1) deusveritasest insisted that the Hypostatic Union requires that Christ have only one Will because he has only one Nature (in the "miaphysite" posiition).
Where? I don't see myself having done that.
2) Using the example of marriage, I pointed out that the Hypostatic Union does not require only one Nature, (and therefore does not require only one will).
Actually, the Scriptures say that the husband and wife are made "one flesh", "flesh" of which was often used as a description of human nature in general. Either way, however, it is clear that there is some type of making one in marriage.
3) The conclusion is that if Christ has only one will, it is something completely new, neither fully human nor fully divine, and we are stuck with the problem of the Agony in Gesthemane.
Actually, the Miathelites advocate one will that is both fully human and fully divine. That's exactly what I was trying to discuss, that doctrine.
My point, Salpy, is that the Hypostatic Union does not require one nature and one will as deusveritasest is claiming.
In the sense that Alexandrian school understood nature, and in the sense it was used at Ephesus I, actually, the hypostatic union does
require one nature.
In the sense that Constantinople II defined nature, however, it is proper to say that two natures remain after the union.
BTW, again, where did I ever say that the hypostatic union requires one will?