OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 08:02:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Christological issues  (Read 3872 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,567


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #45 on: January 30, 2010, 12:06:31 PM »

I am going to assume you mean the OO's.  You may want to look at replies 10 and 11 of this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25645.msg404335.html#msg404335

You may want to read the entire thread to get a feeling for what we believe regarding Christ's will.
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #46 on: January 30, 2010, 03:15:15 PM »

I am going to assume you mean the OO's.  You may want to look at replies 10 and 11 of this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25645.msg404335.html#msg404335

You may want to read the entire thread to get a feeling for what we believe regarding Christ's will.
Well, GammaRay never identified as OO the Monotheletists to whom he addressed his question, so I wouldn't assume that he's talking about you just yet.  If the shoe fits, wear it, but if it doesn't, why assume it does?  To do so makes you look unnecessarily defensive.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,567


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #47 on: January 30, 2010, 03:27:47 PM »

Perhaps so, but given the history here, not necessarily.  Perhaps GammaRay can tell us who he meant by "Monothelitists in this thread."    Smiley
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 03:30:40 PM by Salpy » Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 30, 2010, 04:07:01 PM »

I am going to assume you mean the OO's.  You may want to look at replies 10 and 11 of this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25645.msg404335.html#msg404335
OK.

There is only one will of the Incarnate Word.

One (mono) Will (thelima).
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 04:07:25 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #49 on: January 30, 2010, 05:04:42 PM »

I am going to assume you mean the OO's.  You may want to look at replies 10 and 11 of this thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25645.msg404335.html#msg404335
OK.

There is only one will of the Incarnate Word.

One (mono) Will (thelima).

How did you get the quote tag on Fr. Peter's post to read a date in 1974? Huh
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #50 on: January 30, 2010, 05:12:01 PM »

His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
I think we need to be careful here. If the the Two Wills can be thought of as "perfectly one and the same", then there would have been no Agony in the Garden of Gesthemane, but there was (Luke 22:44)
Why wouldn't there have been?  Is it necessary to see His Agony in the Garden as showing a conflict of His human will with His Divine will?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 30, 2010, 10:27:43 PM »

His human will works in perfect synergy with His divine will such that they can be thought of as perfectly one and the same.
I think we need to be careful here. If the the Two Wills can be thought of as "perfectly one and the same", then there would have been no Agony in the Garden of Gesthemane, but there was (Luke 22:44)
Why wouldn't there have been?  Is it necessary to see His Agony in the Garden as showing a conflict of His human will with His Divine will?
There is no conflict of the Two Wills of Christ. But if, as the monothelites would claim, Christ has only One Will, then what was His agony at His approaching suffering and death and asking the the cup pass from Him? Was this the "One Will" of Christ feigning agony?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Jimmy
Maronite
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Maronite Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #52 on: January 30, 2010, 10:38:14 PM »

Jesus Christ had a human body; could He choose to give into the temptation?

He also had a human soul. Therefore, if both the body and the soul were of human nature, where exactly was the Divine Essence in our Lord?

Thanks in advance and good luck with the Great Lent! Smiley

According to Maximus the Confessor, Jesus did not have a gnomic will as we do.  In other words, Christ didn't have the internal dispute over the truth and whether to hold to it.  He only had a natural will, which is continually directed toward God.  So no, he could not sin.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,964


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #53 on: January 31, 2010, 06:15:58 PM »

Jesus Christ had a human body; could He choose to give into the temptation?

He also had a human soul. Therefore, if both the body and the soul were of human nature, where exactly was the Divine Essence in our Lord?

Thanks in advance and good luck with the Great Lent! Smiley

According to Maximus the Confessor, Jesus did not have a gnomic will as we do.  In other words, Christ didn't have the internal dispute over the truth and whether to hold to it.  He only had a natural will, which is continually directed toward God.  So no, he could not sin.
What is a "gnomic" will?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 31, 2010, 09:06:57 PM »

What is a "gnomic" will?
There are two types of will in humans, Natural Will and Gnomic Will. Natural Will is "natural" to human nature and is part of the logos (inner principle) of a human being. Natural Will is that will by which a human being naturally seeks towards the becoming what a complete human being was created to be. It is the free movement of the creature along the path of its inner principle (logos) towards fulfillment of what is is created to be. Thus, aversion to suffering and being killed is part of the "Natural Will" of a creature since a human being is not created for death but for life.
Gnomic will on the other hand, involves deliberation in order to make a choice of action. It is the gnomic will by which we make decisions when tempted to sin. When faced with a moral dilemma, the gnomic will makes the choice based on what itknows, and can thus be right or wrong (and hence, sin). "Gnomic" comes from the Greek word for a maxim (gnome). If the maxims on which our gnomic will are based are erroneous, we will make the wrong moral choice and hence sin.
Christ's Human Will is the Natural Will.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 09:08:24 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2010, 11:06:51 AM »

Okay, I just noticed that OO refer to themselves are miathelitists (not mono-), in the same way they distinguish their miaphysitism from monophysitism.
I was referring to all mia- and/or monothelitists, since I wasn't sure about what the OOC believes.

I don't think that the EOC ever talked about any "conflict" though, meaning that the human will is nothing but a weak (and evil?) will, while the Divine is seeking to defeat it.

This subjects seem so...fragile. At first glance, it seems that we are different. Then, it seems that we're saying the same thing. And the circle goes on and on...
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2010, 05:32:43 AM »


Of course. It is derived from the Latin word for one: unus.


And does "making one" mean that something new is "made" which is different to either of the first two?

Sometimes. Not always. It is not so in the hypostatic/natural union. The theanthropic hypostasis of the Incarnation is the same hypostasis as the Logos who was eternally begotten of the Father, save that now He has made Himself one with an instance of humanity.

If a man and a woman are united in marriage, do they "logically" become a hermaphrodite?

No. They become "one flesh" in a sense that does not require their bodies to be melded.

You talk about "union without commingling", and yet you cannot conceive of a union without commingling.

How so? Where have I mentioned commingling? Quote me.

A missile "seeks" its target. Your autonomic nervous system "seeks" to oxygenate your blood. You breath while you sleep, not by an act of will of your hypostasis, but as an act of your brain stem "seeking" to keep you alive. A will can "seek", and it doesn't even have to be a conscious decision of a human hypostasis.

All of the examples you mentioned are concrete and physical vehicles through which action is performed. How does a desire to act compare to a missile or a brain stem? They are entirely different categories of reality.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2010, 05:37:52 AM »


For the record, I didn't want to speak as a Nestorian (if I did). I believe that He, as God, was able to allow His human nature to sin (though it didn't happen). Then again, it would have been because of the Divine that the human was allowed to act.

And yet what you are saying still sounds Nestorian. There is no human nature that acts independent from the Logos. The Logos is the human. If anyone were to choose to sin (theoretically) it would be the Logos who sinned, not by allowing anyone else to sin as if there were two subjects, but because of a singular and internal process.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2010, 05:52:16 AM »

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?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #59 on: February 22, 2010, 06:00:05 AM »

There is no such thing as a "Nestorian".

I'm going to quote a post I made on another thread that was unanswered there but is an appropriate response to this post as well:


I don't care about what the pentecostals think, but there is no such thing as a "Nestorian". There is the Church of the East who had several of Jesus's distant relatives serving as patriarchs (ie: Mar Abris related to the virgin, and Mar Abraham related to Saint Joseph) and which holds to the most conservative orthodox views I know of in Christendom, and does not accept robber synods as ecumenical. The church with the Christology the Apostles would speak of (its all in Aramaic/Eastern Syriac).

The folks at nestorian.org would seem to think that Nestorius was misunderstood and that he was actually simply a follower of Theodore of Mopsuestia and that both of them were actually orthodox. As such, they do not have a problem considering themselves Nestorians. What do you think of that?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2010, 06:06:32 AM »

I eventually told the Seven Council People to knock it off, but only after allowing more than I probably should have.  One wonders how long OO's would be similarly tolerated if a number of us entered a thread in the Faith section about a miracle among the EO's, and started saying it must be satanic because God would never allow miracles to happen to EO's.  Of course I can only speculate about how long we would be tolerated if we did such a thing, because so far we haven't done that here.

I have had such issues with not recognizing the sanctity of the EOC. You know how well that went over.  Roll Eyes
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2010, 06:15:51 AM »

Are we still allowed to say that Christ has Two Natures and Two Wills here in the Faith Issues section?

Oh brother.  Roll Eyes
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2010, 06:21:37 AM »

Oh brother.  Roll Eyes
If you were my brother, you would share my Table.  Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #63 on: February 22, 2010, 06:24:58 AM »

Okay.
Monothelitists in this thread, how do you explain the "not my will, but Yours, be done" (Luke 22:42) then? For it you are saying this "my" represents Christ's will, it means that the Son has a will different from the Father. But, if you are saying that this is the human will speaking, then Christ indeed has two wills.

I guess that you will not choose any of the above, so go on and explain, please.

While, as I have explained, I tend to hold the teaching of the EOC save for where I see it falling into error at certain points at Chalcedon and thus I am inclined to believe in two wills, I would say that I can understand where the standard one will OO are coming from.

Essentially, in the Garden of Gethsamene, as a result of His humanity, the Logos is willing that He not die. As such, at that moment, His will is different from the Father's (though in a paradoxical fashion, I suppose you could also say that it was the will of the Father that the Logos' will be different from His in that manner), because the Father wills that the Logos die. The Logos is praying to the Father to alignment with His will, which ultimately, because He is also divine, He also wills Himself that He die.

Does that make sense at all?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #64 on: February 22, 2010, 06:32:22 AM »

One (mono) Will (thelima).

Yes, there is nothing inherently wrong with the terminology. However, the very reason that the OO are defensive about "Monophysite" and "Monothelite" is because of the sort of polemics that you use. I take a different approach of owning the former terminology because I know it describes my beliefs, but categorically insisting that I don't go with the baggage that is associated with it. However, I understand the OO not even wanting to try to tread those waters: they already tried for quite awhile and it didn't seem to work that well for them.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2010, 06:40:12 AM »

One (mono) Will (thelima).

Yes, there is nothing inherently wrong with the terminology.
Its not the terminology which is the problem. Its the heresy of the teaching of "One Will" that is the problem. And its one reason why you will not be able to share my Table.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2010, 06:42:19 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2010, 06:48:03 AM »

One (mono) Will (thelima).

Yes, there is nothing inherently wrong with the terminology.
Its not the terminology which is the problem. Its the heresy of the teaching of "One Will" that is the problem. And its one reason why you will not be able to share my Table.

There are two important subjects to be addressed from this post. But the first:

Quote me where I taught or even in any way espoused a belief in one will.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Tags: Christology one will gnomic will will Christ and sin monothelitism Axe to grind 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.106 seconds with 48 queries.