The Two Wills of Christ - Fr. Andrew Damick & Fr. Stephen De Young

[@sophrapsune]

Fantastic explanation!

[@parkermize]

Good idea

[@AncientFaithMinistries]

Thanks!

[@kirin347]

Ice cream or baklava? Why must I choose?!😢

[@levantino4704]

I really would like to hear more in depth about our nature being one, our will being individual and our energies all over the place and how it would look when humans finally achieve the unity Christ prays to the Father for, perhaps how these 3 things that we have but are corrupted, relate to the ones of the Holy Trinity, I'm not sure im making sense 😅

[@trevorharrison1989]

🤯 had to listen to this thrice, but now I see, I see!

[@farida.5766]

According to the 1990s Joint Commission agreement the chalcedonian and nonchalcedonian views are in agreement in meaning: “It is the same hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten from the Father Who in these last days became a human being and was born of the Blessed Virgin. This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration - the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.”

[@minasoliman]

❤

[@minasoliman]

What do you think of Father Dr. Richard Price who thinks that the division between Chalcedonian Monotheletes and Diatheletes are an issue of semantics and talking past one another? For instance, when Christ says “that they may be one just as we are one”, shows a oneness of will, even if the faculties of this oneness is various without loss of integrity of the fullness of divinity and humanity? We say that a sinful man is “duplicitous” in his mind and will, but to say the same of Christ would make Christ sinful and “gnomic” at best. Hence the “Monothelete” rejection of “two wills” was not a rejection of the integrity the faculty of human willing and divine willing in Christ, but the rejection of the lack of a perfect unity of the wills. That would make sense especially in light of the fact that most of the pre-Chalcedonian church fathers were by definition “Monothelete” in this sense.

[@farida.5766]

Exactly. When expressed as one it’s a oneness as in unity without mixture but not singularity, or “gnomic” duality; and if it’s expressed as two it’s just in ensuring continuity of the integrity of the natural wills but without any separation. May God bring the two churches together.

[@minasoliman]

@@farida.5766 amen!

[@philkhz]

According to this, you just confess 3 wills in Christ, and 3 natures in Christ for divinity, soul and body. But if after the union of soul and body we accept one nature and will of two natures, then also, we must accept one nature and one will in the union of the divine logos and human flesh.

[@yousefsalib7609]

The godhead has one will and one operation if you add a second will and and second operation there would be two beings of Christ.

[@yousefsalib7609]

@@keatonfoster4950 sorry union by addition leads to a tetrad. Per Saint Athanasius 8. (...) Again, they will blush deeply who have even entertained the possibility of a Tetrad instead of a Triad resulting, if it were said that the Body was derived from Mary. For if (they argue) we say the Body is of one Essence with the Word, the Triad remains a Triad; for then the Word imports no foreign element into it; but if we admit that the Body derived from Mary is human, it follows, since the Body is foreign in Essence, and the Word is in it, that the addition of the Body causes a Tetrad instead of a Triad. - Letter to Epictetus, st Athanasius

[@harrygarris6921]

How are you defining “will” then? Following the understanding of the will from Aristotelian metaphysics if Christ did not have a human will then he cannot be fully human.

[@dioscoros]

​@@harrygarris6921will is the active willing which is proper to agency/concrete nature. This is why St Athanasius spoke of 1 composite will from 2 wills, which corresponds to Christ being 1 composite nature from 2 natures.