In article <May.13.02.30.34.1993.1541@geneva.rutgers.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes: >Nabil wrote: >>5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis >>of the Logos Incarnate. > >Marhaba Nabil, > >If we posit two minds in Christ, the mind of the logos and the mind of the >human Jesus, then we must admit two wills.  A mind is not a mind without a >will.  I know this has been dealt with in past Church prnouncements, but there >is a philosophical problem here that should examined. > >T. V. Morris argued that the Incarnation can be seen like this: > >      _____________		 >     (Mind of Logos) >     (	 _______   ) >     (	(	)  )	Here, the mind of Jesus is circumsribed by God the >     (	( Human	)  )	Son.  God the Son has complete access to the human >     (  ( Mind	)  )	mind but the human mind only has access to the mind >     (	(	)  )	of God the Son when the Son allows access.  This  >     (	(_______)  )	explains why Jesus said even he did not know the  >     (_____________)	time of the kingdom.	 > >The ideas of a completely healthy version of split personality from >the field of psychology, and the intriguing ideas of being in a dream, seeing >yourself acting, knowing that is you, but also being omniscient.   >  [I've explained it here before.  If you want the full document, ask me by mail --Rex]       "Questions arise as we begin to think about LOGOS and what His inner consciousness was composed of. We need to clarify the two natures of Christ briefly.  The divine nature, which has existed eternally, did not undertake any essential changes during the incarnation which would cause a conflict with the attributes of God, the foremost of these being His immutability.  This would mean that it remained impassable, that is, incapable of suffering and death, free from ignorance and insusceptible to weakness and temptation.  In the realm of the divine nature it is better to say that the Son of God became that which was not absolute-and in Himself.  The result of the incarnation was that the divine LOGOS could be ignorant and weak, could be tempted and suffer and die, not in His divine nature, but by the derivation of His possession of a human nature.      This would mean that both the properties of the divine nature and the human nature are properties of the person, and therefore ascribed to the person. By this reason we can say that the person can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, yet at the same time be also a man of limited power, knowledge, a man of sorrows, subject to human wants and miseries.  There is, however, no penetration of one nature into the other.  Deity can no more share the imperfections of humanity than humanity can share in the essential perfection of the Godhead.      We are not to assume that there is a double personality due to the possession of the double natures.  Christ's human nature is impersonal, in that it attains self-consciousness and self-determination in the personality of the God-man.  We must now differentiate between the person and the nature of the Man. Nature is defined:  "the distinguishing qualities or properties of something; the fundamental character, disposition or temperament of a living being, innate and unchangeable."       Nature is then, in essence, the substance possessed in common, in as such the Trinity have one nature.  There is also a common nature of mankind.  Personality, on the other hand, is the separate subsistence of nature, with the power of consciousness and will.  It is for this reason that the human nature of Christ has not, nor ever had, a separate subsistence, that it is impersonal.  LOGOS, the God-man, represents the principle of personality.  It is equally important to see that self-consciousness and self-determination do not, as such, belong to the nature.  It is for this reason that we can justifiably say that Jesus did not have two consciousness or two wills, but rather one.  It is theanthropic, an activity of the one personality which unites in itself the human and the divine natures, being that neither the consciousness nor the will are simply human or simply divine."   [The quotation given above is not identified, and it's not entirely clear to me what position Loren is taking on it.  Just for clarity, let me note that the view expressed in it is one of the classic Christological heresies -- monothelitism.  That's the position that Christ's two natures were not complete, in that there was only one will.  In most cases (which I think includes this example), it was the human will that was regarded as missing.  Normally people who talk about Christ's human nature as being "impersonal" mean it in a somewhat more abstract sense.  That is, they are using "person" as hypostatis, not in the usual English sense of personality.  In this use, the doctrine is called "anhypostasia". Personally I think anhypostasia is just a more sophisticated way of denying that the Logos took on humanity fully.  However it has never been formally ruled a heresy, and in fact has been held by influential theologians both ancient and modern (e.g. Athanasius).  But the quotation above appears to be going farther than even Athanasius went, into the realm of the overtly heretical.