Threading the needle on Nestorianism vs dyothelitism

Status
Not open for further replies.

fab413

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi all -

Not sure if anyone has seen this video, but my question essentially revolves around the Orthodox Preists' rationale for how others can fall into Nestorianism.

I've studied a lot of church history, and I've had a hard time figuring out the correct middle ground with Nestorianism.

Let's use for example the fact that Jesus did not know the time of his return. i have seen a lot of theologians say this is because this was the "human side" of Christ. How do we allow for this? Isn't this Nestorianism and separating the two natures? This, along with dyothelitism, seem tricky for me. The other approaches I've heard falls more into eutychianism so I'm really confused on how to probably think about the two natures. Hope this makes sense. Thanks!
 
Dyothelitism, the doctrine that Christ has both a divine and a human will, distinct one from another, is necessary if you are a Trinitarian and believe that Christ is true God and true man.

God has one will--the persons of the Godhead do not have separate wills. Therefore, if Christ has only one will, it is identical to the will of the Trinity. That's extremely problematic. That would be to say that Christ's will, by which he honors his human mother, or washes the feet of his disciples, for instance, is the will of the holy Trinity.

It would also imply passibility on the part of God.

Also consider Christ's submission to God--God as God doesn't submit to God as God; remember that the divine will of the Son is identical to the will of the Father--anything else is tritheism. He must have a creaturely will in addition to his immutable divine will.
 
Last edited:
God has one will--the persons of the Godhead do not have separate wills. Therefore, if Christ has only one will, it is identical to the will of the Trinity. That's extremely problematic. That would be to say that Christ's will, by which he honors his human mother, or washes the feet of his disciples, for instance, is the will of the holy Trinity.

It would also imply passibility on the part of God.
Please help me understand here
What do you mean by 'passibility on the part of God'?
And how does Jesus humbling himself, int obeying his own commands and plan of redemption, imply that?
 
Please help me understand here
What do you mean by 'passibility on the part of God'?
And how does Jesus humbling himself, int obeying his own commands and plan of redemption, imply that?
Let me take a stab at it.
It would mean, if the divine and human wills werent differentiated, then God's will isn't wholly other. Christ's divine nature then will also have passions. It steers close and veers off the cliff into Eutychianism.
 
Hi all -

Not sure if anyone has seen this video, but my question essentially revolves around the Orthodox Preists' rationale for how others can fall into Nestorianism.

I've studied a lot of church history, and I've had a hard time figuring out the correct middle ground with Nestorianism.

Let's use for example the fact that Jesus did not know the time of his return. i have seen a lot of theologians say this is because this was the "human side" of Christ. How do we allow for this? Isn't this Nestorianism and separating the two natures? This, along with dyothelitism, seem tricky for me. The other approaches I've heard falls more into eutychianism so I'm really confused on how to probably think about the two natures. Hope this makes sense. Thanks!

A few thoughts:

1. The title of the thread is odd. Usually, when one wants to "thread the needle," it is between positions which are both false. But dyothelitism is not false.

2. Christ was tested by Satan, and in that sense we can say He was tempted. On the other hand, I would argue Christ never desired to disobey His Father, so He was not tempted in that sense.

3. Regarding your point about the statement in the gospels that Jesus did not know the time of His return, one relevant question is whether Christ can have two minds. Well, if Christ can have two wills, I do not see why Christ cannot have two minds.
 
Will is a function of nature, not person.

Two minds is not illogical. Christ's human mind has an asymmetrical accessing relation to the divine mind.
 
Some notes on dyotheletism:

  • The wills work together in this way: The divine Son wills all that the Incarnate Christ does. He is the ultimate subject of all of his incarnate works. But the Incarnate Jesus also had a natural human will–whether or not to follow and obey the divine will.
  • Jesus’s will is not gnomic It does not wander or subject itself to wavering human condition.
Person operates by will. Will is a property of nature and energy is operation proper to that nature. So in Christ Incarnate there are two will and two operations proper to each nature, but the divine energeia deifies the human will and energy.

The raising of the dead was a willed operation proper to the divine energy, while eating food was a willed operation proper to the human energy, albeit both are willed by one divine Person – the Logos.
 
Some notes on dyotheletism:

  • The wills work together in this way: The divine Son wills all that the Incarnate Christ does. He is the ultimate subject of all of his incarnate works. But the Incarnate Jesus also had a natural human will–whether or not to follow and obey the divine will.
  • Jesus’s will is not gnomic It does not wander or subject itself to wavering human condition.
Person operates by will. Will is a property of nature and energy is operation proper to that nature. So in Christ Incarnate there are two will and two operations proper to each nature, but the divine energeia deifies the human will and energy.

The raising of the dead was a willed operation proper to the divine energy, while eating food was a willed operation proper to the human energy, albeit both are willed by one divine Person – the Logos.

Perhaps you can help me out, since the below line of reasoning seems to apply to you (which is not to say it is wrong). The following is by Eduard Borysov:

"Since essence does not in reality exist by itself without a hypostasis, it is logical for Meyendorff to conclude that energies belong to a person. However, this statement would contradict the decisions of the ecumenical councils, which claimed that the Trinity has one essence and thus the same energy shared by the three persons, while Christ has two natures and two energies that belong to one person." (https://www.academia.edu/5747814/Th...ky_and_John_Meyendorff_A_Critical_Examination)

What are your thoughts? The above reminds me of a comment by Joseph Farrell: "there must be in each case a unique enhypostatization of the will in the person, each free to do with the natural will and its objects of choice what he sees fit" (Free Choice in Maximus the Confessor, pg. 189, link).

While it is true that, in context, Farrell is referring to human persons, insofar as there is an admitted analogy between Trinity, Christology, and anthropology, Farrell's above statement seems to agree with Borysov that "energies belong to a person," for then each person of the Trinity would have "a unique enhypostatization of the [divine] will in the person."
 
I never understood the EO distinctions between energies/essence. Since this thread is primarily about EO views of the hypostatic union and Trinity, could someone ELI5? @Claudiu ?
 
I never understood the EO distinctions between energies/essence. Since this thread is primarily about EO views of the hypostatic union and Trinity, could someone ELI5? @Claudiu ?
The EO essence/energy distinction might not have helpful implications with the hypostatic union question. Also, there is a difference between Russian and more Byzantine (Greek/Romanian) Orthodoxy. Westerners tend to understand Orthodoxy more through the Russian lens. What Jacob mentioned above in #8 is helpful but would need to be further fleshed out. The wiki article on this is actually pretty good in describing the Sun in its essence vs. the Sun in its energies. (EO would say that God is not just essence, but also His energies. That's a problem if you think of the energies as the effect from the cause (essence) as in the sun example). But the issue in the OP is how the following interrelate: person, wills, natures.
 
Perhaps you can help me out, since the below line of reasoning seems to apply to you (which is not to say it is wrong). The following is by Eduard Borysov:

"Since essence does not in reality exist by itself without a hypostasis, it is logical for Meyendorff to conclude that energies belong to a person. However, this statement would contradict the decisions of the ecumenical councils, which claimed that the Trinity has one essence and thus the same energy shared by the three persons, while Christ has two natures and two energies that belong to one person." (https://www.academia.edu/5747814/Th...ky_and_John_Meyendorff_A_Critical_Examination)

What are your thoughts? The above reminds me of a comment by Joseph Farrell: "there must be in each case a unique enhypostatization of the will in the person, each free to do with the natural will and its objects of choice what he sees fit" (Free Choice in Maximus the Confessor, pg. 189, link).

While it is true that, in context, Farrell is referring to human persons, insofar as there is an admitted analogy between Trinity, Christology, and anthropology, Farrell's above statement seems to agree with Borysov that "energies belong to a person," for then each person of the Trinity would have "a unique enhypostatization of the [divine] will in the person."

I think that is a legitimate criticism of Meyendorff. Meyendorff was part of the school that emphasized person to the detriment of essence. I believe, with better readings of Maximus, that a person is an essence with idiomata. I do not agree with Farrell's definition of a person as something to which there is no analogy aside from the capacity to say "I."
 
I never understood the EO distinctions between energies/essence. Since this thread is primarily about EO views of the hypostatic union and Trinity, could someone ELI5? @Claudiu ?

At the barest level, energies are activities. Paul speaks of the energies (or operations) of the Spirit in 1 Cor. 8 and 12 (I think).

The deal is that for the East, the essence of God is completely off limits, so the only way you can interact with God is by his energies (or activities).
 
It's been a while since I listened to this one, but it looks like at 15:00 they start getting into the essence/energy topic.

 
I think that is a legitimate criticism of Meyendorff. Meyendorff was part of the school that emphasized person to the detriment of essence. I believe, with better readings of Maximus, that a person is an essence with idiomata. I do not agree with Farrell's definition of a person as something to which there is no analogy aside from the capacity to say "I."

Which work by Maximus do you have in mind, and does he define idiomata?
 
Which work by Maximus do you have in mind, and does he define idiomata?

I don't know the exact Maximus location off hand, but I got the material from Bathrellos.
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/the-byzantine-Christ-bathrellos/
 
Please help me understand here
What do you mean by 'passibility on the part of God'?
And how does Jesus humbling himself, int obeying his own commands and plan of redemption, imply that?
The passions are a function of the will. Christ, after his human nature, is clearly passible--just look at Gesthemane.

Christ speaks in many places about obeying the will of the Father (again, think of Gesthemane), so there is a distinction of wills. Either the persons of the Godhead have distinct wills, which is tritheism, or Christ has a will distinct from his divine will.
 
Sorry for the late reply to all of this after the original post :)

I am realizing my title was pretty bad and misleading, and I agree with the above points that "threading the needle" doesn't apply here as dyothelitism is the orthodox view.

Let me reframe my question. In the Oprah video, the EO Preist accuses the Catholic and Lutheran of promoting Nestorianism. They then in return accuse the EO priest of promoting Nestorianism based on his argument. This is my confusion: at first glance I seemingly agree with what the Catholic and Lutheran guys are saying, as the EO Priest seems to be saying Christ could be tempted in part, and not in the other part. Which is Nestorianism in that it is in effect compartmentalizing the two wills.

What am I missing? I have high respect for that priest (I have some EOC friends so I've seen his stuff in the past), and I know that he knows his stuff, so I feel like I'm not fully understanding his point.

Does this make sense?
 
Sorry for the late reply to all of this after the original post :)

I am realizing my title was pretty bad and misleading, and I agree with the above points that "threading the needle" doesn't apply here as dyothelitism is the orthodox view.

Let me reframe my question. In the Oprah video, the EO Preist accuses the Catholic and Lutheran of promoting Nestorianism. They then in return accuse the EO priest of promoting Nestorianism based on his argument. This is my confusion: at first glance I seemingly agree with what the Catholic and Lutheran guys are saying, as the EO Priest seems to be saying Christ could be tempted in part, and not in the other part. Which is Nestorianism in that it is in effect compartmentalizing the two wills.

What am I missing? I have high respect for that priest (I have some EOC friends so I've seen his stuff in the past), and I know that he knows his stuff, so I feel like I'm not fully understanding his point.

Does this make sense?

Who is the priest? Usually when all sides start accusing the others of being Nestorian or Monophysite, you can probably ignore them. Some Reformed do tend towards a Nestorian bent; Lutherans towards a monophysite bent.
 
Metropolitan Pavlos:

Again, I'm not EOC but had a friend convert to the EOC a few years ago from the Reformed world. I know the Pavlos guy is incredibly sharp, and the EOC has such a focus on the early church that if he is calling someone out for Nestorianism, I'm at least listening to his reasons why. Hope that makes sense.

Any thoughts on my reframed question?
 
Metropolitan Pavlos:

Again, I'm not EOC but had a friend convert to the EOC a few years ago from the Reformed world. I know the Pavlos guy is incredibly sharp, and the EOC has such a focus on the early church that if he is calling someone out for Nestorianism, I'm at least listening to his reasons why. Hope that makes sense.

Any thoughts on my reframed question?

It really depends on the person. Nestorius taught two acting subjects in the Logos. It's not clear who in the Reformed world actually teaches that.
 
Sorry for the late reply to all of this after the original post :)

I am realizing my title was pretty bad and misleading, and I agree with the above points that "threading the needle" doesn't apply here as dyothelitism is the orthodox view.

Let me reframe my question. In the Oprah video, the EO Preist accuses the Catholic and Lutheran of promoting Nestorianism. They then in return accuse the EO priest of promoting Nestorianism based on his argument. This is my confusion: at first glance I seemingly agree with what the Catholic and Lutheran guys are saying, as the EO Priest seems to be saying Christ could be tempted in part, and not in the other part. Which is Nestorianism in that it is in effect compartmentalizing the two wills.

What am I missing? I have high respect for that priest (I have some EOC friends so I've seen his stuff in the past), and I know that he knows his stuff, so I feel like I'm not fully understanding his point.

Does this make sense?
:) Hi fab413,
Thank you so much for this thread of yours! This is providential, and fortuitous, for me because this is what I've been studying deeply recently.

In the video you provided, the Greek Orthodox Priest stated correctly that Christ was not tempted internally.

Every reformed theologian I have studied thus far agree that Christ did not have a sin nature and all "so-called temptations" were external. Unlike fallen human beings, there was nothing in Christ for Satan to gain agreement from. (John 14:30)

Furthermore, the priest was correct that it is the "person" who is tempted, not a nature.

It was/is impossible to cause Christ, the eternally begotten Son, to falter even for a fraction of a moment in His perfect love for the Father and His perfect communion/fellowship with the Father.

To find something appealing and attractive in a sinful temptation is in itself sin (for the sin occurs in the mind even if not acted upon).

The Catholic and Lutheran do indeed sound Nestorian in this video.
 
Nestorius taught two acting subjects in the Logos. It's not clear who in the Reformed world actually teaches that.
The many in the Reformed world who teach Peccability (which is Nestorian) employ 2 acting moral subjects.
Also, those in the Reformed world who teach only the human nature atoned employ 2 acting moral subjects.
And, those in the Reformed world who remove the divine element from the atonement employ 2 acting moral subjects.
 
The many in the Reformed world who teach Peccability (which is Nestorian) employ 2 acting moral subjects.
Also, those in the Reformed world who teach only the human nature atoned employ 2 acting moral subjects.
And, those in the Reformed world who remove the divine element from the atonement employ 2 acting moral subjects.

Do you have links to any Reformed that teach peccability or teach one nature removed or atoned above the other?
 
I have had the problem of unintentionally straying in a Nestorian direction in trying to rationalise the hypostatic union. What helped me was when I was able to maintain that Jesus Christ is a Divine Person, the eternal Son of God, who has taken on a human nature (soul and body). As such, the eternal Son of God who is impassible, unchangeable, and so on, undergoes human suffering, temptation, change etc. Thus we can speak of the Person Jesus Christ as dying for our sins, experiencing rejection and abandonment, and other such things, without any suggestion that there is any change to the divine nature.

Thomas Wienandy's Does God Suffer? is an extremely useful text that explains this in great depth.
 
The many in the Reformed world who teach Peccability (which is Nestorian) employ 2 acting moral subjects.
Also, those in the Reformed world who teach only the human nature atoned employ 2 acting moral subjects.
And, those in the Reformed world who remove the divine element from the atonement employ 2 acting moral subjects.
I agree that you can find people who teach 2 and 3. Reformed traditionally have taught the impeccability of Christ (cf WGT Shedd).
 
Wait a minute....I'm connecting dots with older threads on Nestorianism. I'm starting to get an idea. We'll see what comes of it. (Let the reader understand)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top