A surprising inference from dyotheletism

Cyrillian Christology says that the hypostasis is the acting subject.  In other words, persons, not natures act.  This safeguards against Nestorianism, and rightly so.

We have a tension in modern Christology, though.  Moderns speak of natures as self-actualizing subjects.   According to McCormack, the 6th Ecumenical Council moved away from some themes in Chalcedon by positing two wills.   While Cyrillians would still say that yes, there are two wills in one nature, but it is still the Person doing the willing.  But which nature is being willed?  Or, which will is currently employed?  The problem is that the one divine person is doing the action, yet it also appears that sometimes not all of the divine person is involved in the action.
This refutes neither Cyrillian Christology or dyotheletism, but it is a tension that moderns have rightly pointed out.

99 comments on “A surprising inference from dyotheletism

  1. olivianus says:

    Cyril, here is prima facie evidence that Eastern Apologists do not read their opponent’s replies to their objections and basically shows their disingenuousness. We see from above that I replied to Jnorm that his use of Monothelitism against Calvinism was a straw man and I predicted that he would immediately reply with an appeal to consubstantiality.

    Tonight on David waltz’ blog he says in reply to my exposure of his straw man,

    “Was Mary born of Original sin? Yes or no

    Is Jesus homoousios with His mother? Yes or no”

    >>>That is a prediction fulfilled.

  2. jnorm says:

    I read what you had to say, but it was days ago, and so no it wasn’t prediction fulfilled. I just wanted you to restate your view in your own words.

  3. […] anyone see where this is going?  Earlier on my blog Canadian chastised Protestants for setting their reason above the church.  This puts me in a bind.  On one […]

Comments are closed.