RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Do the Standards (or background documents) address dyotheletism?
Do the standards address dyotheletism?
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
Q. 37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,141 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her,142 yet without sin.143
A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,141 being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her,142 yet without sin.143
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Is soul being used as a synonym for will? And is it saying will is a predicate of nature or person?
I think the term "reasonable" is what I was thinking. I also think that its implied in what the Standards say about Christ submitting to certain things that could only be predicated of His human will. I don't think, however, that this is something that the Confessions debate as much as acknowledge because it's a pretty settled orthodox doctrine. If you haven't read A Puritan Theology, Beeke and Jones point out the contributions that Reformed theologians made to Christology that emphasize the humanity of Christ and His reliance upon the Spirit where Lutheran and RCC theology is more comfortable with mixed articles at some points.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
RC and Lutheran theology accepts the doctrine that in Christ there are 2 wills, divine and human; Christ had a human soul (Mt 26:38) and a human, but sinless, will (Mt 26:39). Most upheld the doctrine as the orthodox theological answer against monothelitism. But, Arminian Roger Olson opines that it is not "something to be imposed on everyone who would be a faithful follower of Christ" (Reformed and Reforming, 197).
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
His reasonable human soul includes sinless will, emotions and intellect.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Yes, Western treatments do place will/intellect under "soul" (or so Richard Muller reads it).
WCF 8.2, "with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof... whole, perfect, and distinct... without conversion, composition, or confusion... very man."
Where there is no human will, there is no whole human nature.
But here is a very interesting question which ties in with the image of God theme in Scripture. Since Christ submitted to the plan of redemption before the world began, what was the nature of His "will" in subordination to the will of God? And with this will, was there not "reason" to accompany it? How is this related to the image of God in man?
Where there is no human will, there is no whole human nature.
But here is a very interesting question which ties in with the image of God theme in Scripture. Since Christ submitted to the plan of redemption before the world began, what was the nature of His "will" in subordination to the will of God? And with this will, was there not "reason" to accompany it? How is this related to the image of God in man?
Bumping to see if one takes a stab at your questions. I assume you asked to sharpen our minds on the will of God and please correct me if I am wrong in my assumtion.
Less concerned with will per se, but more in terms of understanding ectypal theology better, with Christ Himself as the model for the image.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Bumping to see if one takes a stab at your questions. I assume you asked to sharpen our minds on the will of God and please correct me if I am wrong in my assumtion.
Less concerned with will per se, but more in terms of understanding ectypal theology better, with Christ Himself as the model for the image.
This reminds me of how it is common that we often ponder the divinity of Jesus while knowing we will never be able to fathom the mysteries of God. We also should do the same with Our Lords human nature,which is also mysterious. To fathom such leads us be molded into His image of God which is different than our image of God we are being molded into.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
I feel (and probably am being) very dense but have reread this a few times and don't fully understand the question -- does it relate to how God the Son submitted to God the Father even before becoming a man? So Christ's human will was in some sense a 'revelation' of His divine will: His primary concern as a man was still to please the Father?
(And in being so -- it was also a revelation of the will of the Father to which He submitted.)
Our image bearing as it relates to God is not so much of the Father's relation to the Son but of the Son's relation to the Father?
edit -- thinking further after I wandered off: Or does it relate to the way human will is a sort of motion of love, and of the love Christ's will showed us in the Trinity (I'm sure that's very inexact)?
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Perhaps I am re-asking the same questions in a different way:
Since the Logos Asarkos only had one will, which was the will of the Father and Spirit(same essence), how could he have been subject to the Father? It is like saying I am subject to my own will. A logically true statement, no doubt, but it doesn't impart much content.
Jesus in Gethsemane, so Maximus reads it, has his human will in line with his divine will (which is the will of the Father). Now, I think there are some difficulties in Maximus's account, but the beauty of Maximian Dyotheletism is that it neatly places the wills with essence, not person, which allows Maximus to make the moves he does.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
I loved Maximus' conception of the true motion of all created things as from God and returning to Him -- I think he referenced Christ there in the garden of Gethsemane (I'm still only a little ways into the book). Not exactly in answer to the question (I don't think?) but I thought of how Christ is constantly calling us to 'follow Him', and how He leads us to the Father.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Which book?
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
On The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ -- it was a kindle book in our family library that Ruben had acquired, so I started reading.
What about 2 Cor. 3:18, "changed into the same image?" Other passages state "we shall be like Him."
Yes. It sounds like you understand it better than you think.
So we have the second person of the Trinity already beginning to function in a subordinate manner for the sake of the economy of salvation. This exercise of wisdom serves as a model for creation in general and for humankind in particular. John Owen's Christologia has some interesting reflections on Prov. 8 and similar passages in this regard.
Yes, but there is more. He is already personally functioning as the image of God and firstborn of all creation.
Yes; and the covenant of works holds out the prospect of eschatological Sonship as a figure of Christ to come.
Granting this, it appears that the Son was already functioning in subordination to the Father for the sake of redemption when the covenant of grace is established with Him.
Maximus' Platonic tendencies might muddy the waters a little, but perhaps he can be utilised by transferring his ideas from the realm of ontology and applying them to the covenant categories of reformed theology. So God may be said to go out of Himself by covenant and condescension rather than by any kind of emanation. The same would apply to the "return," which would not be a divinisation but a reconciliation of that which is subordinate.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
All of that is wonderful to think about, Rev. Winzer.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I was thinking along the lines of how we, the redeemed in glory, will be all different in the amount of glory we will reflect. I assume this will depend on the judgment of our works done in faith to which Jesus did perfectly to procure our justification but by The Spirit also procured our ability to reflect the glory of God. In my most humble opinion I can see where Jesus has done all the will of The Father in such a perfect manner that we cannot compare ourselves with Him now because of our fallen nature and yes we will be "like Him" in glory but to compare His perfect unfallen human nature in glory is beyond me and I am cognizant that even in glory my image will still be different than His glorified image. There may be a ontological similitude but with qualitative difference in the ability to reflect the glory of God and is why Jesus is the only begotten and only holy One as described below.
4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.
- Status
Similar threads
