OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 12:13:36 AM *
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: One will  (Read 7211 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« on: January 27, 2010, 03:53:40 PM »

I would like an OO who is knowledgeable about our Christology to please explain what we believe about Christ's will.  I know that this has been dealt with somewhat before, but I could never really understand the issue.  I'm looking for something in "stupid layman's terms," so that even I can understand it.

Note:  I want the explanation to come from a knowledgeable OO.  I do not want a non-OO to give an explanation of what OO's believe from his own Church's perspective, and I especially don't want anyone to come here and make accusations, mischaracterizations, or arguments.  Any such posts will be kicked into the private forum.  Anyone who wants to debate the issue can join an ongoing discussion in another section:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25603.msg403291/topicseen.html#top

I will let non-OO's ask questions in this thread about our beliefs, but not in a polemical manner.  I just want an explanation and a light discussion.  Not the usual mess that these things end up in.

Thank you everyone for your anticipated cooperation.   Smiley
Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2010, 07:14:02 PM »

From Pope Shenouda's The Nature of Christ:

Quote
Has the Lord Christ two wills and two actions, that is a Divine
will and a human will, as well as two actions, that is, a divine
act and a human act? As we believe in the One Nature of the
Incarnate Logos, as St. Cyril the Great called it, likewise:

We believe in One Will and One Act:

Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the
Will and the Act must also each be one.
What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as
that chosen by the human Nature because there is not any
contradiction or conflict whatever between the will and the
action of both.

The Lord Jesus Christ said: "My meat is to do the Will of Him
that sent Me to finish His work. " (John. 4:34). This proves
that His Will is the same as that of the Father. In this context,
He said about Himself " the Son can do nothing of Himself, but
what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also
does in like manner." (John. 5:19).

He does not seek for Himself a will that is independent of that
of the Father. Consequently He Says "For I have come down
from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who
sent Me.” (John 6:38).

It is obvious that the Father and the Son in the Holy
Trinity have One Will, for the Lord Jesus Christ said: "I
and My Father are One. " (John. 10:30).
Hence, since He is one with Him in the Godhead, then He is
essentially one with Him concerning the Will. Again, the Son,
in His Incarnation on earth, was fulfilling the Will of the
heavenly Father. Thus it must be that He Who united with the
manhood had One Will.

In fact, Sin is nothing but a conflict between man's will and
God's.

But remember that our Lord Jesus Christ had no sin at all. He
challenged the Jews saying: "Which of you convicts Me of Sin?.
" (John. 8:46). Therefore, His Will was that of the Father.

The Saints who are perfect in their behaviour achieve
complete agreement between their will and the Will of God,
so that their will becomes that of God, and the Will of God
becomes their will.

And St. Paul the Apostle said "But we have the mind of Christ.
" (1 Cor. 2:16). He did not say that our thoughts are in accord
with the mind of Christ, but that "we have the mind of Christ",
and here the unity is stressed.

If this is said about those with whom and in whom God works,
then how much more the unity between the Son and His Own
manhood would be in all that is related to the will, the mind and
the power to act! He, in Whom the Divine nature has united
with the human nature, a Hypostatic and Essential union
without separation-not for a second nor a twinkle of an eye.

If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of
Christ and His human nature, this would have resulted in
internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could Christ be
our guide and our example... to follow in His footsteps (1 John.
2:6)?.

The complete righteousness which marked the life of our
Lord Jesus was due to His Divine as well as His Human
will. The same is true of the salvation of mankind, the message
for which Christ came and said: "For the Son of Man has come
to save that which was." (Matt. 18:11). This is the same Will of
the Father who "He loved us and sent His Son to be the
propitiation for our sins. " (1 John. 4:10). Thus, the
crucifixion was the choice of the Divine as well as the human
nature. Had it not been One Will, it would not have been said
that Christ died by His Own Will for our sake.

Since the Will is One, the Act is necessarily One.

Here we do not distinguish between the two natures.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2010, 04:22:06 AM »

I am just driving home in the south of England from Scotland so I can't post, but I will say a little when I get back. It is an interesting topic.

God bless

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2010, 05:25:36 AM »

I don't know that I qualify as someone who should be answering this. I'm not really OO in the sense that many others here are; I'm not even really a catechumen yet. My opinions reflect my personal process more so than a long standing OO life. As I have said before, I remain fairly Byzantine in my mentality, usually siding with the teachings of the EOC except in matters where it appears to be derived from the errors of Chalcedon. As such, my opinions on the will(s) of Christ may be rather different from people here more steeped in the OO Tradition.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 05:26:37 AM by deusveritasest » 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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2010, 08:28:18 AM »

Dear Salpy,

I will try to keep this description of my own understanding brief and simple, as a discussion of this topic can easily become lengthy, complicated and controversial.

In the Incarnate Word there are two faculties of willing, a human and a Divine. This is how 'willing' takes place in the Divine and human aspects of our Lord. He wills humanly according to the exercise of his human faculty of willing, and he wills Divinely according to his divine faculty of willing.

Yet the objects of his will are one, and the one who wills is one. It is the Divine Word who is now incarnate. There are not two people who will. Nor one subject of willing who has two schitzophrenic objects of will. But one subject, with one willing object which is willed in the diversity of humanity and Divinity of which the incarnate Word is.

The human faculty of will must be redeemed and renewed. According to our Tradition it is the will which is the source and seat of sin. Indeed our Fathers teach us that sin has no existence at all, but is the misdirection of the human faculty of willing, turning our desire to that which is other than God and good. Therefore it was absolutely necessary that Christ have the human faculty of will.

But he who will is the Word of God incarnate, and no-one else. The human and Divine objects of willing are not temporarily and co-incidentally congruent, but because the one who wills is one subject, so the object of willing is one, even while the faculties which will are diverse.

In terms of our spiritual tradition we do not consider that a saint who has perfectly embraced the will of God has become a member of the Trinity and ceased to be human, nor do we consider that he has become a mere robot, but that he has entered into a true freedom. Therefore the argument sometimes put that to speak of one will is to diminish the humanity of Christ is a false one.

In actual fact I do find this EO ecumenical text to be descriptive of our own position, even though I have corresponded with EO who reject it when they think it is an OO text, and wish to insist on two subjects of willing in Christ - which is essentially Theodoreanism. I am not saying this is widespread, but I have corresponded with EO clergy who hold this view.

Here is the EO text...

..these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will.  For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius.  For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says:  “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own.  For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus:  “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

This seems to me to adequately describe the fact that the human will is that of the same Divine subject. It is his own human will and not that of another even though it is human. His human faculty of willing is so infused with life and light by the incarnation that it is entirely deified, as his own flesh is deified. The human will is moved - that it is exists and has integrity - but it is moved subject to the divine will.

It is interesting that this very point is made by the OO and causes us to be criticised, yet here it is in the text of the 6th EO council.

Is this brief enough? Clear enough?

Two ways of willing, two faculties of willing, but one subject and one object.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
vasnTearn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church
Posts: 191



« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2010, 11:19:57 AM »

Dear Salpy

St Gregory of Tathev says in his "Book of questions" (pls, Salpy, edit my terrible English translation Smiley):

"As we say the nature of man is united with God's nature [in Christ], so also is the will of the Incarnate Word united and one. And the action follows the will, therefore one is His action, produced and performed by the one will of the one Christ.... Also, you ask how that one action is to be understood. We don't say one action because there are no higher and lower [actions], but we say that the action is one because it is performed by the union, as, [for example], the same hand cuts and sews, writes and erases. Also know this: We say one nature for Christ because of the end and not for the beginning; and we say one action for the beginning and not for the end of the action. As for the will, it is one because of willing and union which is the beginning and the end. In this way we say one nature, one will and one action of the Incarnate Word."
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2010, 11:56:10 AM »

Dear Salpy,

I will try to keep this description of my own understanding brief and simple, as a discussion of this topic can easily become lengthy, complicated and controversial.

In the Incarnate Word there are two faculties of willing, a human and a Divine. This is how 'willing' takes place in the Divine and human aspects of our Lord. He wills humanly according to the exercise of his human faculty of willing, and he wills Divinely according to his divine faculty of willing.

Yet the objects of his will are one, and the one who wills is one. It is the Divine Word who is now incarnate. There are not two people who will. Nor one subject of willing who has two schitzophrenic objects of will. But one subject, with one willing object which is willed in the diversity of humanity and Divinity of which the incarnate Word is.

The human faculty of will must be redeemed and renewed. According to our Tradition it is the will which is the source and seat of sin. Indeed our Fathers teach us that sin has no existence at all, but is the misdirection of the human faculty of willing, turning our desire to that which is other than God and good. Therefore it was absolutely necessary that Christ have the human faculty of will.

But he who will is the Word of God incarnate, and no-one else. The human and Divine objects of willing are not temporarily and co-incidentally congruent, but because the one who wills is one subject, so the object of willing is one, even while the faculties which will are diverse.

In terms of our spiritual tradition we do not consider that a saint who has perfectly embraced the will of God has become a member of the Trinity and ceased to be human, nor do we consider that he has become a mere robot, but that he has entered into a true freedom. Therefore the argument sometimes put that to speak of one will is to diminish the humanity of Christ is a false one.

In actual fact I do find this EO ecumenical text to be descriptive of our own position, even though I have corresponded with EO who reject it when they think it is an OO text, and wish to insist on two subjects of willing in Christ - which is essentially Theodoreanism. I am not saying this is widespread, but I have corresponded with EO clergy who hold this view.

Here is the EO text...

..these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will.  For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius.  For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says:  “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own.  For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus:  “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

This seems to me to adequately describe the fact that the human will is that of the same Divine subject. It is his own human will and not that of another even though it is human. His human faculty of willing is so infused with life and light by the incarnation that it is entirely deified, as his own flesh is deified. The human will is moved - that it is exists and has integrity - but it is moved subject to the divine will.

It is interesting that this very point is made by the OO and causes us to be criticised, yet here it is in the text of the 6th EO council.

Is this brief enough? Clear enough?

Two ways of willing, two faculties of willing, but one subject and one object.

Father Peter

The mistaken EO are confusing the (Orthodox) position with that of the monothelites, who believed in one will in Christ, but not in that the Divine Will of the Son was united with the human will of the incarnate Word, but that Christ only had the will of the Son, and no human will at all.  Warmed over Apollonarianism.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2010, 01:09:50 PM »

ialmisry, yes, I agree completely.

That has never been the teaching of the OO though, and I do wonder how many of the EO who confessed one will were actually monothelites in that sense rather than in the OO sense of one willing subject.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2010, 11:01:15 PM »

Dear Salpy

St Gregory of Tathev says in his "Book of questions" (pls, Salpy, edit my terrible English translation Smiley):

"As we say the nature of man is united with God's nature [in Christ], so also is the will of the Incarnate Word united and one. And the action follows the will, therefore one is His action, produced and performed by the one will of the one Christ.... Also, you ask how that one action is to be understood. We don't say one action because there are no higher and lower [actions], but we say that the action is one because it is performed by the union, as, [for example], the same hand cuts and sews, writes and erases. Also know this: We say one nature for Christ because of the end and not for the beginning; and we say one action for the beginning and not for the end of the action. As for the will, it is one because of willing and union which is the beginning and the end. In this way we say one nature, one will and one action of the Incarnate Word."

Thanks vasnTearn!  Your English translation is great.  I have always wished that St. Gregory's monumental work was available in English.  Yet I have heard that it is only available in Classical Armenian and hasn't even been translated into Modern Armenian yet.  Have you heard of any plans to ever translate the Book of Questions into Modern Armenian, or any other modern language?
Logged

Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2010, 11:12:59 PM »

Father Peter,

Thank you for the explanation.  It does bring me closer to understanding this great mystery.  One question I have wondered about is what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane.  I seem to recall that this has been used to criticize our beliefs about the will of Christ.  However, I never really understood the issue enough to even understand the criticisms.   Smiley  How do we explain Christ's words to the Father "Yet not what I will, but what You will," within the framework of our beliefs about Christ's will?
Logged

EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2010, 02:03:45 AM »

I find the statements of His Holiness, Fr. Peter, and St Gregory an excellent and adequate account of the matter. I thank vasnTearn in particular for taking the time to locate, translate and present that wonderful extract from St Gregory of Tathev!

Quote
How do we explain Christ's words to the Father "Yet not what I will, but what You will," within the framework of our beliefs about Christ's will?

"Yet not that which I humanly will, but that which You will—which is identical to that which I divinely will on account of my Oneness in Essence with You".

Two distinct faculties of will are thus implied, and this is held in common between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. What Miathelitism brilliantly accounts for is the fact that the very statement of Christ itself expresses, in the final analysis, One Will—namely, the will that He humanly will, not in accordance with the natural object of the human will—seeking, as it does, the escape of death—but rather in accordance with the natural object of the Divine will—seeking, as it does, and in common with the will of the Father, His death for the redemption of the human race—such that their object is One and the Same. This Will—directed as it is to One and the Same object—is the One Will of The Incarnate Word of Christ, which we believe and confess.

Miathelitism thus does indeed account for the fact that Christ humanly wills to escape death and divinely wills to die for our salvation, but its crown lies in the fact that it necessarily does away with the possibility of any conflict or tension in practice—a conflict or tension which remains, if our understanding of this prayer is left at what has thus far been said in this sentence, a possible logical implication. When we move beyond a conceptual consideration of the constituent parts of Christ’s prayer and consider the ultimate effect of His prayer in practice, we are obliged to confess that Christ ultimately expresses One Will: that He die for our salvation. This One Will is not merely the expression of the Divine Christ, but rather it is the expression of the Divine-Human Christ. It is a result not of the Divine-Human Christ’s elimination or suppression of His human will, but of His redemptive reconfiguration of that human will towards perfect Oneness with the Divine—a reconfiguration that takes place voluntarily on account of Christ’s kenosis, yet certainly and unquestionably on account of the Hypostatic Union (which is to say, The One Nature of God the Word Incarnate).
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2010, 07:27:05 AM »

salpy,

The Garden of Gethsemane shows us that the humanity of Christ feels that natural and blameless fear in the face of death. This reveals to us the integrity of the humanity of Christ. He is moved with blameless natural passions, and thus he hungers, grows weary, and is afraid of death even while his divinity is far removed from these. Yet he chooses to do the divine will, or rather his human will is always the same as his own divine will, since he is one subject of both human and divine willing.

St Cyril says...

Quote
And this too I think it necessary to add to what has been said: that the passion of grief, or malady, as we may call it, of sore distress, cannot have reference to the divine and impassive nature of the Word; for that is impossible, inasmuch as It transcends all passion: but we say that the Incarnate Word willed also to submit Himself to the measure of human nature, by being supposed to suffer what belongs to it. As therefore He is said to have hungered, although He is Life and the cause of life, and the living bread; and was weary also from a long journey, although He is the Lord of powers; so also it is said that He was grieved, and seemed to be capable of anguish. For it would not have been fitting for Him Who submitted Himself to emptiness, and stood in the measure of human nature, to have seemed unwilling to endure human things. The Word therefore of God the Father is altogether free from all passion: but wisely and for the dispensation's sake He submitted Himself to the infirmities of mankind, in order that He might not seem to refuse that which the dispensation required: yes, He even yielded obedience to human |687 customs and laws, only, as I said, He did not bear ought of this in His own nature.

and also

Quote
Behold then, yes, see, the pattern for your conduct depicted for thee in Christ the Saviour of us all: and let us also observe the manner of His prayer. "Father, He says, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me." Do you see that Christ made His prayer against temptation with a reverence befitting man? "For if You be willing, He says, remove it." And here too remember what the blessed Paul wrote concerning Him; "He Who in the days of His flesh offered up prayers and supplications to Him Who was able to save Him from death, with strong crying and tears, and was heard because of His reverence, even though He was a Son, yet learned obedience by what He suffered, and being made perfect became the cause of eternal life to all them that obey Him." For as though one of us, He assigns to His Father's will the carrying out of whatever was about to be done.

which teach us that the Incarnate Word speaks here as an obedient Son of Man, as if the Divine will of the Father could be other than His own Divine will. Yet there is no sense that he resists the will of God. There are not two competing wills. There is only one will of the Incarnate Word. which is manifest properly and with integrity in the human emotion of this situation, and in the assent to the Divine plan of salvation. Our Lord is saying here, on our behalf - as the Virgin Mary had already done - 'Thy will be done, behold the servant of the Lord'.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2010, 02:03:06 PM »

A post asking if anyone had access to the Nine Chapters was split off and made into another thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25688.msg404410.html#msg404410
Logged

EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2010, 09:41:41 PM »

Our Lord is saying here, on our behalf - as the Virgin Mary had already done - 'Thy will be done, behold the servant of the Lord'.

Father, I find this concluding statement particularly instructive on the matter and worthy of further discussion.

If we refer to St Paul's "Humble Servant" hymn in his Epistle to the Phillipians we find that it is preceded by an injunction that we be of one and the same mind as Christ with respect to His servitude to the will of the Father. St Paul first gives the moral instruction that we be of one mind with the Divine, and then proceeds to lay down the framework in which successful execution of that moral instruction has been made practicable and viable--the Incarnation, according to which the Son assumed the mind/will which is prone/subject to tension with the Divine mind/will and yet was able to deify it in a way that resulted in substantial unity--expressed as it is, by the One Will of the Incarnate Word--on account of the Hypostatic Union. According to the hymn, this was practically expressed in His ultimate submission to death.

The doctrine of the One Will of Christ, therefore, as with all Orthodox Dogmas, has practical implications with respect to our salvation. We would never be able to be of the same mind of Christ, which presumes the re-alignment/transformation of our human wills unto perfect harmony and unison with the Divine, had Christ not established such "sameness of mind" between the human mind He so assumed and "the Divine mind".

What is also noteworthy here is that when we mere humans realise this perfect servitude, which entails perfect oneness of will and mind with the Divine, our human will is not thereby eliminated or changed into something other than a human will. The presumption by some Chalcedonians that such is necessarily presumed by the fact of Christ's One Will is thus simply irrational, not only as a matter of basic logic (given that the presumed corollary is simply no corollary at all--it is simply presumed to be) but also by analogy. Lastly, if such logic were held to be true then it would necessarily imply that we humans are unable to realise perfect servitude to the Father, since that would, as the logic in question would demand, presume an undermining of our human existence.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 09:46:50 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2010, 10:30:26 PM »

Our Lord is saying here, on our behalf - as the Virgin Mary had already done - 'Thy will be done, behold the servant of the Lord'.

Father, I find this concluding statement particularly instructive on the matter and worthy of further discussion.

If we refer to St Paul's "Humble Servant" hymn in his Epistle to the Phillipians we find that it is preceded by an injunction that we be of one and the same mind as Christ with respect to His servitude to the will of the Father. St Paul first gives the moral instruction that we be of one mind with the Divine, and then proceeds to lay down the framework in which successful execution of that moral instruction has been made practicable and viable--the Incarnation, according to which the Son assumed the mind/will which is prone/subject to tension with the Divine mind/will and yet was able to deify it in a way that resulted in substantial unity--expressed as it is, by the One Will of the Incarnate Word--on account of the Hypostatic Union. According to the hymn, this was practically expressed in His ultimate submission to death.

The doctrine of the One Will of Christ, therefore, as with all Orthodox Dogmas, has practical implications with respect to our salvation. We would never be able to be of the same mind of Christ, which presumes the re-alignment/transformation of our human wills unto perfect harmony and unison with the Divine, had Christ not established such "sameness of mind" between the human mind He so assumed and "the Divine mind".

What is also noteworthy here is that when we mere humans realise this perfect servitude, which entails perfect oneness of will and mind with the Divine, our human will is not thereby eliminated or changed into something other than a human will. The presumption by some Chalcedonians that such is necessarily presumed by the fact of Christ's One Will is thus simply irrational, not only as a matter of basic logic (given that the presumed corollary is simply no corollary at all--it is simply presumed to be) but also by analogy. Lastly, if such logic were held to be true then it would necessarily imply that we humans are unable to realise perfect servitude to the Father, since that would, as the logic in question would demand, presume an undermining of our human existence.
What presumption do you mean?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,472


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2010, 10:58:17 PM »

Our Lord is saying here, on our behalf - as the Virgin Mary had already done - 'Thy will be done, behold the servant of the Lord'.

Father, I find this concluding statement particularly instructive on the matter and worthy of further discussion.

If we refer to St Paul's "Humble Servant" hymn in his Epistle to the Phillipians we find that it is preceded by an injunction that we be of one and the same mind as Christ with respect to His servitude to the will of the Father. St Paul first gives the moral instruction that we be of one mind with the Divine, and then proceeds to lay down the framework in which successful execution of that moral instruction has been made practicable and viable--the Incarnation, according to which the Son assumed the mind/will which is prone/subject to tension with the Divine mind/will and yet was able to deify it in a way that resulted in substantial unity--expressed as it is, by the One Will of the Incarnate Word--on account of the Hypostatic Union. According to the hymn, this was practically expressed in His ultimate submission to death.

The doctrine of the One Will of Christ, therefore, as with all Orthodox Dogmas, has practical implications with respect to our salvation. We would never be able to be of the same mind of Christ, which presumes the re-alignment/transformation of our human wills unto perfect harmony and unison with the Divine, had Christ not established such "sameness of mind" between the human mind He so assumed and "the Divine mind".

What is also noteworthy here is that when we mere humans realise this perfect servitude, which entails perfect oneness of will and mind with the Divine, our human will is not thereby eliminated or changed into something other than a human will. The presumption by some Chalcedonians that such is necessarily presumed by the fact of Christ's One Will is thus simply irrational, not only as a matter of basic logic (given that the presumed corollary is simply no corollary at all--it is simply presumed to be) but also by analogy. Lastly, if such logic were held to be true then it would necessarily imply that we humans are unable to realise perfect servitude to the Father, since that would, as the logic in question would demand, presume an undermining of our human existence.
What presumption do you mean?
It reads to me like a statement of "This is what some Chalcedonians automatically presume the other person means when (s)he speaks of one will in Christ."
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2010, 11:10:09 PM »

Someone elsewhere on this forum was implying that "one will" means commingling and mixture, the result being a new will that is neither truly divine or human.  It could be that is what EA is referring to.  It's a common misconception about our beliefs.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 11:10:37 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 #17 on: January 31, 2010, 11:16:08 PM »

Someone elsewhere on this forum was implying that "one will" means commingling and mixture, the result being a new will that is neither truly divine or human.  It could be that is what EA is referring to.  It's a common misconception about our beliefs.
So when you say "one will" you mean "Two Wills"?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2010, 11:22:47 PM »

Read the thread, dear.   Smiley

And I'll let either Fr. Peter or EA answer your question, as they are both smarter and better at this than I am.   Smiley
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 #19 on: January 31, 2010, 11:50:18 PM »

Read the thread, dear.   Smiley
I have darling.


And I'll let either Fr. Peter or EA answer your question, as they are both smarter and better at this than I am.   Smiley
Okie dokie. Here's something to make you smile about this though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2010, 12:04:33 AM »

Thank you, precious.

The video was most instructive and really explained a lot.  Quote:

"Over-education [in women] leads to ugliness, premature aging, and beard growth."

Oh my goodness!  So that's how I got this way!!!!!  Think of all the money I would have saved on electrolysis had I dropped out of high school.     Shocked Shocked Shocked
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 12:28:05 AM 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 #21 on: February 01, 2010, 12:31:31 AM »

LOL!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2010, 12:43:44 AM »

Read the thread, dear.   Smiley
I have darling.


And I'll let either Fr. Peter or EA answer your question, as they are both smarter and better at this than I am.   Smiley
Okie dokie. Here's something to make you smile about this though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2010, 09:48:52 AM »

I don't often revisit forums I used to belong to as it makes me sad, but while browsing around I found this thread in which I posted extensively about the will of Christ. It is not very long, and there are other interesting participants and I link to it here rather than reposting my comments there.

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?2964-The-relationship-of-two-wills-in-Christ

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2010, 11:24:45 AM »

I managed to get hold of the OUP book - Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh Century Heresy.

I shall read it as soon as I can and make some observations here.

I also have the volume - The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus, which I have read online, but nothing beats an actual book, so I shall read that again.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2010, 06:35:54 AM »

Father Farrington, can you explain what you mean by "object of willing"? I follow you and agree with you when you say there are two faculties of willing and that subject of the willing is one, but I don't know about your statement about one object because I don't even know what your terminology means here.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2010, 05:57:58 AM »

I tried to reply to this last night on my phone but couldn't so forgive the delay.

What I meant was that it seems to me that within the area we are discussing there are various components.

i. The one who wills - the agent of willing

ii. That which is willed - the object of willing

iii. That by which the willing takes place - the faculty of willing.

Within our Christology it seems to me that we would want to say that there is one who wills, and that which he wills is one object of willing, but that there is a diversity of faculties by which the one who wills, wills the one object of his will. (Sorry for all the ones and wills)

Perhaps I can use an example that seems to work for me - though I am not trying to define the one who is beyond definition, and I am well aware that we should not say, the divine will means this and takes place in this way. But...

When our Lord walked upon the Sea of Galilee, it was the one incarnate Word of God who was the one who willed, and the object of his will was one - that he walk upon the water in his humanity - but both the divine and human faculties of will were engaged to bring this to pass - both in the desire that it take place and in the actual practice of it taking place.

This does not seem to me to require us to speak of two wills, which it seems to me would mean either that the agent was dual, or that the object was dual - even if the same object, and if the object is dual then as far as I (and the Fathers) can see then the agents are dual. If me and you both desire the last cake on the plate we might have a similar object of will, but it would not be the same unified object because we would be two agents of willing. In Christ, the incarnate Word of God, the agent and the object are truly one, even while the faculties are diverse.

I am not sure if that clarifies my view. Personally, and I need to study this, I am not convinced that the monothelite heresy as condemned by the Byzantine Church was always a heresy, and was not often an expression of this Orthodox fact of the unity of agent and object. I am not convinced that the stress on two wills does not tend towards describing two agents. Since we have never doubted the reality and integrity of the humanity of Christ we have not had to keep stressing the duality of that from which the incarnate Word consists. It is a given.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2010, 08:06:29 PM »

I tried to reply to this last night on my phone but couldn't so forgive the delay.

What I meant was that it seems to me that within the area we are discussing there are various components.

i. The one who wills - the agent of willing

ii. That which is willed - the object of willing

iii. That by which the willing takes place - the faculty of willing.

Within our Christology it seems to me that we would want to say that there is one who wills, and that which he wills is one object of willing, but that there is a diversity of faculties by which the one who wills, wills the one object of his will. (Sorry for all the ones and wills)

Perhaps I can use an example that seems to work for me - though I am not trying to define the one who is beyond definition, and I am well aware that we should not say, the divine will means this and takes place in this way. But...

When our Lord walked upon the Sea of Galilee, it was the one incarnate Word of God who was the one who willed, and the object of his will was one - that he walk upon the water in his humanity - but both the divine and human faculties of will were engaged to bring this to pass - both in the desire that it take place and in the actual practice of it taking place.

This does not seem to me to require us to speak of two wills, which it seems to me would mean either that the agent was dual, or that the object was dual - even if the same object, and if the object is dual then as far as I (and the Fathers) can see then the agents are dual. If me and you both desire the last cake on the plate we might have a similar object of will, but it would not be the same unified object because we would be two agents of willing. In Christ, the incarnate Word of God, the agent and the object are truly one, even while the faculties are diverse.

I am not sure if that clarifies my view. Personally, and I need to study this, I am not convinced that the monothelite heresy as condemned by the Byzantine Church was always a heresy, and was not often an expression of this Orthodox fact of the unity of agent and object. I am not convinced that the stress on two wills does not tend towards describing two agents. Since we have never doubted the reality and integrity of the humanity of Christ we have not had to keep stressing the duality of that from which the incarnate Word consists. It is a given.

Father Peter

I am sorry to say, but I don't think your explanation really made sense to me. Or, less likely, it did make sense and we actually do not agree on this topic.

What you are saying about the oneness of object of willing doesn't make sense to me. My first assumption about it, given what I am understanding, it actually that the object of willing would be dual. In the matter of Christ's willing, it is clear that there is no contradiction in what is taken from the divinity and humanity, however it appears to me that it should be clear that there is distinction. In certain objects of will, it would appear that the subject desiring it is the one Inhominated Logos, however it would also appear that some are naturally human and not divine, and perhaps some naturally divine and not human. For instance, is it divine for the Logos to desire to eat? I do not think so. Yes, it is the Logos desiring to eat. However, it should be said that it is because of His humanity that He is desiring to eat, rather than because of His divinity. In this sense, it would appear to me that there are two species of object of will in Christ.

Do you have any idea why there is seeming divergence in understanding here?
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2010, 03:53:31 AM »

I guess that the difference is that I would want to say that the object of the human willing of the incarnate Word is still the object of the divine will of the incarnate Word. The mode of willing may be different, but it is the same. There is a unity of will so that there is only one will, even if the human faculty of willing is preserved in its integrity.

When our Lord willed to do anything I think we would want to say that it was the incarnate Word who willed, humanly and divinely, but it was the same will otherwise our Lord is schizophrenic, and even a duality of subjects. When our Lord willed to eat, it was still the incarnate Word who willed to eat according to his humanity. There is no time at which the humanity wills independently and becomes its own subject. Therefore just as to touch the body of Christ is to touch the Word of God incarnate, so the human will of Christ is the will of the Word of God incarnate, and everything which the human will is moved to will by the divine will is in perfect and complete unity with the divine will. Even in the matter of eating, drinking, going here or there, saying this or that.

The Fathers teach us that when we say that 'this is not the incarnate Word it is the humanity' then we are setting the humanity up as a second subject in whom the Word acts. We cannot say that the incarnate Word wills at some times in his humanity and at other times the humanity wills on its own for itself. What we can say is that the incarnate Word wills according to his humanity in his own humanity in a divine manner. The cannot be two objects of willing, surely, otherwise the humanity wills other than the divinity and is a separate subject. And if there are two objects of willing which happily co-incide then that is no more than Theodore taught and we have essentially a man who is filled with the Word and not a man who IS the Word incarnate.

Who says, 'Come, let us go to Lazarus'? Is it the humanity? Or is it the incarnate Word in his humanity in perfect unity with his divinity? Who says, 'Not my will but yours be done'? If it is the humanity alone then a mere man has died to save us, but if it is the Word of God incarnate, moved by human blameless passions of dread, then we see again that the human willing has the same object as the divine will.

When Christ wills to eat it is surely the divine and human wills together which move him. And there is also a need to distinguish between a variety of wills - which is again why I find talk of two wills not entirely convincing. As humans we surely have an animal faculty of willing and desiring according to certain physiological needs, and we say 'I need something to eat'. But we also have a psychological faculty of willing which when properly ordered wills and desires even contrary to the physiological. I may say 'I need something to eat', but some other faculty of will within me might say, 'but I must finish studying this chapter', even while my stomach keeps saying I need to eat. And we have a spiritual faculty of willing which when properly ordered should take precedence over both the physiological and psychological will. This allows us to say, 'I am hungry and my body desires to eat but I will not to eat, and my mind is restless and desires satisfaction, but I will not turn to mental pleasures, I will pray and will to turn myself towards God'.

When the body of our Lord made some passionless movement of hunger it does not seem to me that this is the same willing as when he says 'Not my will but yours be done'. It seems to me to add confusion to insist that the faculty of will is dual since the human process of willing seems much more complex than that. When we speak of one will there is no confusion, because we are always speaking of a unity of will with a diversity of modes of willing.

The 'instinctive' will of Christ is surely human, but nevertheless it is the 'instinctive' will of the incarnate Word of God. The 'deliberative' will, that higher will which in a man should govern the 'instinctive' will, is surely also human, but is not merely a natural impulse, it is the seat of the person, it is the place where person and flesh meet. When *I* will to do something deliberative it is more than saying *my humanity* wills to do something. There is something personal about my willing which is expressed in my humanity but is not a mere reflex action. The *I* who wills in Christ is the Word of God, always and uniquely. Otherwise there is some other subject. The inner motions of the instinctive will are blamelessly present in the humanity of Christ acting upwards as it were, seeking to be noticed, but the deliberative will (I am just using these terms to distinguish two ways in which will should be surely understood) is not the motion of flesh, but the activity of the person in his own humanity. This is not to deny that the deliberative will does not use some human faculty of willing, but 'to will' is more than a mere faculty, it is an action and requires an agent and an object. In Christ the action and agent and object are always that of the Word of God incarnate.

I will not ramble on, but do please respond so that we can come closer to understanding if not agreement.

God bless

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2010, 10:08:50 AM »

A polemical tangent was split off and put in the private forum.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27577.msg434778.html#new
Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #30 on: May 14, 2010, 03:36:08 PM »

A polemical tangent was split off and put in the private forum.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27577.msg434778.html#new

Great, so now Fr. Peter can't respond.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #31 on: May 14, 2010, 07:02:38 PM »

He has already given more than enough information and explanation about our beliefs.  A person  who is honestly seeking to understand what we believe (as opposed to someone who wants to argue with us,) should be able to understand our beliefs based upon what has been presented here.

The latest set of posts were getting nasty, and I believe they were calculated to argue, not to inquire.  Pursuant to my warning at the beginning of the thread, as well as the rules for the OO forum written by Fr. Anastasios, I split off the polemics.
Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2010, 09:12:34 PM »

He has already given more than enough information and explanation about our beliefs.  

What he says may or may not be in accord with what OO fathers teach. I have no idea, since hardly anything from the OO fathers has been produced here. I ask again that OO posters here provide some meaty material from OO fathers on the question of will and energies in Christ.

Quote
The latest set of posts were getting nasty, and I believe they were calculated to argue, not to inquire.

What was nasty in my last reply to Fr. Peter? I am genuinely interested in understanding what he thinks; I'm also genuinely interested in apprehending the OO teaching on this question.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2010, 09:14:11 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2010, 09:37:36 PM »

He has already given more than enough information and explanation about our beliefs.  

What he says may or may not be in accord with what OO fathers teach. I have no idea, since hardly anything from the OO fathers has been produced here. I ask again that OO posters here provide some meaty material from OO fathers on the question of will and energies in Christ.

I started this thread with the following request:

Quote
I would like an OO who is knowledgeable about our Christology to please explain what we believe about Christ's will.  I know that this has been dealt with somewhat before, but I could never really understand the issue.  I'm looking for something in "stupid layman's terms," so that even I can understand it.

I wasn't asking for "meaty material" from OO Fathers.  I wanted a simple explanation from someone in my communion which would be dumbed down enough for a person like myself to understand.

You are asking for something else that is outside the scope of this thread.  If you want materials from OO Fathers on OO teachings about Christ's will, you should start another thread asking for links to OO patristic sources on this subject, or a bibliography, or something.  There is nothing stopping you from starting such a thread.


Quote
Quote
The latest set of posts were getting nasty, and I believe they were calculated to argue, not to inquire.

What was nasty in my last reply to Fr. Peter? I am genuinely interested in understanding what he thinks; I'm also genuinely interested in apprehending the OO teaching on this question.

I'm sorry, but I read you as being polemical.  I based that judgement partially on the fact that you didn't seem satisfied with the answers and explanations you were being given, as well as your tone, and also on your posting history here at OCnet with respect to OO issues.

If you have a problem with what I did, you need to appeal my decision to Fr. George.  We have a rule against calling out moderators in public.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2010, 12:09:12 AM »

Why was part of the conversation that I was having with Father put there?
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
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2010, 12:36:32 AM »

You're right.  There was a question asked by you on May 10, and a response by Fr. Peter which I moved, but should not have.  Oops.  I'll put them back.   Smiley
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 12:38:12 AM by Salpy » Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2010, 12:45:52 AM »

You're right.  There was a question asked by you on May 10, and a response by Fr. Peter which I moved, but should not have.  Oops.  I'll put them back.   Smiley

Thank you!!  Smiley
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 #37 on: May 19, 2010, 06:15:49 PM »

I think I am starting to understand what the issue is here, but it's hard for me to figure out how to come to a full understanding on the difference of the way we are phrasing these things.

When our Lord willed to do anything I think we would want to say that it was the incarnate Word who willed, humanly and divinely, but it was the same will otherwise our Lord is schizophrenic, and even a duality of subjects. When our Lord willed to eat, it was still the incarnate Word who willed to eat according to his humanity.

Yes. I would be willing to say that it was the Logos who willed to eat. But I would also say that the type of the object is human, because God does not naturally desire to eat. The Logos only desires to eat because He became human, and His desire to eat remains naturally human, not naturally divine.

There is no time at which the humanity wills independently and becomes its own subject.

Certainly not.

and everything which the human will is moved to will by the divine will

Everything that the human will is moved to by the divine will? What do you mean by this? This language does not make sense to me. It sounds like the Tome of Leo. I would not speak of wills doing anything as if they are hypostases, but rather they are desires to act that are found in a hypostasis.

The Fathers teach us that when we say that 'this is not the incarnate Word it is the humanity' then we are setting the humanity up as a second subject in whom the Word acts.

...

We cannot say that the incarnate Word wills at some times in his humanity and at other times the humanity wills on its own for itself.

Agreed.

What we can say is that the incarnate Word wills according to his humanity in his own humanity in a divine manner.

What do you mean by "in a divine manner"?

The cannot be two objects of willing, surely, otherwise the humanity wills other than the divinity and is a separate subject.

I would not say that at any given time the humanity of Christ is desiring something that the Logos is not or that the Logos is desiring something the humanity is not. That would be to divide. What I am trying to say is that if we look at the various acts of Christ that some objects of desiring may be categorized as naturally human while some may be categorized as naturally divine, and that they can be understood to be in the Logos because of the humanity or because of the divinity.

And if there are two objects of willing which happily co-incide then that is no more than Theodore taught

The language of "the human will following the divine will" sounds quite like that.

When Christ wills to eat it is surely the divine and human wills together which move him.

This doesn't really make sense to me. It is not divine to desire to eat. It is human to desire to eat. The Logos possesses a human will because He became human, but that shouldn't mean that His divine will was changed in the process to now also include a desire to eat. Why not just say that the divine Logos is moved to eat by His human will?

And there is also a need to distinguish between a variety of wills - which is again why I find talk of two wills not entirely convincing. As humans we surely have an animal faculty of willing and desiring according to certain physiological needs, and we say 'I need something to eat'. But we also have a psychological faculty of willing which when properly ordered wills and desires even contrary to the physiological. I may say 'I need something to eat', but some other faculty of will within me might say, 'but I must finish studying this chapter', even while my stomach keeps saying I need to eat. And we have a spiritual faculty of willing which when properly ordered should take precedence over both the physiological and psychological will. This allows us to say, 'I am hungry and my body desires to eat but I will not to eat, and my mind is restless and desires satisfaction, but I will not turn to mental pleasures, I will pray and will to turn myself towards God'.

This I agree with and I think it would also connect to a criticism of the idea of two natures, because realistically humans are a hypostatic union of substantially distinct elements with distinct properties as St. Cyril taught.

The 'instinctive' will of Christ is surely human, but nevertheless it is the 'instinctive' will of the incarnate Word of God. The 'deliberative' will, that higher will which in a man should govern the 'instinctive' will, is surely also human, but is not merely a natural impulse, it is the seat of the person, it is the place where person and flesh meet. When *I* will to do something deliberative it is more than saying *my humanity* wills to do something. There is something personal about my willing which is expressed in my humanity but is not a mere reflex action. The *I* who wills in Christ is the Word of God, always and uniquely. Otherwise there is some other subject. The inner motions of the instinctive will are blamelessly present in the humanity of Christ acting upwards as it were, seeking to be noticed, but the deliberative will (I am just using these terms to distinguish two ways in which will should be surely understood) is not the motion of flesh, but the activity of the person in his own humanity. This is not to deny that the deliberative will does not use some human faculty of willing, but 'to will' is more than a mere faculty, it is an action and requires an agent and an object. In Christ the action and agent and object are always that of the Word of God incarnate.

Again, agreed.

So I suppose we will have to figure out what is the cause of the continued disagreement on some of these points.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 20, 2010, 06:26:56 AM »

I think that one of the issues is that the use of the term 'will' is causing confusing.

Certainly I am 150% at ease with my own terminology, and you are comfortable with you own, and we are pretty close to agreement, but this word 'will' is not helping. For myself, I find it limiting and restricting since it is being asked to carry to many meanings. So perhaps if we expand our terminology we might get somewhere. I will post again, as this is an interesting subject, but I need to pop out for a little while.

God bless

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,257


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 20, 2010, 02:41:44 PM »

May I propose desire vs. decision?

One can say that the desire of the humanity may be different in nature from the desire of the divinity, but ultimately, both desires agree as one, as one composite Man-God desire, into one sole personal decision.

When there's a desire to eat, the hunger from which the desire comes from is human, and yet the desire to eat becomes deified as a compound desire, and the decision to eat is one sole decision.

When there's a desire to give all mankind a share in His divine glory, this desire is divine, and yet the human desire is lifted to the same goal and in agreement with the divine as one compound Man-God desire, and in the end the one sole decision, that we may partake of His Divine Flesh and Blood.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 02:46:37 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2010, 08:50:31 PM »

I think that one of the issues is that the use of the term 'will' is causing confusing.

Certainly I am 150% at ease with my own terminology, and you are comfortable with you own, and we are pretty close to agreement, but this word 'will' is not helping. For myself, I find it limiting and restricting since it is being asked to carry to many meanings. So perhaps if we expand our terminology we might get somewhere. I will post again, as this is an interesting subject, but I need to pop out for a little while.

God bless

Father Peter

Father,

Let's try to simplify.

I think I might understand now what you are trying to say.

Tell me if I've got it.

Are you essentially trying to say that for the orthodox doctrine of one subject to be satisfied in a consistent manner that we must admit that at any given time the humanity of Christ cannot be desiring an object that the divinity does not desire and the divinity cannot be desiring and object that the humanity does not desire, but rather that the Logos must be united in His desire of the object?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 08:52:29 PM by deusveritasest » 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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 29, 2010, 04:49:21 AM »

I am continuing to research this subject in St Severus and am in the middle of translating some important material from French into English to help me.

I think this is an important subject but I need to fully immerse myself in the teachings of my master Severus before I say much more because there is such beauty in his writings, and such clarity.

It is perhaps enough to say, as you already know, that we do not believe there is anything lacking in the humanity of the incarnate Word at all. And to speak of one will is to safeguard the unity and identity of subject in Christ. I was reading Father Richard Price's translation and edition of the Acts of Constantinople II (what a wonderful scholar he is), and he says p75 Vol I, 'If we start with the distinction between the two natures, it is to be doubted whether we shall ever succeed in truly uniting them'. Now I don't quote that to make a polemical point, but to show that a serious and scholarly Chalcedonian such as Price (who is a Roman Catholic) is well aware of the reasons for the anti-Chalcedonian position and does not find them without force. I think his comment has some value in respect of this issue. Our own Orthodox Christology ALWAYS begins and ends in the unity and identity of the Word incarnate as the subject and 'owner' of all the actions, energies, will, etc etc etc. The One who acts is one, what is performed is diverse but is all truly of the One and not of Two.

But I am studying hard and will probably write something on this now rather than later, though it will only explain my own thinking in the light of St Severus.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #42 on: May 29, 2010, 05:29:37 AM »

I was reading Father Richard Price's translation and edition of the Acts of Constantinople II (what a wonderful scholar he is), and he says p75 Vol I, 'If we start with the distinction between the two natures, it is to be doubted whether we shall ever succeed in truly uniting them'.

Father,

Thank you so much for bringing this quote to our attention. It resonates quite strongly with certain objective assessments I've read by well-respected scholars on the historical development of various heresies; they stress that the main stage at which various heretics went wrong was their very seemingly innocent starting point. The primary error of Nestorianism was that it began on the premise of the impassibility of God. The primary error of Arianism was that it began on the premise of the transcendance of the Divine. These two theological principles, whilst perfectly Orthodox, are more metaphysically-oriented than soteriologically-oriented, and so overriding concern for and emphasis on them is bound to lead to ultimately defective Christologies. Contrast those premises with those that launched the Christologies of Sts Athanasius and Cyril, respectively: that *God* must have become man, in order for man to be able to be god, and that God must *truly* have *become* man, in order for humanity to be genuinely divinised.

We do not emphasise the unity for the sake of emphasising the unity, but rather because it is that unity which in the end achieves our salvation. Thus does our Christology begin and end with the One Nature of God the Word Incarnate, as St Gregory of Tathev effectively asserted in that quote kindly produced by our Armenian sister.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 05:30:44 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2011, 10:33:16 AM »

Thread resurrection!

Well, I read this very interesting article about Maximus of Constantinople's conception on the free will of Christ here. Essentially, Maximus argued that Christ, being the Divine hypostasis of God the Word himself, was the very manifestation of objective goodness and virtuousness, and thus lacked a "gnomie" which clouded human judgment and inclined the human will towards sinfulness. Therefore, Christ's "tropoi" (hypostatic exercise of will) was always inclined to that which was good and in accord with his Divine will, the very same will which He shares with his Heavenly Father and Holy Spirit. Christ did not sin (nor was He inclined to sin) because he as the Word Incarnate Himself had full knowledge and grasp of his inner "Logoi" (virtuousness and that which is in accord with God). Thus, the freely willing soul of Christ always chooses that which is in accord with the Divine will, and when we see Christ desiring food or having a desire to recoil from death in the Garden of Gethsemane we see desires intrinsic to the natural human will which he had assumed at the Incarnation. This is very similar to St. Severus' concept of Christ subjecting himself to "blameless passions", IMO. Also, the human will of Christ being in perfect unity and synergy with the Divine will is very important to Theosis, for in the same way Christ deified His own human will and made it in accord His Divine will, he deifies our human will and calls all men to realize their inner "logoi" and align their will to the will of God.

I decided to put it here in this thread because our OO theletic Christology emphasizes the unity, synergy, and deification of the human will with the Divine will. If anyone feels I have misrepresented Maximus or OO Christology, please do correct me.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 10:33:40 AM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,375


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2014, 09:32:28 PM »

This may be of interest:

A Preliminary Conversation on the Will of Christ with an Eastern Orthodox Monk

http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/a-preliminary-conversation-on-wiil-of.html

Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,257


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2014, 08:21:01 PM »

This may be of interest:

A Preliminary Conversation on the Will of Christ with an Eastern Orthodox Monk

http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/a-preliminary-conversation-on-wiil-of.html



I think this is an excellent start on the discussion of theletism, and I hope there will be a "part 2" sometime later  Smiley
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,761


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2014, 04:48:02 PM »

Is this not "homothelitism"?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 04:48:21 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
Tags: Christology one will NVM was here Gethsemane 
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 0.178 seconds with 74 queries.