LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYes no, help?
Puritanboard Senior
I'm studying the heresies brought up about Christ, thinking through Monothelism has made me think of asking what is the correct view of the mind and will of Christ.
Am I right to say that Christ has One Mind and One Will?
Would I also be right to say that the One Mind and One Will 'belong' (if I can use that word) to His Person and not His natures?
Please help and/or correct me as needed, I am not espousing heresy, just wanting to not be a heretic. Thanks.
Puritanboard Senior
Yes no, help?
Inactive User
I advise you to obtain copies of the following books by Dr. Gordon H. Clark: "The Incarnation," "The Trinity," and "The Holy Spirit."
You can get them from trinityfoundation.org
Monty L. Collier
Puritanboard Senior
I don't really have time, I have a test tomorrow...hehe.
The MacDaddy
Is Gordon Clark the best source on the Trinity?
Boettner's book is pretty good.
Pergamum
"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone
Inactive User
Regardless of the conclusions one comes to after reading Clark's work, something I appreciate about him is that he attempts to explain doctrines that most people just go around saying they believe without understanding. For example, if you say "God is a Trinity" and I ask "What does it mean that God is a Trinity?" and you can't provide an answer, you might as well say "God is a blarmanator." Neither term provides me any knowledge about God. The same would apply if you should say "God is three persons in one essence." What does that mean? If the terms can't be defined, God might as well be one asdl;fkjf and three asdflasjfa;sdjlf. Likewise, if God's nature, "as it is" or "as it is revealed to us" is contradictory, then I gain no knowledge about God. If my knowledge of God is equal to my knowledge of a square triangle, then it would seem that God doesn't exist or has become unknowable. Clark attempts to make sense out of these issues and for that I appreciate him, even though some people find not merely his conclusions, but even his efforts, impious, something which I just don't understand.Originally Posted by Pergamum
***
Pulling myself back on topic...
What you're saying sounds reasonable to me. I'd be interested to know how you define mind, will, person, and nature, though.
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics
Iron Dramatist
Oh, THANK YOU, David, for re-affirming the truth that God is one asdl;fkjf and three asdflasjfa;sdjlf! I have maintained this distinction for a long time, and nobody's ever echoed my sentiments in precisely the same way!Regardless of the conclusions one comes to after reading Clark's work, something I appreciate about him is that he attempts to explain doctrines that most people just go around saying they believe without understanding. For example, if you say "God is a Trinity" and I ask "What does it mean that God is a Trinity?" and you can't provide an answer, you might as well say "God is a blarmanator." Neither term provides me any knowledge about God. The same would apply if you should say "God is three persons in one essence." What does that mean? If the terms can't be defined, God might as well be one asdl;fkjf and three asdflasjfa;sdjlf.
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
My Blog: In Principio Deus
Podcast I co-host: Covenant Radio
Streaming Audio by the Co-hosts of Covenant Radio
"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum
Inactive User
I'm glad to see that others share my theological acuity.Oh, THANK YOU, David, for re-affirming the truth that God is one asdl;fkjf and three asdflasjfa;sdjlf! I have maintained this distinction for a long time, and nobody's ever echoed my sentiments in precisely the same way!Regardless of the conclusions one comes to after reading Clark's work, something I appreciate about him is that he attempts to explain doctrines that most people just go around saying they believe without understanding. For example, if you say "God is a Trinity" and I ask "What does it mean that God is a Trinity?" and you can't provide an answer, you might as well say "God is a blarmanator." Neither term provides me any knowledge about God. The same would apply if you should say "God is three persons in one essence." What does that mean? If the terms can't be defined, God might as well be one asdl;fkjf and three asdflasjfa;sdjlf.
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics
Use Bat Lip Balm
No. Calvin is much better.
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana
...a man who talks nonsense, even though 'with no view to profit,' is not altogether the most agreeable partner in a dispute, whether as opponent or respondent.
Thomas De Quincey, Confessions of an English Opium Eater
Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?
Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness
Puritanboard Senior
Wow. I sure hope that you got better information than what's on this thread sometime yesterday before your exam. The correct answer is that both the monothelite and the monophysite positions are indeed heretical positions.
The reason being that if Christ had only a single will (monothelite), he would not have had a completely human nature of his own. The divine would have taken on a humanity devoid of its own will and ability to reason, and would therefore have been an incomplete human. It must be maintained that Christ's person had both a purely divine and a purely human will in his divine and human natures respectively, although the divine will is seen as the dominant will that works through the human will so as not to create a division between them (although, as can be seen in Gethsemane, there were occasions of temporarily differing desires). This positions was given formal assent at the sixth ecumenical council in Constantinople in AD681.
Similarly, the more extreme monophysite position denies that Christ could have had a human nature that was the same in its essence as our own, and therefore speak of a humanity that was transmuted by the divine, and therefore became a single human-divine nature (monophysite). Each nature must be seen as complete within itself, a fully divine and a fully human nature coming together in the person of Christ.
So, to recap, dyothelite/dyophysite=good; monothelite/monophysite=bad.
Hope that wasn't a major part of your exam
Rev. Adam J. Myer
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon
ChBOLC
Soli Deo Gloria
Bookmarks