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.

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

Yes no, help?

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

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

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

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

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

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

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://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"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)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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

No. Calvin is much better.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

[Of Lord Strafford] ...there was nothing so low as his dialect except his understanding ....-Baron Hervey of Ickworth

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

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
Awaiting the Sept. Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Portland, Oregon
PacNW Presbytery (PCA)

Soli Deo Gloria