FrozenChosen
Puritan Board Freshman
I was reading in Sir Steven Runciman's [i:8b10f85e67]History of the Crusades, Volume 1[/i:8b10f85e67]. Since I had set it down for a while, I started from the beginning again. He starts off in the 600s and points out how many considered Heraclius to be the first Crusader against the Persians.
Then the book mentioned how Heraclius began to dabble in matters of theology. He desired to see the Eastern churches united back with the Western churches. The Eastern churches were more Monophysitic than anything, and the Catholic church said no.
Heraclius came up with two ideas, one being monoenergism, and the second being monotheletism. I decided to see if I could find any information about these ideas (apparently heresies condemned by the popes).
Monoenergism says that while Christ had two natures, human and divine, he only had one will. The terminology was deliberately vague, with "will" meaning more of "motivation."
Monotheletism is a rehash of Monoenergism, with "will" being more redefined, but I have yet to find how it differs.
The major question the Catholics had was that if Christ only had one will, wouldn't he be less than fully human, and wouldn't his humanity be a mere tool of divine use?
Would it be appropriate to say that Christ has two natures, indivisible and indistinguishable, as well as two wills (divine and human) that share the same unity as his natures?
I'm curious as to what a Reformer would say. I didn't see any treatment of the issue in my Berkhof Systematic.
Then the book mentioned how Heraclius began to dabble in matters of theology. He desired to see the Eastern churches united back with the Western churches. The Eastern churches were more Monophysitic than anything, and the Catholic church said no.
Heraclius came up with two ideas, one being monoenergism, and the second being monotheletism. I decided to see if I could find any information about these ideas (apparently heresies condemned by the popes).
Monoenergism says that while Christ had two natures, human and divine, he only had one will. The terminology was deliberately vague, with "will" meaning more of "motivation."
Monotheletism is a rehash of Monoenergism, with "will" being more redefined, but I have yet to find how it differs.
The major question the Catholics had was that if Christ only had one will, wouldn't he be less than fully human, and wouldn't his humanity be a mere tool of divine use?
Would it be appropriate to say that Christ has two natures, indivisible and indistinguishable, as well as two wills (divine and human) that share the same unity as his natures?
I'm curious as to what a Reformer would say. I didn't see any treatment of the issue in my Berkhof Systematic.