Closed Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Mind and Will of Christ

  1. Romans922's Avatar
    Romans922 is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    MS
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 603 Times in 287 Posts

    Mind and Will of Christ

    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.
    TE Andrew
    PCA, MS

    Visit: A Profitable Word
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  2. Romans922's Avatar
    Romans922 is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    MS
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 603 Times in 287 Posts
    Yes no, help?
    TE Andrew
    PCA, MS

    Visit: A Profitable Word
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  3. Red Beetle is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kingsport, Tennessee
    Posts
    39
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts
    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
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  4. Romans922's Avatar
    Romans922 is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    MS
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 603 Times in 287 Posts
    I don't really have time, I have a test tomorrow...hehe.
    TE Andrew
    PCA, MS

    Visit: A Profitable Word
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  5. Pergamum's Avatar
    Pergamum is offline. The MacDaddy
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    10,883
    Thanks
    2,824
    Thanked 3,104 Times in 1,592 Posts
    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
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  6. Davidius is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    4,934
    Thanks
    885
    Thanked 820 Times in 504 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Pergamum View Post
    Is Gordon Clark the best source on the Trinity?
    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.

    ***

    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
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  7. toddpedlar's Avatar
    toddpedlar is offline. Iron Dramatist
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Decorah, IA
    Posts
    6,583
    Thanks
    262
    Thanked 2,595 Times in 1,342 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pergamum View Post
    Is Gordon Clark the best source on the Trinity?
    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.
    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!
    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
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  8. Davidius is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    4,934
    Thanks
    885
    Thanked 820 Times in 504 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by toddpedlar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pergamum View Post
    Is Gordon Clark the best source on the Trinity?
    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.
    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!
    I'm glad to see that others share my theological acuity.
    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
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  9. py3ak's Avatar
    py3ak is offline. Use Bat Lip Balm
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,187
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 2,779 Times in 1,529 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Pergamum View Post
    Is Gordon Clark the best source on the Trinity?

    Boettner's book is pretty good.
    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
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

  10. Archlute's Avatar
    Archlute is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sandy, Oregon
    Posts
    2,187
    Thanks
    474
    Thanked 973 Times in 440 Posts
    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
    Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69