5Solas5Points
Puritan Board Freshman
How is there one mind and one will within the Trinity if Jesus also has a human mind and human will?
One Mind and One Will Within the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union.
- Thread starter 5Solas5Points
- Start date
- Status
LittleFaith
Puritan Board Sophomore
If you're asking for help comprehending that reality, you'll have to wait until glory - with every indication that even then you'll spend an eternity comprehending and contemplating that fact but never quite understanding it with the perfection with which God understands himself.
The "how" part is difficult, but perhaps it's helpful to understand why the church has come to teach this. Much of the church teaching on the Trinity and on the person of Christ came about because other understandings ultimately proved incompatible with what Scripture teaches. The church then formulated doctrinal statements (Nicea and Chalcedon) that rule out those false understandings without necessarily providing a full explanation of what Scripture does teach. After all, contra the rationalism or reductionism that led to so many of the early heresies, if God is truly incomprehensible, then there's probably going to be a point at which human understanding reaches a roadblock.
The Trinity must have one mind and one will in order to preserve the unity and simplicity of God. If you allow for three minds and three wills - even if asserting that they are in perfect concord - then you've become de facto tri-theistic.
On the other hand, Christ with respect to his human nature must be fully and truly human because "what is not assumed is not healed". Therefore, with respect to his humanity, he must have a human body, a human mind, a human will, and even a human soul. If he doesn't have those things, he can't truly be an intercessor on our behalf, because the intercessor must be human like us.
Both of these conclusions are logically and Scripturally necessary and so the early church taught. It's just part of the outworking of Christ's full divinity and humanity; as God he must have been partaker of the one divine mind and will. As man he had to be truly human - at times not fully omniscient, subject to human weakness and emotion, yet without the taint of original sin, exercising his human faculties perfectly and in perfect submission to the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit. If the result seems, on the surface, somewhat non-sensical, try pondering the logical implications of other conclusions.
Recommended reading - the Chalcedonian Formula; On the Incarnation by Athanasius. The smart people on here (I just parrot what they say) can recommend some more in-depth reads but those two are pretty accessible and helpful as a start.
The "how" part is difficult, but perhaps it's helpful to understand why the church has come to teach this. Much of the church teaching on the Trinity and on the person of Christ came about because other understandings ultimately proved incompatible with what Scripture teaches. The church then formulated doctrinal statements (Nicea and Chalcedon) that rule out those false understandings without necessarily providing a full explanation of what Scripture does teach. After all, contra the rationalism or reductionism that led to so many of the early heresies, if God is truly incomprehensible, then there's probably going to be a point at which human understanding reaches a roadblock.
The Trinity must have one mind and one will in order to preserve the unity and simplicity of God. If you allow for three minds and three wills - even if asserting that they are in perfect concord - then you've become de facto tri-theistic.
On the other hand, Christ with respect to his human nature must be fully and truly human because "what is not assumed is not healed". Therefore, with respect to his humanity, he must have a human body, a human mind, a human will, and even a human soul. If he doesn't have those things, he can't truly be an intercessor on our behalf, because the intercessor must be human like us.
Both of these conclusions are logically and Scripturally necessary and so the early church taught. It's just part of the outworking of Christ's full divinity and humanity; as God he must have been partaker of the one divine mind and will. As man he had to be truly human - at times not fully omniscient, subject to human weakness and emotion, yet without the taint of original sin, exercising his human faculties perfectly and in perfect submission to the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit. If the result seems, on the surface, somewhat non-sensical, try pondering the logical implications of other conclusions.
Recommended reading - the Chalcedonian Formula; On the Incarnation by Athanasius. The smart people on here (I just parrot what they say) can recommend some more in-depth reads but those two are pretty accessible and helpful as a start.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Each nature has a will. Jesus has two natures, therefore two wills
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Those are my thoughts exactly.
When I was young, married with four children, I would often say to my wife that the only Heaven I can imagine is living with my family in a sin-free environment with our Lord.
Man, has that changed in the past 6 or 7 years! It is the Lord of all that I need to be enamored with. For He is good, and his [חסד hesed] (H2617) endures forever.
I now know that the Lord of Heaven will be the center of everything, not me. Finally, I'll be rid of me.
I now say that the only heaven I can imagine is an eternity of ever-growing knowledge, love, and joy in knowing this Thrice-Holy and wholey Other God who loves us.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Key to understanding the two wills in the incarnate Christ, insofar as is possible, is the perfect submission, and thus subsuming of the human will into the divine will - Matthew 26:39, 42; John 4:34, 5:19-20, 5:30, 5:36, 6:38, 8:28-29, 10:30, 17:22-23
The Definition of Chalcedon addresses the two natures/wills of Christ:
The Definition of Chalcedon addresses the two natures/wills of Christ:
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all unite in teaching that we should confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This same one is perfect in deity, and the same one is perfect in humanity; the same one is true God and true man, comprising a rational soul and a body. He is of the same essence (Greek: homousios) as the Father according to his deity, and the same one is of the same essence (homousios) with us according to his humanity, like us in all things except sin. He was begotten before the ages from the Father according to his deity, but in the last days for us and our salvation, the same one was born of the Virgin Mary, the bearer of God (Theotokos), according to his humanity. He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, and Only Begotten, who is made known in two natures (physeis) united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The distinction between the natures (physeis) is not at all destroyed because of the union, but rather the property of each nature (physis) is preserved and concurs together into one person (prosopon) and subsistence (hypostasis). He is not separated or divided into two persons (prosopa), but he is one and the same Son, the Only Begotten, God the Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the way the prophets spoke of him from the beginning, and Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and the Council of the fathers has handed the faith down to us.
Last edited:
Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
Here are reformed resources on Christ's divine will and distinct human will:
https://reformedbooksonline.com/Christ-has-two-harmonious-wills-divine-human/
The human mind and will are not Trinitarian. The Son now has two natures; the Father and the Spirit do not. Mind and will are natural attributes, so a hypostasis will have as many minds and wills as he has natures.
Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
I added Rutherford's assertions on the topic here:
https://reformedbooksonline.com/Christ-has-two-harmonious-wills-divine-human/#rutherford
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Because Christ's humanity is not within the Trinity.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Is this true? How does that square with the Chalcedonies Definition?
He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, and Only Begotten, who is made known in two natures united unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The distinction between the natures is not at all destroyed because of the union, but rather the property of each nature is preserved and concurs together into one person and subsistence. He is not separated or divided into two persons, but he is one and the same Son, the Only Begotten, God the Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
It is Chalcedonian. To say that his humanity was subsumed into the Godhead would be the very error that Chalcedon was called to correct. His humanity is a creature; it cannot be within the Trinity.
The Godman is within the Trinity, but not after his humanity.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Hmmmmm.... I guess I need to study that more...
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
If you can lay hold of 1) the creator-creature distinction and 2) the two natures of Christ, everything will fall into place. Anytime I talk about the Godman I try to test my statements by these two fundamental principles.
Christ is God and man, but his humanity is not divine, and his divinity is not human.
Eutychians taught that Christ's humanity was subsumed into his divinity. That was the occasion for Chalcedon.
Monophysites (or Miaphysites) teach that Christ has one, compound nature, which is equally human and divine. They reject Chalcedon to this day.
Nestorians teach that, in the incarnation, the Second Person of the Godhead united a human person, not merely a human nature, to himself.
Chalcedonian orthodoxy teaches that the Second Person of the Godhead took to himself a human nature, body and soul, and united it to his divine Person (or hypostasis). Thus, the hypostatic union is the union of the human nature to the Divine hypostasis (person). Neither the human nor divine nature is modified by the union.
Last edited:
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
I do understand the importance of maintaining that Christ's human nature was not subsumed into his divine nature. Yet is it appropriate to say that his human will was subsumed into the divine will - as I posited in post #5 above - and especially in light of John 5:19, 20, 30)? Are nature and will somehow distinguishable in this respect?
Knight
Puritan Board Freshman
It is not appropriate to say "his human will was subsumed into the divine will." The latter does not absorb the former, nor is the human will categorizable under the divine will, so I'm not sure what your intended meaning is when you use the word "subsume."
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
No, sir. Nothing creaturely can be subsumed into the Divine. The doctrine that Christ has only one will, by the way, is historically called monothelitism. It was condemned as heresy at Constantinople III, not long after Maximus the Confessor died for contending against it.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
Alright, this is helpful. Perhaps fully subordinated (volitionally) more precisely defines what I'm getting at. Would that be more appropriate terminology?
Last edited:
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I think you're talking about his human will now, rather than his human mind.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
I have been all along...
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm sorry, brother. My human mind lapsed entirely for a minute there!
Yes, Christ's human will was (and is) subordinate to the one Divine will.
Obedient, I think is the Biblical language here; we could specify entirely or completely or perfectly. But the concept of obedience maintains the necessary distinction (you don't obey yourself) while preserving the harmony.
- Status
