Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Two Wills or One Will
Hello everyone,
Piekhristos Aftonf!
I would like to know the official viewpoint regarding the Will/Wills of Christ. We know that Jesus Christ is perfectly human and perfectly divine. Now, we also say that Jesus Christ resembled us in everything, except for sin. Therefore, doesn't that mean that he had a human will, that submitted to his divine will?
Let's consider Adam in the Garden. He had a human will, yet he was without the fallen human nature, until he ate from the tree. Hypothetically, let's say he was working in the garden (before his fall) and passed by the tree, and wanted to eat from it. In this case, we could say that his human will was to eat from the tree. However, he recalls God's commandment, which told him not to eat from the tree. Therefore, Adam's human will has submitted to the divine will of God- in accordance with God's commandment.
However, Pope Shenouda seems to think differently. In his book entitled "Nature of Christ", he has an essay at the end called "The One Will and The One Act." Already, I feel there is a problem. Shouldn't it be more properly called "The Two Wills, and the One Act"?
This is the quote that really gets me uneasy. It says "Thus, the crucifixion was the choice of the Divine as well as the
human nature."
But doesn't this perfectly contradict Matthew 26:39..? Let's see what the verse says.
"He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
It seems to me that this verse makes it clear that his human nature is uneasy about dying on the cross, as it is afraid of death. Yet, I have no doubt in my mind that his human will was subjected to his divine will as he willingly (following the divine will, as he did in all cases) died on the cross.
Moreover, there is another clue in this quote. He says, not as I WILL but as YOU WILL. Seems like there is really no debate even as to whether or not he has one will, but rather that he has two-with one (his human will) being WILLINGLY and ENTIRELY subjected to his divine will, which is the same as The Father's will.
So therefore, would someone please enlighten me as to how or why our church claims he has One will, and not just One Act?
Thanks,
PK
Piekhristos Aftonf!
I would like to know the official viewpoint regarding the Will/Wills of Christ. We know that Jesus Christ is perfectly human and perfectly divine. Now, we also say that Jesus Christ resembled us in everything, except for sin. Therefore, doesn't that mean that he had a human will, that submitted to his divine will?
Let's consider Adam in the Garden. He had a human will, yet he was without the fallen human nature, until he ate from the tree. Hypothetically, let's say he was working in the garden (before his fall) and passed by the tree, and wanted to eat from it. In this case, we could say that his human will was to eat from the tree. However, he recalls God's commandment, which told him not to eat from the tree. Therefore, Adam's human will has submitted to the divine will of God- in accordance with God's commandment.
However, Pope Shenouda seems to think differently. In his book entitled "Nature of Christ", he has an essay at the end called "The One Will and The One Act." Already, I feel there is a problem. Shouldn't it be more properly called "The Two Wills, and the One Act"?
This is the quote that really gets me uneasy. It says "Thus, the crucifixion was the choice of the Divine as well as the
human nature."
But doesn't this perfectly contradict Matthew 26:39..? Let's see what the verse says.
"He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
It seems to me that this verse makes it clear that his human nature is uneasy about dying on the cross, as it is afraid of death. Yet, I have no doubt in my mind that his human will was subjected to his divine will as he willingly (following the divine will, as he did in all cases) died on the cross.
Moreover, there is another clue in this quote. He says, not as I WILL but as YOU WILL. Seems like there is really no debate even as to whether or not he has one will, but rather that he has two-with one (his human will) being WILLINGLY and ENTIRELY subjected to his divine will, which is the same as The Father's will.
So therefore, would someone please enlighten me as to how or why our church claims he has One will, and not just One Act?
Thanks,
PK
Comments
Let me ask you, when you study or solve a math problem is it your flesh only that is thinking or is your whole person of body, soul, and spirit.
If you say just the body, then I would say a dead body cannot think. If you say just the spirit, then the spirit cannot show its work except through the body. The proper way to put it is that the person altogether did this or that work.
So with the Lord, when He did a miracle, let's say the opening of the eyes who was born blind. He did it as the one incarnate God; the divinity and the humanity worked in tandem to perform the miracle. The Divinity did not stop the humanity from spitting and the humanity did not stop the divinity from creating the eyes. Also, creating the eyes was done through the humanity. We cannot attribute the miracle to just the humanity nor just to the divinity. He did it as the incarnate God.
Fr. Peter gave some good answers about the topic on this thread: http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php/topic,10239.0.html
Some of the thread isn't related but later on it addresses the subject. Definitely read Fr. Peter's posts in that thread.
Here, the Son incarnate, is addressing the Father and shows that both His will and that of the Father are the same. If the Son truly wanted to bypass the Cross, He could have but that is impossible because both the Father and the Son have the same will.
This verse has nothing to do with the flesh and the Divinity but the Father and the Son showing the same will to save mankind.
The verse also shows that Jesus really took a real flesh that was not consumed by the Divinity as Eutychos claimed in the 4th century. He is perfect man and perfect God.