At around 15:00 editing software glitched. Here is the quote: But the will resides in a subject, just as the forms of the artisans. For indeed, the act of willing or not willing would not belong to the will itself, but rather to another, in which the will is, or in some manner. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogues on the Trinity
Cyril of Alexandria calls the Human Nature of Christ the “Co-Laborer of the Word” (Commentary on Luke). If Christ has no Will proper to his Human Nature, then that nature cannot, by definition, be a co-laborer with God. For every action proceeds from the ability of the essence. But the human ability is precisely to act by Will. If Christ had no “ability” (Will) then he also had no human essence whereby He can be called a “Co-Laborer” of the Word. In fact, He is also no longer a Human Being but merely an illusion of one if His Will was ontologically identical to the Divine Will. Not only this, but if the Divine Will is the soul source of action in Christ, then God worked through Christ without a rational soul. But since, as Nazianzen says, “whatever isn’t assumed isn’t healed,” then, God MUSTVE assumed a human nature with the faculty of Will. Since by “Choice” man fell, by “Choice” (obedience) man was redeemed. If you take away the faculty of Will from Christ human nature then you strip him of “obedience.” Even more, He is no second “Adam” but a mere phantasm. Lastly, your reading of the “possibility” of Christ bypassing the passion is not in accords with the Fathers. Take this from Augustine: “He said not, if He could do it, but if it could be done; for whatever He wills is possible. We must therefore understand, “if it be possible,” as if it were; if He is willing. And lest any one should suppose that He lessened His Father’s power, He shews in what sense the words are to be understood; for there follows, “And He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee.” By which He sufficiently shows that the words, “if it be possible,” must be understood not of any impossibility, but of the Will of His Father.” Or again, Hilary if Poitier, Ambrose of Milan, and Jerome all take a different interpretation. None of which comes to the conclusion you draw. Here is another from Blessed Dionysius of Alexandria: “Dionysius: Father, if You be willing to remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but Yours, be done. But let these things be enough to say on the subject of the will. This word, however, Let the cup pass, does not mean, Let it not come near me, or approach me. For what can pass from Him, certainly must first come near Him; and what does pass thus from Him, must be by Him. For if it does not reach Him, it cannot pass from Him. For He takes to Himself the person of man, as having been made man. Wherefore also on this occasion He deprecates the doing of the inferior, which is His own, and begs that the superior should be done, which is His Father's, to wit, the divine will; which again, however, in respect of the divinity, is one and the same will in Himself and in the Father. For it was the Father's will that He should pass through every trial (temptation); and the Father Himself in a marvellous manner brought Him on this course, not indeed with the trial itself as His goal, nor in order simply that He might enter into that, but in order that He might prove Himself to be above the trial, and also beyond it. And surely it is the fact, that the Saviour asks neither what is impossible, nor what is impracticable, nor what is contrary to the will of the Father. It is something possible; for Mark makes mention of His saying, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto You. And they are possible if He wills them; for Luke tells us that He said, Father, if You be willing, remove this cup from me. The Holy Spirit, therefore, apportioned among the evangelists, makes up the full account of our Saviour's whole disposition by the expressions of these several narrators together. He does not, then, ask of the Father what the Father wills not. For the words, If You be willing, were demonstrative of subjection and docility, not of ignorance or hesitancy. For this reason, the other scripture says, All things are possible unto You. And Matthew again admirably describes the submission and humility when he says, If it be possible. For unless I adapt the sense in this way, some will perhaps assign an impious signification to this expression, If it be possible; as if there were anything impossible for God to do, except that only which He does not will to do.” Or again, consider Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa: ATHANASIUS: For here He manifests a double will. One indeed human, which is of the flesh, the other divine. For our human nature, because of the weakness of the flesh, refuses the Passion, but His divine will eagerly embraced it, for that it was not possible that He should be holden of death. GREGORY OF NYSSA: Now Apollinaris asserts that Christ had not His own will according to His earthly nature, but that in Christ exists only the will of God who descends from heaven. Let him then say what will is it which God would have by no means to be fulfilled? And the Divine nature does not remove His own will.
My Brother. Please, allow me to add something to your quotations 🙏🏻, it would be this: "How did the Word Incarnate truly become a human being, if he lacked that which best characterizes a nature as rational? For what is deprived of the movement of longing that follows desire has no share in any power of life. And that which does not possess any power of life out of its nature is clearly not a soul of any kind, without which the flesh is not what it is. Therefore the economy would be a mere fantasy, if he merely had the shape of flesh. But if, as Severus said, he did not have, as man, a natural will, the Word Incarnate would not fulfill the hypostatic union with flesh, endowed by nature with a rational soul and intellect. For if he was truly, as man, lacking a natural will, he would not truly have become perfect man And if he did not truly become perfect man, he did not become man at all. For what kind of existence does an imperfect nature have, since its principle of existence no longer exists? The purport therefore of Severus, and his followers, is by a certain natural diminishment to expel the assumed nature in the ineffable union, and to cover themselves with the defilement of Mani's fantasy, Apollinaris' confusion, and Eutyches' fusion. I remember when I was staying in the island of Crete, that I heard from certain false bishops of the Severan party, who disputed with me, that 'we do not say, in accordance with The Tome of Leo, that there are two energies in Christ, because it would follow that there are two wills, and that would necessarily introduce a duality of persons, nor again do we say one energy, which might be regarded as simple, but we say, in accordance with Severus, that one will, and every divine and human energy proceeds from one and the same God the Word Incarnate.' Against them one might angrily apply that part of the prophecy: "O, O, flee from the north; in Zion you are saved, you who inhabit the daughter of Babylon." (Zec. 2:6-7) From the north: that is truly the understanding of Severus, a place become gloomy, and deprived of divine the continuance of the divine light. Daughter of Babylon: the confided teaching of false dogmas, wickedly brought forth from the most wicked habit picked up from him, which those inhabit, who have turned away from the light of knowledge, and not with those to be saved through conversion to Zion,I mean the Church. For the doctrine of Severus, when examined is opposed both to theology and to the economy." (St. Maximus the Confessor - Opuscule 3) We Can See Right Here Why Miaphysite People in UA-cam mostly [Agen, Dioscoros, Kidus] have SO MUCH HATRED toward St. Maximus the Confessor. Literally St. Maximus just Refuted & Rebuked their own "so-called saint" Severus of Antioch. Whom they are glorified eventhough Severus' teachings has flaws.
A response to this comment needs to be offered. As it is, I’m not quite sure how the view expressed in the video is not the Apollinarianism that St. Gregory of Nyssa opposes in the quote at the end of the comment; they almost appear identical. I would like to also hear a response to a more simple question: Did/does Christ heal our (human) will or not? (If he did, then by Nazianzen’s principle, he assumed a human will. If he did not, oh dear…) In charity, I’ll offer what I think may be the response: “Christ assumed a human nature with a human will at the incarnation, but just as he is one composite nature *of* two natures but not *in* two natures after the union, he has one composite will *of* the two wills, divine and human, after the union, and it is by virtue of being united in this way to the divine will that the human will is healed.” Is that right? I don’t think that was said clearly in the video, and I’m also not sure that it can be reconciled with some of the quotes (e.g., from Athanasius or Dionysius, or even from Cyril re: co-laboring) provided in the comment here, which suggest two wills after the union.
Yes, Will is the faculty of a Subject of a nature. But Christ is one subject in two natures. Hence, one subject, two wills. For Christ does not possess a gnomic will which is deliberative between contraries. But he possesses a natural will that has no opposition to God. For opposition comes from the will which has a downward movement towards sensible pleasures due to the Law of Sin and death. Christ did not have this law present in his members for His will was deified at the moment of the union. His Natural Will is the antidote to our “opposing” will. God does not create “opposed” wills since opposition is by distinct gnomies which is a misuse (willing) of nature.
@2:19 St. John Chrysostom *“the will of the one differs not from the will of the other”* implies a sympathy of two wills, not one literal will. There are two wills not differing from one another; the Father’s and the Son’s But uh oh! The Triune God has only one will, and not 3. There persons with a common will. How can there then be two wills referred to by St. Chrysostom as not differing? This other will besides the Divine Will resides in Christ on account of His human nature.
"What has not been assumed has not been healed; it is what is united to his divinity that is saved. . .”-Gregory of Nazianzus. Christ assumed our nature, including a human intellect and will, which He thereby redeemed. If you say He had no human will, you say He did not redeem our will.
Jesus has two wills. “And He went a little farther, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I WILL, but as Thou WILT” Matthew 26:39 The verse clearly differentiates the human and divine wills. Here, the human nature is afraid, but submits to the divine nature.
Christ assumed a human substance that He united to His Divine Suppositum (Hypostasis, Person). That human substance had its own will. Yet the human substance was not its own person or suppositum because it was not complete by itself (that is, it could not properly be called “individual” or standalone), but was from the first instant of its creation, was united to the Divine Suppositum or Person.
How does obedience as a spiritual discipline work in your worldview? In the Eastern Orthodox framework, Christ's 2 Wills acts as a blueprint for our obedience amongst each other. When viewed this way, it functions as a spiritual discipline, which implies 2 parties working in an ascetically mediated harmony. If your Christ's agency is as such, then it seems like an anthropology of tyrannical narcissistic abuse would follow, whereby the will and perception of the "underlings", so to speak, must needs be absorbed, dissolved and abolished to comform to that of the head. Obedience then would follow such a dynamic, making it forced as well as enforced. Let me know if I am wrong in this and there are sources I can consult to understand this better
Very good question. Rather than obedience being wrought from the human will to the divine will, it is rather between the Incarnate Word as second adam, and the Father. The same applies towards Christ being saved. Nestorius and Leo for instance would affirm that the human nature is saved by the divine nature, for us the Incarnate Word is saved by the Father. Christ takes our humanity which disobeyed God in the person of Adam. Because he is the Son of God and is Gods perfect image and Gods perfect will in totality, when he becomes the Son of Man he manifests a perfect mode of having identical will to God as a man. This seems like a lofty union none of us will achieve, but amidst his various human desires, he is steadfast in his one will and promises us a unity of will by grace akin to the unity of will he has to the Father by nature.
@@ApostolicOrthodoxy You are now expounding here Nestorian heresy where Son is in need of salvation due to His two natures being separated... You are entangled in between Monophysitism and Nestorianism not being able to realize both are wrong. Truth is in Eastern Orthodox Christology.
will is not proper to nature, it is proper to active subject. Α. Ἡ δὲ θέλησις ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ καθὰ καὶ τὰ τῶν τεχνητῶν εἴδη. Τὸ γάρ τοι θέλειν ἢ μή, προσγένοιτο ἂν οὐκ αὐτῷ τῷ θέλειν, ἀλλ' ἑτέρῳ μᾶλλον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ θέλειν ἐστίν, ἢ πῶς· __But the will resides in a subject,__ just as the forms of the artisans. For indeed, the act of willing or not willing would not belong to the will itself, but rather to another, in which the will is, or in some manner. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogues on the Trinity
“Even less is Christ divided into two natures. He is indeed one from two, from divinity and humanity, one person and hypostasis, the one nature of the Logos, become flesh and perfect human being. For this reason he also displays TWO wills in salvific suffering, the one which requests, the other which is prepared, the one human and the other divine.“ (St) Severus of Antioch
“ But because the Emmanuel is by nature also God and goodness itself, although he has become a child according to the economy, he did not await the time of the distinction (between good and evil), on the contrary. From the time of swaddling clothes, before he came to an age of distinguishing between good and evil, on the one side he spurned evil and did not listen to it, and on the other he chose good. These words ‘he spurned’ and ‘he did not listen’, and on the other ‘he chose’ show us *the Logos of God has united to himself not only to the flesh but also to *the soul, which is endowed with will* and understanding, in order to allow our souls, which are inclined towards evil, to lean towards choosing good and turning away from evil. For God as God does not need to choose good; but because for our sakes he assumed flesh and spiritual soul, he took for us this redress.” St. Severus of Antioch
Miathelitism, we can speak of one as it comes from two. Here can be a distinction made but it is proper to speak of one so as to avoid any latent, implied Nestorianism
You cant please god without faith Where is the mention of Christs human faith? It is impossible without faith. So if he's truly a man he wouldn't be able to do any of the miracles according to his divinity. He would depend upon god throught faith. It wont matter how you're saints use language in order to not create two subjects..but that is what god and man are two different subjects entirely. Human desires / passions is within human body and soul of the man which experiences together. Not possible with god since god is a different being entirely. @ApostolicOrthodoxy
@chrismathew2137 Nestorianism is that Christ is two persons. Christ is one person fully God and fully man. If Christ does not have a finite mind then he is not fully man.
The Trinity has one numerical will as one numerical agent with one numerical mind. The Trinity is singular in this sense, plurality in hypostases is on account of the various modes of subsistence of this one agent. Subject is not a univocal term and we apply three subjects of predication to the three hypostases but not three entelechial volitional subjects.
The only way to understand without contradicting what it is in scripture, is that Jesus only had a human will and that’s why he says things like not my will but your will be done, if Jesus had a divine will he would’ve been contradicting himself! By saying again not my will but your will unless Jesus always had a different divine will from the father wish makes no sense!
You are bordering with Arianism. Since Lord was fully God and fully human, He had what comprises us humans, including will... otherwise, our salvation through Him would have been impossible.
@ na I don’t go with Arianism our Lord Jesus is eternal. But the reasoning I completely logical, in my understanding Jesus left behind the glory and will that unites him with the father but still having divine attributes and the carácter of God wish are attached to who he is as a person ! Having only a human will is where the real challenge is for him, wish he completely succeeded in putting that will under the father’s will ! In that way it makes more sense those quotes of not my will but your will be done.
"For his determination to confess the Christ of the Gospels, St Maximus was subjected to cruel punishment: his tongue was cut out and his right hand amputated. Like St Martin, he died in exile. However, the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, 680-681, upheld completely St Maximus's teaching: 'We preach that in Him (Christ) there are two natural wills and desires, and two natural energies without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. These two natural wills are not opposed to each other... but His human will submits itself to the divine and omnipotent will'." Might want to check out the Ecumenical councils before you make crazy videos with your channel name claiming to be "Apostolic Orthodoxy". Or are you here claiming to be orthodox but rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church?
This channel has nothing to do with either Apostles or Orthodoxy. This channel is falling short of both as it belongs to the heretical Monophysite/Miaphysite heretic(s). So, be aware of these FALSE teachers here.!
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus Christ Human nature is the one interceding for us, Paul’s rethorical point would shatter if he followed a Monophysite view of Christology.
Christ's nature is simultaneously God and man, which is the only way for that verse to hold true. If Christ were 2 natures, then that verse wouldn't be true, because the human nature would be human and not divine, and the divine would remain exclusively divine and would not be also human. Nothing would be mediating except a mere word, which word is a noun of designation that has no power on its own.
@shema9172 by "nature," I mean individual nature, which is identical to the category of hypostasis rather than person. Christ is 1 hypostasis out of 2 hypostases.
At around 15:00 editing software glitched. Here is the quote:
But the will resides in a subject, just as the forms of the artisans. For indeed, the act of willing or not willing would not belong to the will itself, but rather to another, in which the will is, or in some manner.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogues on the Trinity
Cyril of Alexandria calls the Human Nature of Christ the “Co-Laborer of the Word” (Commentary on Luke). If Christ has no Will proper to his Human Nature, then that nature cannot, by definition, be a co-laborer with God. For every action proceeds from the ability of the essence. But the human ability is precisely to act by Will. If Christ had no “ability” (Will) then he also had no human essence whereby He can be called a “Co-Laborer” of the Word. In fact, He is also no longer a Human Being but merely an illusion of one if His Will was ontologically identical to the Divine Will.
Not only this, but if the Divine Will is the soul source of action in Christ, then God worked through Christ without a rational soul. But since, as Nazianzen says, “whatever isn’t assumed isn’t healed,” then, God MUSTVE assumed a human nature with the faculty of Will. Since by “Choice” man fell, by “Choice” (obedience) man was redeemed. If you take away the faculty of Will from Christ human nature then you strip him of “obedience.” Even more, He is no second “Adam” but a mere phantasm.
Lastly, your reading of the “possibility” of Christ bypassing the passion is not in accords with the Fathers. Take this from Augustine:
“He said not, if He could do it, but if it could be done; for whatever He wills is possible. We must therefore understand, “if it be possible,” as if it were; if He is willing. And lest any one should suppose that He lessened His Father’s power, He shews in what sense the words are to be understood; for there follows, “And He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee.” By which He sufficiently shows that the words, “if it be possible,” must be understood not of any impossibility, but of the Will of His Father.”
Or again, Hilary if Poitier, Ambrose of Milan, and Jerome all take a different interpretation. None of which comes to the conclusion you draw. Here is another from Blessed Dionysius of Alexandria:
“Dionysius: Father, if You be willing to remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but Yours, be done. But let these things be enough to say on the subject of the will. This word, however, Let the cup pass, does not mean, Let it not come near me, or approach me. For what can pass from Him, certainly must first come near Him; and what does pass thus from Him, must be by Him. For if it does not reach Him, it cannot pass from Him. For He takes to Himself the person of man, as having been made man. Wherefore also on this occasion He deprecates the doing of the inferior, which is His own, and begs that the superior should be done, which is His Father's, to wit, the divine will; which again, however, in respect of the divinity, is one and the same will in Himself and in the Father. For it was the Father's will that He should pass through every trial (temptation); and the Father Himself in a marvellous manner brought Him on this course, not indeed with the trial itself as His goal, nor in order simply that He might enter into that, but in order that He might prove Himself to be above the trial, and also beyond it. And surely it is the fact, that the Saviour asks neither what is impossible, nor what is impracticable, nor what is contrary to the will of the Father. It is something possible; for Mark makes mention of His saying, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto You. And they are possible if He wills them; for Luke tells us that He said, Father, if You be willing, remove this cup from me. The Holy Spirit, therefore, apportioned among the evangelists, makes up the full account of our Saviour's whole disposition by the expressions of these several narrators together. He does not, then, ask of the Father what the Father wills not. For the words, If You be willing, were demonstrative of subjection and docility, not of ignorance or hesitancy. For this reason, the other scripture says, All things are possible unto You. And Matthew again admirably describes the submission and humility when he says, If it be possible. For unless I adapt the sense in this way, some will perhaps assign an impious signification to this expression, If it be possible; as if there were anything impossible for God to do, except that only which He does not will to do.”
Or again, consider Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa:
ATHANASIUS: For here He manifests a double will. One indeed human, which is of the flesh, the other divine. For our human nature, because of the weakness of the flesh, refuses the Passion, but His divine will eagerly embraced it, for that it was not possible that He should be holden of death.
GREGORY OF NYSSA: Now Apollinaris asserts that Christ had not His own will according to His earthly nature, but that in Christ exists only the will of God who descends from heaven. Let him then say what will is it which God would have by no means to be fulfilled? And the Divine nature does not remove His own will.
BOOM 💢.
Based Arguments Right There, My Friend.
Let we see how Miaphysite supporter trying to refute this.
So real
My Brother.
Please, allow me to add something to your quotations 🙏🏻, it would be this:
"How did the Word Incarnate truly become a human being, if he lacked that which best characterizes a nature as rational? For what is deprived of the movement of longing that follows desire has no share in any power of life. And that which does not possess any power of life out of its nature is clearly not a soul of any kind, without which the flesh is not what it is. Therefore the economy would be a mere fantasy, if
he merely had the shape of flesh. But if, as Severus said, he did not have, as man, a natural will, the Word Incarnate would not fulfill the hypostatic union with flesh, endowed by nature with a rational soul and
intellect. For if he was truly, as man, lacking a natural will, he would not truly have become perfect man And if he did not truly become perfect man, he did
not become man at all. For what kind of existence does an imperfect nature have, since its principle of existence no longer exists? The purport therefore of
Severus, and his followers, is by a certain natural diminishment to expel the assumed nature in the ineffable union, and to cover themselves with the
defilement of Mani's fantasy, Apollinaris' confusion, and Eutyches' fusion. I remember when I was staying in the island of Crete, that I heard from certain false
bishops of the Severan party, who disputed with me, that 'we do not say, in accordance with The Tome of Leo, that there are two energies in Christ, because it
would follow that there are two wills, and that would necessarily introduce a duality of persons, nor again do we say one energy, which might be regarded as
simple, but we say, in accordance with Severus, that one will, and every divine and human energy proceeds from one and the same God the Word Incarnate.' Against them one might angrily apply that
part of the prophecy: "O, O, flee from the north; in Zion you are saved, you who inhabit the daughter of Babylon." (Zec. 2:6-7) From the north: that is truly the
understanding of Severus, a place become gloomy, and deprived of divine the continuance of the divine light. Daughter of Babylon: the confided teaching of
false dogmas, wickedly brought forth from the most wicked habit picked up from him, which those inhabit, who have turned away from the light of knowledge, and not with those to be saved through conversion to Zion,I mean the Church. For the doctrine of Severus, when examined is opposed both to theology and to the economy."
(St. Maximus the Confessor - Opuscule 3)
We Can See Right Here Why Miaphysite People in UA-cam mostly [Agen, Dioscoros, Kidus] have SO MUCH HATRED toward St. Maximus the Confessor.
Literally St. Maximus just Refuted & Rebuked their own "so-called saint" Severus of Antioch.
Whom they are glorified eventhough Severus' teachings has flaws.
Someone get this man a promotion.
I have posted quotes also to this effect by one of their own saints, Severus of Antioch
A response to this comment needs to be offered. As it is, I’m not quite sure how the view expressed in the video is not the Apollinarianism that St. Gregory of Nyssa opposes in the quote at the end of the comment; they almost appear identical.
I would like to also hear a response to a more simple question: Did/does Christ heal our (human) will or not? (If he did, then by Nazianzen’s principle, he assumed a human will. If he did not, oh dear…)
In charity, I’ll offer what I think may be the response: “Christ assumed a human nature with a human will at the incarnation, but just as he is one composite nature *of* two natures but not *in* two natures after the union, he has one composite will *of* the two wills, divine and human, after the union, and it is by virtue of being united in this way to the divine will that the human will is healed.” Is that right? I don’t think that was said clearly in the video, and I’m also not sure that it can be reconciled with some of the quotes (e.g., from Athanasius or Dionysius, or even from Cyril re: co-laboring) provided in the comment here, which suggest two wills after the union.
Yes, Will is the faculty of a Subject of a nature. But Christ is one subject in two natures. Hence, one subject, two wills. For Christ does not possess a gnomic will which is deliberative between contraries. But he possesses a natural will that has no opposition to God. For opposition comes from the will which has a downward movement towards sensible pleasures due to the Law of Sin and death. Christ did not have this law present in his members for His will was deified at the moment of the union. His Natural Will is the antidote to our “opposing” will. God does not create “opposed” wills since opposition is by distinct gnomies which is a misuse (willing) of nature.
So , Christ wanted eat and sleep.
Where does this will come from?
@2:19 St. John Chrysostom *“the will of the one differs not from the will of the other”* implies a sympathy of two wills, not one literal will. There are two wills not differing from one another; the Father’s and the Son’s
But uh oh! The Triune God has only one will, and not 3. There persons with a common will.
How can there then be two wills referred to by St. Chrysostom as not differing?
This other will besides the Divine Will resides in Christ on account of His human nature.
"What has not been assumed has not been healed;
it is what is united to his divinity that is saved. . .”-Gregory of Nazianzus. Christ assumed our nature, including a human intellect and will, which He thereby redeemed. If you say He had no human will, you say He did not redeem our will.
Did you even watch it?
There is one theandric will.
Rhetorical question.
Unsubstantiated assertion.
Jesus has two wills.
“And He went a little farther, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I WILL, but as Thou WILT”
Matthew 26:39
The verse clearly differentiates the human and divine wills.
Here, the human nature is afraid, but submits to the divine nature.
Can you lower the background music in the next video? It overpowers your voice at times
Christ assumed a human substance that He united to His Divine Suppositum (Hypostasis, Person). That human substance had its own will. Yet the human substance was not its own person or suppositum because it was not complete by itself (that is, it could not properly be called “individual” or standalone), but was from the first instant of its creation, was united to the Divine Suppositum or Person.
How does obedience as a spiritual discipline work in your worldview? In the Eastern Orthodox framework, Christ's 2 Wills acts as a blueprint for our obedience amongst each other. When viewed this way, it functions as a spiritual discipline, which implies 2 parties working in an ascetically mediated harmony.
If your Christ's agency is as such, then it seems like an anthropology of tyrannical narcissistic abuse would follow, whereby the will and perception of the "underlings", so to speak, must needs be absorbed, dissolved and abolished to comform to that of the head. Obedience then would follow such a dynamic, making it forced as well as enforced.
Let me know if I am wrong in this and there are sources I can consult to understand this better
Very good question. Rather than obedience being wrought from the human will to the divine will, it is rather between the Incarnate Word as second adam, and the Father. The same applies towards Christ being saved. Nestorius and Leo for instance would affirm that the human nature is saved by the divine nature, for us the Incarnate Word is saved by the Father. Christ takes our humanity which disobeyed God in the person of Adam. Because he is the Son of God and is Gods perfect image and Gods perfect will in totality, when he becomes the Son of Man he manifests a perfect mode of having identical will to God as a man. This seems like a lofty union none of us will achieve, but amidst his various human desires, he is steadfast in his one will and promises us a unity of will by grace akin to the unity of will he has to the Father by nature.
@@ApostolicOrthodoxy You are now expounding here Nestorian heresy where Son is in need of salvation due to His two natures being separated... You are entangled in between Monophysitism and Nestorianism not being able to realize both are wrong. Truth is in Eastern Orthodox Christology.
He has 2 wills. Will is proper to nature in the fathers so he has 2 wills
You didn’t watch the video
That's nestorianism or subordinationism Patrick
will is not proper to nature, it is proper to active subject.
Α. Ἡ δὲ θέλησις ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ καθὰ καὶ τὰ τῶν τεχνητῶν εἴδη. Τὸ γάρ τοι θέλειν ἢ μή, προσγένοιτο ἂν οὐκ αὐτῷ τῷ θέλειν, ἀλλ' ἑτέρῳ μᾶλλον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ θέλειν ἐστίν, ἢ πῶς· __But the will resides in a subject,__ just as the forms of the artisans. For indeed, the act of willing or not willing would not belong to the will itself, but rather to another, in which the will is, or in some manner.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogues on the Trinity
Wrong, Christ is 1 nature since He is 1 agent, and so He has 1 will.
Someone didn’t watch the video
“Even less is Christ divided into two natures. He is indeed one from two, from divinity and humanity, one person and hypostasis, the one nature of the Logos, become flesh and perfect human being. For this reason he also displays TWO wills in salvific suffering, the one which requests, the other which is prepared, the one human and the other divine.“
(St) Severus of Antioch
Can you share what is playing in the background
“ But because the Emmanuel is by nature also God and goodness itself, although he has become a child according to the economy, he did not await the time of the distinction (between good and evil), on the contrary. From the time of swaddling clothes, before he came to an age of distinguishing between good and evil, on the one side he spurned evil and did not listen to it, and on the other he chose good. These words ‘he spurned’ and ‘he did not listen’, and on the other ‘he chose’ show us *the Logos of God has united to himself not only to the flesh but also to *the soul, which is endowed with will* and understanding, in order to allow our souls, which are inclined towards evil, to lean towards choosing good and turning away from evil. For God as God does not need to choose good; but because for our sakes he assumed flesh and spiritual soul, he took for us this redress.”
St. Severus of Antioch
Change your channel name to apostolic heretic!
Because it offends you 😂
Miathelitism, we can speak of one as it comes from two. Here can be a distinction made but it is proper to speak of one so as to avoid any latent, implied Nestorianism
You cant please god without faith
Where is the mention of Christs human faith? It is impossible without faith.
So if he's truly a man he wouldn't be able to do any of the miracles according to his divinity. He would depend upon god throught faith.
It wont matter how you're saints use language in order to not create two subjects..but that is what god and man are two different subjects entirely.
Human desires / passions is within human body and soul of the man which experiences together. Not possible with god since god is a different being entirely.
@ApostolicOrthodoxy
Jesus has two minds. The infinite mind of God and His finite mind.
Nestorianism
@chrismathew2137 Nestorianism is that Christ is two persons. Christ is one person fully God and fully man. If Christ does not have a finite mind then he is not fully man.
No, you don't know what is Nestorianism 😂@@genericname7020
It is a composition
@@abenezert.6007 Neither
Will is grounded in subject? How is that not three Trinitarian wills?
The Trinity has one numerical will as one numerical agent with one numerical mind. The Trinity is singular in this sense, plurality in hypostases is on account of the various modes of subsistence of this one agent. Subject is not a univocal term and we apply three subjects of predication to the three hypostases but not three entelechial volitional subjects.
Are you saying there is a sense in which the Trinity is a singular subject?
@@rhedrich3Absolutely.
@@ApostolicOrthodoxy but not the same sense in which there are 3 subjects, right? Can you define "subject" in each case?
@@ApostolicOrthodoxyThat’s eternal modalism
The only way to understand without contradicting what it is in scripture, is that Jesus only had a human will and that’s why he says things like not my will but your will be done, if Jesus had a divine will he would’ve been contradicting himself!
By saying again not my will but your will unless Jesus always had a different divine will from the father wish makes no sense!
You are bordering with Arianism. Since Lord was fully God and fully human, He had what comprises us humans, including will... otherwise, our salvation through Him would have been impossible.
@ na I don’t go with Arianism our Lord Jesus is eternal.
But the reasoning I completely logical, in my understanding Jesus left behind the glory and will that unites him with the father but still having divine attributes and the carácter of God wish are attached to who he is as a person !
Having only a human will is where the real challenge is for him, wish he completely succeeded in putting that will under the father’s will !
In that way it makes more sense those quotes of not my will but your will be done.
Love the editing of this vid
St. Severus says that Christ has two wills.
He doesn't. 💀 St Severus believes in a composite will. Theandric will.
God bless you! Keep it up!
Interesting
W video
"For his determination to confess the Christ of the Gospels, St Maximus was subjected to cruel punishment: his tongue was cut out and his right hand amputated. Like St Martin, he died in exile. However, the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, 680-681, upheld completely St Maximus's teaching: 'We preach that in Him (Christ) there are two natural wills and desires, and two natural energies without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. These two natural wills are not opposed to each other... but His human will submits itself to the divine and omnipotent will'."
Might want to check out the Ecumenical councils before you make crazy videos with your channel name claiming to be "Apostolic Orthodoxy". Or are you here claiming to be orthodox but rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church?
💯☦️
The Oriental Orthodox don’t accept the Sixth Council nor do we venerate Maximus. Your references are post-schismatic
This channel has nothing to do with either Apostles or Orthodoxy. This channel is falling short of both as it belongs to the heretical Monophysite/Miaphysite heretic(s). So, be aware of these FALSE teachers here.!
God bless you.
Important topic 👍
Great video, keep it up!
🔥🔥
I didint realize u dropped this early 😭
Thank you
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus
Christ Human nature is the one interceding for us, Paul’s rethorical point would shatter if he followed a Monophysite view of Christology.
Good thing we don't
Spoiler alert: we believe Christ has a human nature
Christ's nature is simultaneously God and man, which is the only way for that verse to hold true.
If Christ were 2 natures, then that verse wouldn't be true, because the human nature would be human and not divine, and the divine would remain exclusively divine and would not be also human. Nothing would be mediating except a mere word, which word is a noun of designation that has no power on its own.
@@dioscoros
I agree, and if you mean by ”nature” a person I agree, but you can’t mix his two natures, it would destroy the incarnation.
@shema9172 by "nature," I mean individual nature, which is identical to the category of hypostasis rather than person. Christ is 1 hypostasis out of 2 hypostases.
Quote minds incoming.
One composite W