Why is this taught in the Bible? The reason is simple. Christians are saved by faith in the work of Jesus on the cross, but faith in itself is not enough. Faith is not a substance you can put in a jar. It is belief in something. Faith is only as good as who it is placed in. If you put your faith in a false God, you are lost because a false god cannot save anyone. This is why God says in Exodus 20:3, "You shall have no other gods before Me." Faith is not what saves, but faith in the true God is what saves.

It becomes necessary to define those doctrines which separate Christian from non-Christian. It would make no sense to persecute anyone over a doctrine that is not essential to the faith. Such nonessentials, in my opinion, would include baptism of infants, pre- or post-trib rapture, worship on Saturday or Sunday, musical instruments in the church, the charismatic gifts, worship styles, dress codes, etc. These kinds of subjects do not affect one's salvation. Unfortunately, the disagreements that arise around these subjects result in denominational fragmentation.

Essentials of the faith would include who God is, who Jesus is, salvation by grace, and Jesus' resurrection. From these subjects we have derived doctrines known as the Trinity and the hypostatic union (Jesus' two natures: God and man). The Bible tells us that these doctrines concerning God, Christ, salvation, and resurrection are essential to the faith. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that Christians know their faith and know how to defend it against the doctrines that compromise the essentials.

The list of heresies in this section represents serious assaults upon the character of God, of Christ, and of salvation itself. The church through the centuries as defined, let me correct myself, has recognized what the truth is concerning the essentials of the faith.

Heresies

Adoptionism - God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
Albigenses - Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
Apollinarianism - Jesus' divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
Docetism - Jesus was divine but only seemed to be human.
Donatism - Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
Eutychianism - Jesus finite human nature is swallowed up in His infinite divine nature.
Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
Marcionism - An evil God of the O.T., good God of the N.T. 11, books in the Canon
Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
Monarchianism - God is one person.
Monophysitism - Jesus had only one nature: divine.
Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross.
Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
Semi-Pelagianism - Man and God cooperate to achieve man's salvation.
Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
Subordinationism - The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.
Tritheism - The Trinity is really three separate gods.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,796.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
The Reformation happened for a reason, and it wasn't because the clergy were faithful to the scripture. Doctrine changed when people were able to test the sermons against the scripture, because the two did not match. It is no appalling arrogance that we are thankful to have the opportunity to know the truth against the lies of those who would abuse it.

I agree with this. The other day I read an article by a convert to Orthodoxy and it stressed the idea of the 'faith once delivered' and how Rome couldn't even consider lady Priests because that would be an innovation. The use of incense, icons, altars, priestly garments, etc. were not originally apart of the 'faith once delivered' so it comes off a little hypocritical. The author continued to drive home his point by quoting scripture :| making nonaeroterraqueous's point.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
There was recently a discussion in the EO group, to which for obvious reasons I couldn't respond: Christological Question. It suggests that the arguments over the monothelite heresy weren't what I had assumed.

I thought the 6th Council had concluded that Christ had a normal human will. The actual phrase was "natural human will," which I naively assumed was emphasizing that it was in accordance with his human nature. In fact it appears that normal humans have both a "natural" and a "gnomic" will. So it was actually denying that he had the same kind of will as the rest of us: Gnomic will - Wikipedia.

As far as I can tell, this means that the entire EO may be monothelite in the sense I originally understood it. It appears to me that the history of theology consists of more and more subtle forms of doceticism. I hope I've misunderstood.
Yes, because having no desire nor passion to sin does not mean having one will.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I agree with this. The other day I read an article by a convert to Orthodoxy and it stressed the idea of the 'faith once delivered' and how Rome couldn't even consider lady Priests because that would be an innovation. The use of incense, icons, altars, priestly garments, etc. were not originally apart of the 'faith once delivered' so it comes off a little hypocritical. The author continued to drive home his point by quoting scripture :| making nonaeroterraqueous's point.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
The Church wrote the Bible you use, plus all the things you mentioned were already part of the Judaic system.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you think they are heretics or do you disagree with the Ecumenical Councils?

I think understanding the nature of God is a hard thing and should be approached with honesty and authenticity and with a degree of humility. The Ecumenical councils basically came to the correct conclusions after considerable discussion and clarification of terms and definitions. It is unrealistic to expect Christians to simply arrive straight away at their creeds, definitions and understandings. A simple trust in Christ is sufficient for salvation and we are all heretics at some point on our path to really understanding God.

Thank God for His grace and mercy and may the church never fight civil wars over the nature of the God who loves all his children ever again.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0