In Biblical Unitarianism, Jesus Christ is a mere man, maximally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a mere man died on the Cross, was resurrected, and now sits at God's right hand. How does this differ soteriologically from the orthodox Trinity doctrine? As I understand it, in this doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single immortal (cannot die) and immutable (cannot suffer) Being with a single mind, will, and consciousness. Therefore, the Son did not die because he cannot die. Chalcedon explained this as that Jesus Christ has or had two natures and only the human nature died. So, in both Biblical Unitarianism and the orthodox Trinity doctrine, it was a mere man who suffered and died on the Cross. Is there a difference between the two systems in terms of why Jesus had to die? Some of the comments below deny that the Trinitarian God is a single Being with a single mind, will, and consciousness. Therefore, I add the following: The orthodox Trinity doctrine is often explained to people by saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three Persons. The phrase “three Persons” implies three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind and, therefore, a single will, consciousness, and self-awareness. They do not each have a distinct mind. For example: > “When today we speak of person in the plural, we think almost > necessarily, because of the modern meaning of the word, of several > spiritual centers of activity [minds], of several subjectivities > [biases, views] and liberties [freedoms].” (Karl Rahner, a leading > Catholic scholar, in ‘The Trinity) > > “There are not three of these in God. … There are not three > consciousnesses; rather the one consciousness subsists in a threefold > way. There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by > the Father, Son, and Spirit.” (Rahner) > > “The element of consciousness … does not belong to it [the Person] in > our context [the official doctrine of the {Catholic} Church].” > (Rahner) > > “There exists in God only one power, one will, only one self-presence. > … Hence self-awareness is not a moment which distinguishes the divine > "persons" one from the other.” (Rahner) > > “Each Person shares the Divine will … that come from a mind. … Each > Person's self-awareness and consciousness is not inherent to that > Person (by nature of that Person being that Person) but comes from the > shared essence.” (Rahner) > > “We must, of course, say that Father, Son, and Spirit possess > self-consciousness and that each one is aware of the other two > ‘persons’. But precisely this self-consciousness … comes from the > divine essence, is common as one to the divine persons.” (Rahner). Lewis Ayres stated similarly that the Persons do not “possess different natures, wills, or activities.” > “We can now try to summarize how pro-Nicenes conceive of a divine > person in the abstract. … We cannot … assume that they possess > different natures, wills, or activities within the one Godhead.” > (Ayres, p. 295) [Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to > Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004] Consequently, leading Trinitarian scholars confirm that it is misleading to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit as “Persons.” > “The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > **misleading** word' Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as > God.” (Hanson Lecture ) > > “By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in > Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, these three constituent members of > what God is came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete > individuals’) or, more **misleadingly** for us moderns, as prosōpa > (‘persons’).” (Anatolios, xiii) [Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, > 2011] The orthodox Trinity doctrine is sometimes explained, using Greek terms from the fourth century, as one ousia (substance) and three hypostases. But the term hypostasis is also not appropriate because, while the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Trinity doctrine are a single Being with one mind, the Greek term hypostasis means something that exists distinctly from other things: > An "individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193); "Distinct individuality" > (Hanson, p. 53) "Distinct reality" (Hanson, p. 190); “Something that > really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident > or a quality;” (Lienhard) "Distinct personalities," "distinct > existences," and "to be existent." (Litfin) “Concrete individuals” > (Anatolios, xiii) In the Trinity doctrine, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit is invisible to the created universe. The creation only sees one Being: > “By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts > … had led … to what later generations generally think of as ‘the > doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is > Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, > **operating outward in creation always as a unit**y, yet always internally differentiated by the relationships of origin that Father > and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another.” (Anatolios, xiii) > > “The distinctions between them are real: but we do not know what it is > to exist distinctly in this state.” (Ayres, p. 295) So, if the terms 'Persons' and 'hypostases' are misleading and the distinction between them is invisible, how should the 'Persons' in the Trinity doctrine be described? Hanson refers to the Father, Son, and Spirit as “three ways of being or modes of existing as God:” > “The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > misleading word' Person'), **three ways of being or modes of existing as > God**.” (Hanson Lecture ) One might respond and say, yes, that may be the orthodox Trinity doctrine, but I believe in a Trinity of three Persons with three distinct minds. That would be consistent with the Bible, but if the three Persons are equal, there would be three Gods (Tritheism). As soon as one speaks of three Minds, two of the Minds must be subordinate to the other; otherwise, one has three Gods. But to admit that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father would be 'Arianism.' To avoid both Tritheism and Arianism, the orthodox Trinity doctrine has to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. 

I think this question haven't been asked yet here. The teaching of Chalcedonian Christianity (including the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches) is that Jesus Christ exists as one person with two natures: divine and human, united without mixing or confusion. Thus, in Jesus Christ there is not one will (*contra Monothelism*), there is no absence of the human soul (*contra Apollinarianism*) and there is not two persons (*contra Nestorianism*). There is a new explanation just recently that is called Neo-Apollinarianism wherein it is said that Jesus had no uncreated human soul but that the divine Logos **completes** the human nature of Jesus Christ. In this view, the divine Logos underwent a change (divine mind became the soul) so that Jesus has one mind but still had two complete natures: divine and human (*pro Chalcedon*) (Source ) My question is: How to explain the doctrine that Jesus Christ is one person despite having two wills (dyothelitism) and two minds? Answers from any Chalcedonian perspective are welcome.

I address this question to Christians who believe that Jesus Christ possesses both divine and human natures—those who believe that Christ has always been the Son of God, that is, God, and, since the moment of His incarnation, also the Son of Man, that is, a human. In other words, I address the following three main branches of Christianity: the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and mainstream Protestantism (those Protestant believers who directly address Jesus in their prayers): **Was Jesus Christ's soul ever created, or has it existed forever?** On the one hand, as the Son of God, Christ, being divine, has always possessed a soul—that is, the ability to have thoughts, feelings, and will. Verses like this one seem to indicate that: > “Jerusalem, Jerusalem... how often I have longed to gather your > children together” (Matthew 23:37, NIV) (clearly, the longing here extends over a period of more than 33 and a half years) In other words, at His incarnation, Christ only received a physical body, which seems to be confirmed by this verse: > "Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and > offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me’" (Hebrews > 10:5, NIV). On the other hand, from the moment of His incarnation, Christ possessed human nature. A key element of human nature is the possession of a created soul, not just a physical body. If so, then Jesus Christ should also possess a created human soul—regardless of when exactly it was created (whether at the moment of conception or at some point prior). If that is the case, then which of the two options is correct: 1. Was it like His divine soul simply entered His created human soul and the two joined as one, and thus, showing no contradictions to each other and abiding in perfect harmony and agreement, can be considered one soul, one personality? 2. Or is it like, rather, in case with Jesus there is only His uncreated divine soul that Christ has always posessed eternally, and the absence of a created human soul does not exclude Him from being fully human (just as the absence of a biological human father does not)? How is this matter viewed in the above-mentioned branches of Christianity?

Dual wills of Jesus, as human and as God, are on full display in the Synoptic gospels' account of Jesus's suffering and temptation at Gethsemane. Let's first review how each gospel recounts the story: - **Matthew 26:38-39**: > Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. 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. (KJV) > Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (ESV) - **Mark 14:34-36**: > And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (KJV) > And he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch.” And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (ESV) - **Luke 22:42-45**: > Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow, (KJV) > saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, (ESV) Reading between the lines, it's obvious there is temptation, sorrow, fear, and surrender within the human soul of Jesus and we (who are called to take up our cross) can relate. Luke also added that an angel appeared to strengthen Jesus and how the disciples were *also* sorrowful. Next, let's review several obvious doctrinal implications applicable to this episode to limit allowed interpretations: - **As God** Jesus never ceases to want to save us by being the Passover Lamb to "take away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). - Chalcedonian definition allows us to reconcile this apparent ambivalence of wills at Gethsemane by interpreting the above passages that **as Man** Jesus is struggling to align his human will with his own Trinitarian will while remaining sinless since Jesus managed to overcome all his natural feelings to *not* deviate from the Trinitarian mission to go through with the Divine plan. - Jesus who is also fully God must have continually loves Himself *immanently* in Jesus, never ceasing to do so during the whole Passion, even at the cross when Jesus cried "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (!) We can safely assume that Jesus **as Man** could do perfectly the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" partly because in his human consciousness he feels and trusts that he is so fully loved by God. So far so good. My question has to do with characterizing what's going on in Jesus's human mind and will so that it can help us to be more like Jesus. For example, in our own walk of discipleship, it's common to distinguish "surrender" from "submission" which for the purpose of this question, I'm defining the two terms as follows: - "submission" as **negation of will** like a soldier doing something that he may not agree personally; this has been characterized by obedience out of **slavish** mentality or out of **fear**. Colloquially we say: "I do it simply because you told me to". At best, although it is done like a robot, I am still open to doing it with better motivation in the future. - "surrender" implies **aligning one's will with another's** thus with some level of agreement; this can be characterized by obedience out of **trust** mentality (like children) and by **love**. Colloquially we say: "I do it as you asked me to, although I need help in uniting my will with your perfect loving will because of .... (you name it)". So even though we don't feel like forgiving enemies, surrendering our selfishness to love difficult people, or dying as a martyr, because we always want to be yoked with Jesus (i.e. tagging along) we then rely on his Holy Spirit (Love) to strengthen us in uniting **in love** our will with Jesus's will. It is obvious that as children of God we are asked to "surrender", not to "submit" (per definitions above). Because Jesus is our model, I think **conceiving Jesus's struggle at Gethsemane as a "submission" (negating will) rather than as a "surrendering" (uniting in love) is out of bound**. Is this true? The difficulty seems to be **textual**: those who insist on literal meaning may interpret Jesus's "not as I will, but as you will" and the language "deny himself/ lose his life" (Matt 16:24-25) as a "submission", negating his human will. **But I think this is abhorrent, since there is no virtue in mere submission without love.** Rather, we should see Jesus's sinless internal struggle episode at Gethsemane as a revelation of how hard it is to love, that even Jesus, **while operating in his human nature**, had to struggle to align his human will with His own revealed divine will, as a model for us to unite **in love** our own will with our Father's will that is revealed to us in graced discernment. This is in contrast to acting as a slave / soldier who simply executes what Scriptures command us to do. How can the Trinity doctrine and Chalcedonian definition help us here? **My question is very specific**: Formally & philosophically, **what kinds of interaction of the 2 wills are allowed within the Chalcedonian orthodoxy?** **What are some examples of interaction that are out of bound?**

John 4:23 has Jesus saying > "But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will > worship **the Father in spirit and in truth**, for **the Father** is seeking > such as these to worship **Him**." According to Chalcedonian Trinitarians, Jesus = God and is co-equal with the Father. Why did he leave himself out in this passage? It would be an obvious opportunity to teach the Samaritan woman that God is a Trinity and Jesus is God, yet instead Jesus identifies himself as the Messiah in the same section. How do Chalcedonic Trinitarians explain this passage?

At John 20, Thomas initially refuses to believe other disciples' accounts of Jesus having been raised from the dead. When Jesus appears to Thomas, Thomas famously exclaims > "My Lord and my God!" Do Chalcedonian Trinitarians who believe Thomas was claiming Jesus = God here, also believe that Thomas would have held therefore that God could have and had died?

In Trinitarian theology, when Jesus uttered the following words that indicate his subservience to the Father, **which nature was Jesus "accessing" / "operating in": his divine nature, or his human nature?** - [John 5:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205%3A19&version=ESV) : > So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. - [John 14:28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+14%3A28&version=ESV) : > You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. - [Luke 22:41-42](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+22%3A41-42&version=ESV) : > And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” Excerpt from [Henry Bettenson's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_S._Bettenson) English translation of the AD 451 [Chalcedon Formula](http://anglicansonline.org/basics/chalcedon.html) : > ... > > and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the Godbearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather **the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons**, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ I borrowed the language "operate in his divine/human nature" from Eleonore Stump's explanation of [Jesus as God](https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/58405) (min. 5:40-5:55). To me, especially from [dythelitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyothelitism) perspective where each nature has a distinct will, it makes more sense that in the 3 verses above Jesus operated in his **human** nature, whose divine nature communicated His will, just as we discerned God's will for us. Because if Jesus was operating in his **divine** nature, in order for these 3 verses to have any *real* meaning of subservience, how can one being has two potentially conflicting wills? If there are major camps representing different answers, I'll edit this question to add a comparative-christianity tag.

The [Apostolic Fathers](https://www.gotquestions.org/Apostolic-Fathers.html) is a special group of church fathers who personally knew or taught by the apostles. Some of [their writings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers#List_of_works) were even considered to be included in the canon although ultimately they were not. In a way they are like the 2nd generation apostles who can give us some clues on the 1st generation apostles's understanding and teaching. The purpose of this question is to trace the development of the early church teachings about Christ between the New Testament books and the Christological formulations in the [Nicene creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) (as the 2nd person of the Trinity) and the [Chalcedonian definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Definition) (the double nature of Jesus as fully God and fully human). What we can learn from the answer is whether the Trinitarian and Chalcedonian formulas about Christ **organically** developed from the apostles's understanding of the divinity of Jesus, which were not fully explicit in the New Testament. Even so, we can already see the hints of the doctrines from the NT books (for example, see [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78056/god-the-son-where-does-he-fit-in/78060#78060) for 2 resources discussing it). Among the proponents of *sola scriptura*, it is commonly established that more precise formulation was motivated to combat heresies (such as Docetism, Gnosticism, Modalism, Arianism, etc.), but the generations after the apostles did NOT introduce new elements into the final formulation. In other words, those post apostolic generations made use of Greek philosophical terms and EXTENDED the meanings of those terms to make the council formulas (because the *reality* of Christological revelation pushed the limits of available language and concepts to describe it faithfully). *Sola Scriptura* proponents **reject** the reverse: that the church fathers introduced foreign Greek philosophical teachings into the formulas. Examining the Apostolic Fathers's writings can potentially make this case. Accepted answer should include quotes from their writings and a brief analysis showing the continuity (if exists) between the NT books and the 2 council documents. We can then see the *nature* of this continuity, whether foreign Greek philosophical elements have smuggled themselves into the formulas.

The creed says: > the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, > but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring > in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two > persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, > the Lord Jesus Christ [1] Usually I understand the word 'person' to mean 'mind'. However, according to some scholars it is orthodox to say Christ has two wills or minds, a human mind and a divine mind [2] . If this is true, what does the creed then mean by person if not mind? Edit: My question is asking specifically about what the creed means by a particular word, which is different to other questions which ask about what persons are in the abstract. Suitable answers perhaps could provide parallel texts from the time period which give additional context for determining the intended meaning of prosopon.

In Luke 2:52 it states: > And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and > man. Did Jesus, as a young child, deliberately conceal his Divinity by not accessing the epistemological data of the universe & beyond so that he could participate in the human joy of book learning? For example, he might have read books that his parents got for him from the library of Alexandria in Egypt. Over in another discussion somebody speculated that the gold from the wisemen (sages) could have been used to buy books while the family was in Egypt. Are their commentaries that suggest such a thing took place? The Bible says in Philippians 2:5-11 about Jesus: > Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God > something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very > nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in > appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- > even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place > and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of > Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the > earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the > glory of God the Father. Would the work of the Holy Spirit, in Jesus’ incarnation, inform his human nature when and where to access the mind behind the universe - that is, the Logos? When studying, would the role of the Holy Spirit put a check in his human nature when reading things that were untrue? I would love to hear from those attempting to figure this out especially via classical Christianity along the lines of Chalcedonian Christology.

The Epistle of Diognetes, regarded by some to be the earliest example of Christian apologetics, establishes Jesus’ divine role as Creator and even goes as far as to call him God. > “As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God > He sent Him; as to men He sent Him;… (7.4) Jesus preferred to identify himself as the Son of Man, perhaps because it was a more well-known designation for the Messiah and because it helped people relate more to him as human. It also emphasized his role as a propitiatory sacrifice. > Daniel 7:13 "In my vision, there before me was one like a Son of Man, > coming with the clouds of heaven." > > John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even > so must the Son of man be lifted up; But Jesus also clearly affirmed his divinity. > John 10:36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very > own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy > because I said, `I am God’s Son’? Did Jesus' divine nature become a dual divine nature at incarnation and did he return to being fully God alone upon his ascension? Is there, for example, some reason, i.e.soteriologically, that he must retain his dual nature?

The Ausberg confession states of Christ in the Chief Articles of Faith, >Therefore, he has two natures, one divine and the other human. They are united in one person and cannot be separated. What does it mean by separation of the natures? To add context, how does this shed light on Jesus' lament, "My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?" or conversely, how is it informed by the lament?

What is the nature of Dyothelitism according to the Council of Chalcedon? ------ At the Council of Chalcedon, the church taught that the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ had two natures: divine and human, united in his one person (*Hypostatic union*), without mixing or blending them into one nature (*Monophysitism*). In this Christology, Jesus had two minds: divine mind and human mind (*Dyothelitism*). My question is specifically asking about the nature of the Dyothelitism. The following sub questions are really helpful in navigating for an answer: 1. What is the relationship of the divine mind with the human mind? 2. When Jesus was incarnated, did he use his human mind primarily? 3. If so, how did Jesus access his divine mind? Is it like a memory being remembered? 4. Was Jesus operating in both human mind and divine mind simultaneously when he was on earth? I am seeking answer from authoritative sources regardless of denomination. Preferrably those who believe in the Council of Chalcedon and Diothelitism. A Biblical answer is also acceptable as long as it can explain logically the nature of Dyothelitism.

The Council of Chalcedon of 451 gave a clear definition of the Hypostatic Union, the doctrine that in the incarnation, the Son of God took on a full human nature, so that in this one person are united two natures, divine and human. *Hypostasis* refers to one of the three persons of God, so the Hypostatic Union means that the union between divine and human takes place in the person of God the Son. > Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; **acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;** the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) **concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ;** even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us. The Chalcedonian Definition was written to refute several positions considered heretical: that Christ is not of the same nature as the Father (Arianism), that he does not have a full human nature (Apollinarism), that Christ was a fusion of divine and human (Eutyches), that the two natures of Christ were not joined in one person (Nestorianism). This Chalcedonian theology was not accepted by all churches who attended the council, and to this day is rejected by the Oriental Orthodox churches. The Oriental Orthodox churches too say that they reject the four positions above, but rather than saying that Christ has two natures, they teach Miaphysitism, that > in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one "nature" ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. ([orthodoxwiki.org](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Miaphysitism)) This sounds on the surface quite similar to the position of Eutyches, but the Oriental Orthodox are adamant that they too reject his teaching. While there have been [some moves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism#Towards_a_resolution_of_the_dispute?) towards declaring the dispute between Miaphysitism and Chalcedonian a difference purely of terminology and not of substance, support for this has been limited on both sides, with many strongly opposed to saying that the dispute has been resolved. So for those Chalcedonian theologians who do reject that Miaphysitism is compatible with the Christology taught in the Chalcedonian Definition, what are the major problems they see with Miaphysitism?

The Chalcedonean Definition is the official Christology of the Catholic Church. It states that Christ is a single person with two natures: human and divine. These two natures are neither divided nor mixed. The Oriental Orthodox Christological position is Miaphysitism. This states that Christ has a single nature, but that nature is both fully human and fully divine, with the human and divine elements being neither mixed with nor divided from each other. Historically the Catholics have misunderstood miaphysitism as a form of monophysitism (Christ has a single nature which is either human or divine but not both) and the Oriental Orthodox have misunderstood Chalcedonean definition as being a form of Nestorianism (Christ was two persons). In my analysis, both sides are going to great pains to ensure that Christ is fully human and fully divine. They both go about it in different ways, but both succeed in the goal, and so both are acceptable formulations Recently the two sides have cooled off and the accusations of heresy against each other are not so strong. There have been [moves by some](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism#Towards_a_resolution_of_the_dispute?) to say that the dispute is just one of terminology, not substance. This includes joint statements signed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, but despite this, the Catholic and Oriental orthodox Churches have not officially declared themselves in communion with each other, so I am not sure if Miaphysitism is considered an acceptable Christological position by the Catholic church. Personally I find Miaphysitism to be more coherent and intuitive than the Chalcedonean 2 natures definition. As a Catholic, am I permitted to believe Miaphysitism so long as I don't simultaneously deny Chalcedon? And if it is permitted, then why aren't the Oriental Orthodox churches in full communion with the Catholic Churches as the Eastern Orthodox churches are? Related question: is this what the Eastern Catholic churches that have an Oriental Orthodox background do? Ie. Accept that the Chalcedonean definition is Orthodox, but go ahead and teach Miaphysitism anyway? (I'm thinking of the Ethiopian, Eritrean and Coptic Catholic churches for example) edit: I note that the wikipedia article for Miaphysitism says the following: > **Historically, Chalcedonian Christians have considered Miaphysitism in > general to be amenable to an orthodox interpretation,** but they have > nevertheless perceived the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox to be > a form of Monophysitism (single nature doctrine). This seems to indicate that Chalcedonians are able to accept Miaphysitism, given an appropriate interpretation.

Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that Jesus was both God and man as described in the [Chalcedon Definition](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Definition) in 451. However at Galatians 1:1 Paul says that the source of his apostleship was not from or through men or "a man" ("any human being", Catholic NJB) > Gal 1:1: Paul, **an apostle** sent not from men, **nor by a man**, **but by Jesus Christ**, and God the Father, who raised him [a man?] from the dead), (NIV ) Paul says that **his assignment as an apostle** was not from (Greek από) or through (δια) a man. But it was through Jesus. See the excursus for how the word Άνθρωπος is used in scripture. Those who adhere to Chalcedon also teach that a human body was raised and Paul says God the Father raised Jesus. If Jesus was resurrected as a man how can Paul say his apostleship was not through a man but it was through Jesus at Galatians 1:1? ---- Excursus: Does Άνθρωπος mean a man or human nature? --- άνθρωπος does not mean "*human*" in contrast to ανήρ or αρσην with the meaning "*man*." At **Eph 5:31** and **1 Co 7:1** it obviously and contextually means "*a male person, man*". (**BDAG**) In contrast, when preceded by κατά and in the accusative case as in Gal 1:11, it refers to "status" and is rendered "human." (Cp. 1 Co 9:8, Ro 3:15, Ga 3:15). The contrast between Ga 1:1 and 1:11 shows how Paul represents άνθρωπος as "human." This idiom is not found at Ga 1:1. When contrasted with God it is seen as inferior to God and has a "focus on limitations and weakness, a human being." This definition applies to all human beings when compared to God. This is the case at Galatians 1:1.

Related answered questions: [Chalcedonianism is a moderate between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19867/is-it-proper-to-state-that-chalcedonianism-is-a-moderate-position-in-between-nes) , [What does it mean that the two natures of Christ cannot be separated?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31552/what-does-it-mean-that-the-two-natures-of-christ-cannot-be-separated?rq=1) , and [Does the Chalcedonian definition mean Christ has two minds? ](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66264/does-the-chalcedonian-definition-mean-christ-has-two-minds) Related unanswered question: [How would miaphysites approach monothelitism versus dyothelitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64416/how-would-miaphysites-approach-the-question-of-monothelitism-versus-dyothelitism) I know the Sixth Ecumenical Council affirms the orthodox position of the two wills of Jesus and rejects monothelitism. And the Chalcedonian definition states >One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in **Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably**; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather **the properties of each Nature being preserved**, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; **not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons**, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ. My understanding is that the indivisbility of the two natures means we can't attribute particular adjectives or actions that apply to the Person of Christ to the individual nature, though that may be its source. Such as, it would be incorrect to say that "Jesus' human nature died on the cross, but his divine nature did not." Or even "Jesus' divine nature is omnipotent, but his human nature is not." Though we may know that the source or origin of his omnipotence from his divinity, we cannot attribute omnipotence to Jesus' divine nature but the person as a whole. It seems the Chalcedonian definition supports this, unless "the properties of each Nature being preserved" implies the opposite of that. By "attributing" a property, or perhaps "identifying" a property to be of one nature, I am referring to the accuracy of statements such as "Jesus' human nature slept, but Jesus' divine nature was always awake" (because "God never sleeps", Psalm 121:4). If we can't attribute a property to a particular nature, then we must stop at saying "Jesus slept" (the person of Christ) and cannot say anything in particular about what each individual nature experienced, though we perhaps could say that the origin of Jesus' ability to sleep is from his human nature. The same applies with Jesus' omnipotence. Perhaps we could say that the origin of Jesus' omnipotence is his divine nature, but we can only say that Jesus is omnipotent (not saying 1/2 of his natures is omnipotent). The communication of properties between Jesus and God seem to come into play here, as well. If we can say that Jesus slept, then that means God slept. But, if only His human nature slept while His divine nature was awake, then perhaps we could escape concluding that God slept? Except that the Bible seems to be denote the person of Jesus with actions or adjectives, rather than an individual nature. It seems like this being the case, we could only attribute the will of Jesus to the person of Jesus, and not either individual nature when the two are inseparable. It seems like the same arguments apply for His wills as for various adjectives. "Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he didn't have a human will." "Well, Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he wasn't limited in knowledge, and yet he possesses omnipotence." Or something like that. Take the claim "Jesus can't be fully human without a human will;" why can't Jesus be fully human because He has a will as a person? As in, a will that is attributed to the person of Christ rather than to his individual human nature. I don't get how that wouldn't fulfill the "fully human" requirement. It seems that to say otherwise is just based on how we define what "human" is (which of course would be important). **If we can't attribute adjectives or actions to either individual nature, why can we attribute wills to the individual nature? How is that not separating the two natures that should be indivisible?** From a typical orthodox Trinitarian view, I want to know how this doctrine is properly formulated in light of these concerns, whether through Church creeds or early church fathers or theologians of the day or through someone's explanation. Edit: suggested from comments below, **how do do we know it is acceptable to attribute a property to one nature and not the other given that the two natures are inseparable? What does it mean for them to be inseparable if you can identify properties of each individual nature rather than the Person?**

In the seventh century two Christological doctrines [were determined to be un-orthodox and in contradiction to the Chalcedonian Definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism#First_attempt:_Doctrine_of_one_energy) : that Christ has one "energy", and then that Christ has one will. Chalcedonian Christianity teaches that Jesus has two complete divine and human natures, united in one person, and as the will was understood to be a property of a nature and not a person, he must necessarily have two wills, otherwise he would not have two complete natures. How far is this model to be extended? I have heard it said that not only does Christ have two wills, but also two minds. Is this an accurate interpretation of Chalcedonian theology? Previous questions have asked if the Trinity possesses the faculties of [will](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1878/6071) and [mind](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2548/6071) by nature or persons; possessing these by nature means the three persons would each possess the one singular will or mind, possessing them by person means each have a distinct will or mind. My understanding is that Chalcedonian theology should strictly be understood as teaching that these faculties are possessed by nature. (Not all who take the label of Chalcedonian would agree though.) This leads to the confusing situation where Chalcedonians teach one will in the Godhead and two wills in Christ, and those who disagree teach three wills in the Godhead and one will in Christ! If this is an accurate summary of Chalcedonian theology, are all such faculties properties of nature rather than person?

In the article, [The Assumption of Mary: A Belief since Apostolic Times](https://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/aofmary.htm) of EWTN it states: >At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that **"Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."** What is the source of this spurious quote?

The Scriptural teaching regarding the nature and origin of the devil and demons has been summarized by the Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazanski : >According to the testimony of the word of God, the origin of sin comes from the devil: *He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning* (I John 3: 8). The word “devil” means “slanderer.” Bringing together the evidence of Sacred Scripture, we see that the devil is one of the rational spirits or angels who deviated into the path of evil. Possessing, like all rational creatures, the freedom which was given him for becoming perfect in the good, he “abode not in the truth” and fell away from God. The Saviour said of him: *He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it* (John 8: 44). He drew the other angels after himself into the fall. In the epistles of the Apostle Jude and the Apostle Peter, we read of the angels *which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation* (Jude, v. 6; compare with II Peter 2: 4).1 The Chalcedonian doctrine of the devil and demons was summarized by John of Damascus (676-749): >He who from among these angelic powers was set over the earthly realm, and into whose hands God committed the guardianship of the earth, was not made wicked in nature but was good, and made for good ends, and received from his Creator no trace whatever of evil in himself. But he did not sustain the brightness and the honour which the Creator had bestowed on him, and of his free choice was changed from what was in harmony to what was at variance with his nature, and became roused against God Who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against Him: and he was the first to depart from good and become evil. For evil is nothing else than absence of goodness, just as darkness also is absence of light. For goodness is the light of the mind, and, similarly, evil is the darkness of the mind. Light, therefore, being the work of the Creator and being made good (for God saw all that He made, and behold they were exceeding good) produced darkness at His free-will. But along with him an innumerable host of angels subject to him were torn away and followed him and shared in his fall. Wherefore, being of the same nature as the angels, they became wicked, turning away at their own free choice from good to evil.1 Given the premise that angels became demons by their own choice at one time, did any Church Father prior to the 4th Ecumenical Council (451) or any subsequent Chalcedonian Church Father in the first millennium ever expound a belief that additional angels could also choose to become demons in the future? 1. *Orthodox Dogmatic Theology* (3rd ed.; St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2005), p.153
2. *The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith* in Book II, ch.4