What do you think of Monophysites, Monothelites and Monoenergetics?

[hedrick]

Yes, because having no desire nor passion to sin does not mean having one will.

My understanding is that the distinction goes beyond having no desire to sin. The claim seems to be that he needed no deliberation to decide what to do. This appears to contradict the Garden of Gethsemanae, statements that he was tempted, as well as the way human beings work. Even without a desire to sin, someone would need to examine the alternatives and decide which fits God's will.

 

[Philip_B]

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.

Yes the Reformation did happen for a reason, or perhaps more honestly for a complex set of reasons and causes. No doubt part of that reason had to do with a wielding of temporal power by the Church. Part of it had to do with a concentration of wealth. However the point I was making had nothing to do with the reformation.

Literacy is far higher in the west than ever before, however the reality is that faith in Christ seems to diminishing. Having the text of scripture in plain sight and in the vulgar tongue has not of its own been a resolution. The reality is that we seem to have more arguments about the word than ever before.

In generations before literacy was so widespread it was the word that was heard that led to faith, and in reality I think the same is true today. Why do we read the gospel in Church? It is an opportunity to encounter Jesus. It is the encounter with Jesus that leads to faith.

Now I am not against literacy, indeed I think it is a good thing. Yet I know that literacy is not everything. I Papua New Guinea I came to understand that before writing is part of a society there is a much greater concern about the accuracy of the oral traditions.

There is no doubt that the Church (and indeed I mean all Churches) have made mistakes, errors, and have got thing wrong. We have done it in our own age, and he have done it all through history. We are all called to be, like the reading of the Gospel, an opportunity for those beyond to encounter Jesus.

And I wholeheartedly agree, the word read and the word preached, need to have a conguance, and not be in conflict. There is no doubt that there were many excellent preachers before the reformation, and during and after, and also some duds.

Faith comes by hearing.

 

[JM]

The Church wrote the Bible you use, plus all the things you mentioned were already part of the Judaic system.

Good point. Those elements were apart of the old covenant that had been replaced.

 

[Not David]

Good point. Those elements were apart of the old covenant that had been replaced.

Tell me where in the Bible says those things should be replaced?
And replaced with what?

 

[Not David]

My understanding is that the distinction goes beyond having no desire to sin. The claim seems to be that he needed no deliberation to decide what to do. This appears to contradict the Garden of Gethsemanae, statements that he was tempted, as well as the way human beings work. Even without a desire to sin, someone would need to examine the alternatives and decide which fits God's will.

Not really, Jesus was afflicted because it is normal for humans to not want to die.
People in Heaven could be a good example of a human will like Jesus human will.

 

[hedrick]

Not really, Jesus was afflicted because it is normal for humans to not want to die.
People in Heaven could be a good example of a human will like Jesus human will.

Right. But denying a gnomic will seems to contradict the picture you suggest. I don't think anyone in this discussion is knowledgable about these issues, but without it, I don't think we can actually look at the monothelite issue.

 

[Newtheran]

Monophysites, Monothelites and Monoenergetics

I think one of those three gives a Jedi his power.

The other two I'm not sure about.

In all seriousness, I've found it wise to never disagree with the ecumenical councils.

They're a lot smarter than I am.

 

[Mathetes66]

"Right. But denying a gnomic will seems to contradict the picture you suggest. I don't think anyone in this discussion is knowledgable about these issues, but without it, I don't think we can actually look at the monothelite issue."

I don't see Scripture teaching human beings have two wills: one 'normal' & one 'gnomic,' the former having to do with making decisions without deliberation. It designates the movement of a creature in accordance with the principle (logos) of its nature towards the fulfilment (telos, stasis) of its being. Gnomic has to do with the personhood, where decisions are deliberated on. It designates that form of willing in which a person engages in a process of deliberation culminating in a decision. That is a man made doctrine but not Scriptural, in my understanding of Scripture.

St Maximus tried to make a division & distinguish how the will can be responsive to reason without being determined by reason. Thus he said man had two wills not one. In other words, there are two distinct faculties of will, the act of willing, and the determinate will (i.e., a fixed & settled purpose).

It isn't in Scripture. Human beings have one will & make deliberated decisions by that one will as a person, a soul or human being. Only Christ had two wills because He was both God & human. Jesus didn't say, 'not my WILLS but Yours be done.'

Book: 'For the Unity of All: Contributions to the Theological Dialogue Between East & West', p. 84

It is important to realize the seemingly obvious question, what is saved? If God does not save the human person but the human nature as a genus & as an abstraction, then he is not anymore the God 'OF Abraham AND OF Isaac & OF Jacob, but the God OF the Platonic ideas. Another way to say this would be to ask, what has fallen, the human nature or the human person? Both questions, however, operate on an unneccessary & superficial distinction, for it is obvious that it is the human nature that is restored by the saolvation of the person, as it was the human nature that had fallen by the sin OF a man, Adam. It is at this point that one can fully appreciate the FALSE dichotomies to which the separation OF nature from person AND OF person from nature would inevitably lead.

Since for St Maximus the logos OF nature is the principle OF unity, while the will & especially what he LATER CALLED gnomic will, is an element OF differentiation, distinction & even division, his eschatological vision of a humanity united, not only with itself, but also with God, seems to suggest the eradication of gnomic will--or at the very least, its complete appropriation by nature.

So, in his Letter 2, he speaks OF ONE NATURE AND ONE WILL 'with God & with one another'--a goal that will be achieved WHEN love persuades 'gnome' to follow nature & not in any way to be at variance with the logos of nature." He asserted that the goal of God is 'to free man from both the world AND nature.' (Letter 9)


Thus, Scripture teaches that the human nature has fallen & has been corrupted & the person has become spiritually dead in their trespasses & sins. God does not save us by reforming our old nature but instead makes a new creation, created in righteousness & holiness like God's nature. Those who put their trust in Christ to save them, are regenerated, given the very eternal life of God.

God is not reforming the old nature & thinking & will. He is giving us a completely new man whose nature is new, created in Christ Jesus. Our thoughts are not reformed (the old nature cannot be made right) but are transformed by the renewing of our minds. Now we have the power of the Holy Spirit & His indwelling to teach us to walk in this newness of life. Our will is transformed, operating now on the new nature.

St Maximus tried to make a division & distinguish how the will can be responsive to reason without being determined by reason.

I do not see this distinction in Scripture. Man's will is not divided nor differentiated not distinct, as if there are two different wills in a human being.

When the 3 aspects of a human being--body, soul & spirit are mentioned--do not make a dividing of the will. God makes a dividing between the spirit & the soul though. (Heb 4:12,13)

 

[hedrick]

I don't see Scripture teaching human beings have two wills: one 'normal' & one 'gnomic,'

I don't either. But if we start looking at Scripture, we get into broader questions than I think are possible here. I was trying to operate within conventional Christology, and thus simply asked:

Why isn't it docetic say that Christ is missing as aspect of the will that normal humans have? If, as the other thread seemed to be asserting, the 6th Council's use of "natural will" was alluding to this distinction, then it's not obvious to me that they actually rejected the monothelite position.

 

[Not David]

I don't see Scripture teaching human beings have two wills: one 'normal' & one 'gnomic,' the former having to do with making decisions without deliberation. It designates the movement of a creature in accordance with the principle (logos) of its nature towards the fulfilment (telos, stasis) of its being. Gnomic has to do with the personhood, where decisions are deliberated on. It designates that form of willing in which a person engages in a process of deliberation culminating in a decision. That is a man made doctrine but not Scriptural, in my understanding of Scripture.

St Maximus tried to make a division & distinguish how the will can be responsive to reason without being determined by reason. Thus he said man had two wills not one. In other words, there are two distinct faculties of will, the act of willing, and the determinate will (i.e., a fixed & settled purpose).

It isn't in Scripture. Human beings have one will & make deliberated decisions by that one will as a person, a soul or human being. Only Christ had two wills because He was both God & human. Jesus didn't say, 'not my WILLS but Yours be done.'

Book: 'For the Unity of All: Contributions to the Theological Dialogue Between East & West', p. 84

It is important to realize the seemingly obvious question, what is saved? If God does not save the human person but the human nature as a genus & as an abstraction, then he is not anymore the God 'OF Abraham AND OF Isaac & OF Jacob, but the God OF the Platonic ideas. Another way to say this would be to ask, what has fallen, the human nature or the human person? Both questions, however, operate on an unneccessary & superficial distinction, for it is obvious that it is the human nature that is restored by the saolvation of the person, as it was the human nature that had fallen by the sin OF a man, Adam. It is at this point that one can fully appreciate the FALSE dichotomies to which the separation OF nature from person AND OF person from nature would inevitably lead.

Since for St Maximus the logos OF nature is the principle OF unity, while the will & especially what he LATER CALLED gnomic will, is an element OF differentiation, distinction & even division, his eschatological vision of a humanity united, not only with itself, but also with God, seems to suggest the eradication of gnomic will--or at the very least, its complete appropriation by nature.

So, in his Letter 2, he speaks OF ONE NATURE AND ONE WILL 'with God & with one another'--a goal that will be achieved WHEN love persuades 'gnome' to follow nature & not in any way to be at variance with the logos of nature." He asserted that the goal of God is 'to free man from both the world AND nature.' (Letter 9)


Thus, Scripture teaches that the human nature has fallen & has been corrupted & the person has become spiritually dead in their trespasses & sins. God does not save us by reforming our old nature but instead makes a new creation, created in righteousness & holiness like God's nature. Those who put their trust in Christ to save them, are regenerated, given the very eternal life of God.

God is not reforming the old nature & thinking & will. He is giving us a completely new man whose nature is new, created in Christ Jesus. Our thoughts are not reformed (the old nature cannot be made right) but are transformed by the renewing of our minds. Now we have the power of the Holy Spirit & His indwelling to teach us to walk in this newness of life. Our will is transformed, operating now on the new nature.

St Maximus tried to make a division & distinguish how the will can be responsive to reason without being determined by reason.

I do not see this distinction in Scripture. Man's will is not divided nor differentiated not distinct, as if there are two different wills in a human being.

When the 3 aspects of a human being--body, soul & spirit are mentioned--do not make a dividing of the will. God makes a dividing between the spirit & the soul though. (Heb 4:12,13)

Jesus didn't say "The Father is Greater than my human nature" but "Greater than I". So don't make assumptions on what the Bible says because you get an explanation of the Church rather than the Bible.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Find one and I'll tell you.

Monothelitism and Monophysitism are both heresies to all who accept the three Ecumenical Councils.

This is not meant as an attack but merely a question, but if this is true than why are there so many coptic Icons that have Christ holding one finger up to bless with instead of two?

 

[tz620q]

St Maximus tried to make a division & distinguish how the will can be responsive to reason without being determined by reason. Thus he said man had two wills not one. In other words, there are two distinct faculties of will, the act of willing, and the determinate will (i.e., a fixed & settled purpose).

I think that St Maximus the Confessor lived in a time when the threat of Islam was expanding rapidly and threatening Egypt and the church there. Emperor Heraclius wanted a reunified Coptic and Byzantine Church to fight together this common enemy. Maximus was Protoasecretis of the Emperor, when the Ecthesis was released in 638. This document mandated a believe in two natures with one will. It was pushed by the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius and later adopted by the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. Earlier, seeking support for his position, Sergius had asked Pope Honorius for a letter stating his position. Honorius, having discussed this with Maximus, and thinking that by two wills, they meant two conflicting wills, stated that Christ did not have two wills. Honorius died before the Ecthesis came out and couldn't clarify his position; but later Maximus would state that both he and Pope Honorius were not stating that there was not a divine and human will within Christ; but that the two were in such complete harmony that the actions of Christ could be attributed to both as though they were one. It did not turn out well for the whole bunch. The Ecthesis got initial support from the next Emperor, Constans II, and the next three Patriarchs of Constantinople, over fierce opposition from the next three Popes of Rome. 40 years later the Third Council of Constantinople anathematized them all, from Pope Honorius to Sergius and all others in support of the Ecthesis. For his opposition to the Ecthesis, Maximum had his tongue and his hand mutilated, as a symbol for his being silenced from his heresy of saying that Christ had two wills. I see this as a time when compromises for political and military reasons spilled over into the theological debate and warped it. Some stood for orthodoxy and eventually prevailed at cost to themselves. Maximus is more firmly in that camp, at least in the long run, than he was in the one will camp.