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.

__________________
Andrew Barnes
Husband to Dena
Redeemer Church, candidate of the MVP in the PCA
MDiv graduate from Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS
Pastor (elect) of Tchula Presbyterian Church, Tchula, MS

"What do you think about when you are not thinking about anything else? This is what you worship!"

Yes no, help?

__________________
Andrew Barnes
Husband to Dena
Redeemer Church, candidate of the MVP in the PCA
MDiv graduate from Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS
Pastor (elect) of Tchula Presbyterian Church, Tchula, MS

"What do you think about when you are not thinking about anything else? This is what you worship!"

__________________
Monty L. Collier

I don't really have time, I have a test tomorrow...hehe.

__________________
Andrew Barnes
Husband to Dena
Redeemer Church, candidate of the MVP in the PCA
MDiv graduate from Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS
Pastor (elect) of Tchula Presbyterian Church, Tchula, MS

"What do you think about when you are not thinking about anything else? This is what you worship!"

Is Gordon Clark the best source on the Trinity?

Boettner's book is pretty good.

__________________
Pergamum

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
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

And though the really inspired artist may complain that, with the majority, piano-playing is mere strumming, and painting little more than daubing, yet, the exuberant feeling of having a share in the privileges of art is so overwhelming, that the scorn of the artist is preferred to the abandonment of art training in education. To have laid a production of your own, however poor, upon the altar of art becomes more and more the characteristic of an accomplished civilization. - Abraham Kuyper

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
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)

I'm glad to see that others share my theological acuity.

__________________
Davidius
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

And though the really inspired artist may complain that, with the majority, piano-playing is mere strumming, and painting little more than daubing, yet, the exuberant feeling of having a share in the privileges of art is so overwhelming, that the scorn of the artist is preferred to the abandonment of art training in education. To have laid a production of your own, however poor, upon the altar of art becomes more and more the characteristic of an accomplished civilization. - Abraham Kuyper

No. Calvin is much better.

__________________
Ruben

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

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

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Pastor
Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Chapel
Pistol River, Oregon