I realize that monothelitism arose in the context of Chalcedonian dyophysitism, and that non-Chalcedonians have not been forced to deal with the distinction of monothelitism versus dyothelitism historically.

According to this answer the heresy of monothelitism according to the Catholic church may essentially be attributed to making our Lord Jesus only appear human, in effect similar to monophysitism.

I only recently started to learn about the history of the church, and lack formal education in the matter, but I wonder if dyothelitism does not risk becoming similar to Nestorianism. Simply put "two wills" sounds to me like it necessitates two separate persons. The Catholic church clearly disagrees, since they do not consider themselves Nestorian (note that this question is not about why the Catholic church disagrees).

On the other hand miaphysites have traditionally considered Chalcedonian dyophysitism as Nestorian heresy. According to this answer and what I have been able to find elswhere, the difference between dyophysitism and miaphysitism is however smaller than one may initially be led to believe, lying mainly in how the full humanity and full divinity of our Lord should be considered.

Would miaphysites consider dyothelitism an expression of Nestorian heresy in dyophysitism, when confronted with the question in theory? Since, to my knowledge, no corresponding issue has been raised within miaphysitism, I suppose there is an (oriental) orthodox view. It seems reasonable to me that since in Christ the divine and the man exist unseparably without blending, diluting, or diminishing; there should be one will that is an expression of this perfect union. Is this correct according to miaphysites?

  • 1
    You mention the 'perfect union' of the 'nature of Christ'. That union is a union of Divine Nature and human nature. It is not a mingling. They do not 'merge' for they are separate and distinct things. The 'union' occurs in the Person of Christ, Himself. It is important to keep the Person of Jesus Christ in view, by faith. Only by faith in Him, is his unique nature - a union of nature - perceived. Unbiblical and technical jargon is not the way to perceive the Lord Jesus Christ, sent of the Father. – Nigel J Jul 8 '18 at 9:42
  • 1
    @NigelJ Thank you for your guidance. As I said, I am unschooled in these matters, and I did not intend to present a false picture of miaphysitism. It is not the jargon that interests me, but rather whether miaphysites consider the Lord Jesus Christ to have two Wills. Are you saying that the question as it stands is un-answerable? – Erik Jörgenfelt Jul 8 '18 at 9:52
  • The answerability of your question on this site is not for me to say. But I think I have already answered the fact of it. Whether or not certain people consider this or that is for others to determine. I have simply agreed with the statement you made about the nature and person of Christ. – Nigel J Jul 8 '18 at 9:57
  • Have a read of Does the triune God have will by nature, or by persons?. If two wills implies (to you) two persons, then you're thinking of wills by person, but dyothelitism teaches will by nature. This is a good question, which I don't know the answer to. I've never adequately understood miaphysitism. – curiousdannii Jul 8 '18 at 14:09
  • @ErikJörgenfelt The question never arises, for such is the Perfection of Unity within the Godhead that the will of God is never disparate. – Nigel J Jul 8 '18 at 15:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.