User:Gog the Mild/Typos of Constans FAC draft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gog the Mild I had posted something then realized I left out Chalcedon, so I have taken it back! I shall return! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild Okay, a second try. I hope you aren't disappointed.


The doctrine that Christ had two natures, one fully human and one fully divine, also insisted that Christ had two wills, since the will is a property of the nature.[1] This claimed the human will conformed naturally to the divine will, yet a person does not merely have a soul or a mind or a will; a person is wholly constituted as being that soul and mind and will.[2]: 7, 8  If Jesus' Being embraced two complete beings, one a fully functional and separate human body, soul and will, that amounts to a second part of the divine Logos. They would not be one person; they would instead be "a theological and metaphysical counterpart to conjoined twins".[2]: 3  The two natures doctrine has a tendency to destroy the unity of Christ, and Jesus' mission as divine depended upon his unity with the will of the Father.[3]

One effort to resolve this produced Monophysitism. Monophysitism took the sentence "the word was made flesh" John 1:14 believing it meant the divine nature, when changed into the human, absorbed and changed the human, making the two natures into one divine nature.[4][5] Being solely divine treads upon the real human suffering of the cross.[6] This led to the fourth ecumenical council in 451, the Council of Chalcedon, which wrote the Definition in response.[5][7]: 67 

The Chalcedonian Definition sees the Incarnation as a personal or hypostatic union. Hypostasis is a Greek term for the substance that underlies and supports all of reality.[7]: 68  Two natures of Christ are formed by one ontological entity into two manners of existence. "The significant difference between Chalcedonian and monophysite Christologies lies in their respective capacities for accommodating putative contradictions. Supposing that the list of necessary divine attributes conflicts with the list of necessary human attributes, Chalcedonianism can, and monophysitism cannot, allow that the incarnate divine person is truly God and man, with all the attributes entailed by each nature".[8] Monophysitism was thus declared a heresy at Chalcedon.[9]

By the seventh century in the Byzantine empire, emperor Heraclius decided he wanted to win back the "excommunicated and persecuted Monophysites of Egypt and Syria".[10]: 60  The Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, understood how serious these issues were for the church and thought a teaching that had been going around in Egypt might provide the bridge between orthodoxy and monophysitism and heal the breach.[10] This new teaching asserted two natures but only one will: monothelitism. In 638, Heraclius issued the "Statement of faith" that formulated the position explaining that the divine and human natures in Christ, while quite distinct, had but one will (thelēma) and one operation (energeia).[10] "Unfortunately, this led to such intense controversy that Heraclius's successor, Constans II (r.641-668 CE) had to issue an edict in 648 CE forbidding all discussion of the question".[10]

The controversy revived under emperor Constantine IV in 668 CE. In order to avoid tearing apart Jesus' unity, the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680 CE, also held in Constantinople, declared that, while Jesus had two natures, his human will was determined by the divine will.[3] Taken strictly, this omits Jesus' voluntary capacity necessary for atonement.[3] Monothelitism was condemned and declared a heresy in 680.[10]: 291 


Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


Possible sources[edit]

  1. ^ McManners, John, ed. (2001). The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. Oxford University Press. p. 140. ISBN 9780192854391.
  2. ^ a b Wong, Kevin W. (2016). "Revisiting Monothelitism And Dyothelitism: A Respectful Response TO Craig And Deweese" (PDF). Evangelical Theological Society. National Conference. Retrieved 22 November 2020.
  3. ^ a b c Pannenberg, Wolfgang (1977). Jesus - God and Man. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 294. ISBN 9780664244682.
  4. ^ von Hefele, Karl Joseph; Plumptre, Edward Hayes; Oxenham, Henry Nutcombe (1883). Clark, William Robinson (ed.). A History of the Christian Councils: A.D. 431 to A.D. 451. Harvard University. p. 182; fn1.
  5. ^ a b Rhodes, Ron (2015). The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations Understanding the History, Beliefs, and Differences. Harvest House Publishers. p. 315. ISBN 9780736952927.
  6. ^ Weinandy, Thomas (2000). Does God Suffer?. University of Notre Dame Press. p. Preface. ISBN 9780268161668.
  7. ^ a b Gaddis, Michael; Price, Richard, eds. (2005). The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Volume 1 ed.). Liverpool University Press. ISBN 0-85323-039-0.
  8. ^ Cross, Richard (2001). "A Recent Contribution on the Distinction between Monophysitism and Chalcedonianism". The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review. 65 (3). Project MUSE: 361–383. doi:10.1353/tho.2001.0001. Retrieved 3 December 2020.
  9. ^ Caldarola, Carlo, ed. (1982). Religions and Societies, Asia and the Middle East. Mouton. p. 120. ISBN 9789027932594.
  10. ^ a b c d e Djukic, Ljudmila (2019). LePree, James Francis; Djukic, Ljudmila (eds.). The Byzantine Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781440851476.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gog_the_Mild/Typos_of_Constans_FAC_draft&oldid=992511305"