Sorry Salpy, I hadn't read that.
jnorm888, yes, the Oriental Orthodox position, which of course we consider the Orthodox one, is a complex (because unknowable) unity of diversity. As St Severus says (in paraphrase) 'we don't reject diversity, God forbid, but division and dividing everything up so that we end up with two subjects'.
We had mentioned in the previous posts that the notion of one will or two did not seem an entirely satisfactory response to the actual experience we wanted to describe, either in Christ or in ourselves. At the very least, I am sitting here and I am willing to write this post, but there is also a desire in me to turn to prayer, and I am also hungry because it is the start of the Apostles Fast. There seem to me to be at least three desires at work, and that desire is not entirely the same as will, which suggests a more deliberative personal activity.
Or perhaps, there is more deliberative personal activity of willing, but this can be subsumed under the force of animal desire (such as in the person who means to eat one biscuit and then finds they have eaten the whole packet without being able to stop!), or subsumed under a psychological desire perhaps, and subsumed under a spiritual desire/experience.
Who is choosing to write this post rather than eat something or turn to prayer? In what way is the desire to eat an aspect of will? If I am the chooser then what is the relationship between me and the choice, and where does the choice take place?
Likewise if there is within me a desire to write, and pray, and eat, then in what sense is one a willed activity, and the others non-willed, even though all are desires?
It seems to me that we need to understand and seek to describe ourselves more comprehensively before we start talking about one will or two. Because I am sure that I do not yet understand the process as I am experiencing it in myself now, and therefore it seems foolish to extrapolate from my lack of understanding of myself to some sort of authoritative position in respect of all people, and in respect of Christ.
But perhaps I can say a little about hunger and other such desires. As a beginning to use the Oriental Orthodox patristic sources. Hunger is routinely described as one aspect of will, and especially in regard to pointing out that Christ had a human will. If the Oriental Orthodox allow that Christ truly hungers then it seems to me that this aspect of human will is considered to be present in Christ.
He says in Letter I.. when discussing a passage from St Cyril.
..he was a warden to himself of hungering as well as of being tired after a journey, and of accepting the other human passions, such as do not fall under sin, in order to display the Humanization truly and without phantasy.
In Letter XXXV he says...
...he came to be with us as God who became man he was named Emmanuel, and that he was made like unto us in all things except sin, suffers like us and is susceptible of innocent passions... the impassible God united to himself those of our passions which do not fall under the description of sin ...
I could produce lots more of such passages from his other works, but it is morning here and I am supposed to start working. I think even these two show that there is no problem with accepting that Christ, the incarnate Word, experiences the blameless human passions such as hunger.
The question remains in my mind, how do these blameless passions relate to will in the controversial sense? And how do they relate to will in the description we are hopefully trying to determine here so as to avoid slipping into a polemics which misses the point?
St Severus also speaks very often of the rational and intelligent nature of the humanity of Christ. It seems to me that it is not possible to speak of rationality and intelligence without considering some aspect of rational and intelligent volition. What is rationality and intelligence if not some constant movement of some ascect of will?
..one of the three hypostases [..] was rationally and hypostatically united to soul-possessing flesh.
..Flesh does not renounce its existence as flesh, even if it has become God's flesh, nor has the Word departed from his nature, even if he has been hypostatically united to flesh which possesses a rational and intelligent soul: but the difference also is preserved, and the propriety in the form of natural characteristics of the natures of which Emmanuel consists, since the flesh was not converted into the nature of the Word, nor was the Word changed into flesh.
These all seem to me to speak of an intelligently volitional being, who is the Word of God incarnate.