Does Christ Have Two Wills or One? 

I have to disagree with Dr. Craig here. If Jesus lacks a human will then can we really say He is fully human?

Avoiding the heresy of monothelitism only to further entrench one's heretical neo-Apollinarianism is hardly a good escape from heresy.

Avoiding nestorianism by being a monothelite is technically just exchanging one historically defined heresy for another. Monothelitism was taught by Pope Honorius and he was condemned by subsequent Popes for it. I actually understand where Dr. Craig is coming from, but i think he should give a disclaimer when he teaches people a historic Christological heresy. Doesn’t make it wrong unless the scriptures comport, but he should be clear nonetheless.

Wow, this is absolute heresy, Christians need to be aware of how dangerous this man's teachings are.

Craig, the ecumenical council spoke, accept the authority of the church, repent of your heresy.

If understand correctly, Orthodox Church teaches that Jesus Christ has two wills, although they don't contradict one another. It teaches that will belongs to nature, not person, because: 1) if we assumed that will belongs to person, we would have to admit that three Persons of Saint Trinity are different by will 2) also there is a difference between "will" and "the way of willing" "To will" can be compared with let's say "to see" and belongs to nature, just like ability to see belongs to nature, not person. All healthy people can see by nature. But "how to will", how to use this will, belongs to person. Jesus Christ is God, at the same time by His human nature He is righteous and humble, so He subordinates His human will to God's will. And as God, He has one will with the Father.

The Church at large has rejected the idea that wills are associated with persons because that would mean God has 3 wills. If this were the case, it would be ontologically possible for the Eternal Son to rebel against the Father. Also, if Christ has only a divine will, then it is impossible to take seriously the idea Christ was tempted as we are (Hebrews 4:15) because God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). This was condemned as heresy because it mucks up the very heart of the Gospel.

Does a father will his very own child no harm to him when he gives him their first bicycle knowing that the child might fall to grievous bodily injury and even death ? Yes, the father wills the child no harm but also wills the child learn to ride the bike and enjoy all the benefits that brings the child then, and through out their life... He actively wills the child to learn to ride a bicycle... He also passively wills no harm come unto them, but allows it if it be the case... So yes, two wills...

This is heresy.

praise the only true living LORD and GOD bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY forever and ever amen 💖✝️✝️✝️.

Heresy.

I don't see any Bible verse quoted and certainly this is a heavy topic (historically) to simply based the whole conclusion on one premise

This is not heresy, it is a complete orthodox teaching. It is the theandric will Say Christ is the variable “AB”. AB has all the faculties and properties of A, and all the faculties and properties of B. Let’s say A were to suddenly act with the exclusion of B. You consequently have a situation where A is alone, and thus you’ve divided AB into A and B divided. For this reason, there cannot be two movements of the faculty, because that means that he either acts as A alone or as B alone, which divides AB. This is why St. Dionysius the Aeropagite says, > For, even, to speak summarily, He was not a man, not as 'not being man', but as 'being from men was beyond men', and was above man, having truly been born man; and for the rest, not having done things divine as God, nor things human as man, but exercising for us a certain new theandric energy of God having become man. St. Dionysius the Aeropagite, Letter to Gaius

When pertaining to Christ, since He was the Son and God in the flesh, then I can see how He would only have one will. However, I think if we're talking about God as the Father, I think He has two wills. He has a moral will, which pertains to how He wants us to live our lives and He has a sovereign will, which pertains to His overarching plan and divine purpose for the world at large that cannot be stopped or hindered in any way.

Case in point that Protestantism is a rehash of old heresies...

Why can't the two things be one? We already recognize that Batman's will and Bruce Wayne's Will are the same. Why not Jesus and God?

“What is not assumed is not redeemed “, human will is not redeemed if it is not assumed. Also this was condemned as heresy by Chalcedon.

I would say that all mental properties including will are part of nature and that the person is the hypostasis or thinker/subject/feeler/willer who is conscious, him being conscious is completely synonymous for him having the nature that he has which is on its turn unconscious.

Christ was truly man but truly God in his spiritual identity as the Logos. But he did his miracles by the Holy Spirit, not by his own power. So to say he was fully God is correct in his identity, and also to see him doing the Father's works was to see the Father. He also had the HS given without measure. But to say he was "fully God" makes it sound like he did his miracles by his own divine power. This is not correct.

Christ does nothing but the will of his father whom sent him, his will be done

"Associated with" is vague. You could say that Christ's divine and human natures are associated with him because they're his. Catholics believe that Christ is a divine Person who assumed or adopted a human nature when he incarnated. Since he's God the Son, he existed before his incarnation, he's a divine Person only, not a human one. After all, Nestorian heretics believed that two persons lived together in Christ's body, a divine person and a human one. So if Dr. believes that Christ is fully divine and fully human, he needs to explain why each mere man has a human will when the Savior doesn't have one. Our Lord is a human being because he has a human nature. And I contradict myself if I say that although each human being has a human will, some human beings don't have one. By Catholic standards, Dr. Crag is a heretic because he's a monothelite. But there are material heretics, formal ones, and subjective formal ones. A material heretic unknowingly believes a heresy. A formal heretic knows he believes one, and a subjective format heretic is to blame because he knows he believes one. But since I won't judge his intentions, it's not for ne to know whether he's blameworthy for his montheliitism.

WLC takes the more “plausible” view.😂😂like we can rely on our own understandings!!! Lol

bruh

But doesn’t Paul teach we have two wills regarding our sinful nature vs our regenerate nature?

O Lord guide us all 2 the straight path amen ameen..,especially when we r all left to our own wills n vices.,.. Not our wills but the metaphoric father's ..amen...ie a prayer to b on His way Son of man the end Adam soon to come.,,but he won't SEND his self but b sent!!? Peace shalom SALAM

Wait... if will is in person, such as one person equals one will, then the God has three wills since there are three persons (Trinity).

Correct. Even Christ then pursued God's will out of his own free will. This is easily shown by what he prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39)

God's will is God's will.

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by theists that a god exists. To be clear, these are not premises for an argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I take into account when evaluating the claim. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain either fallacies or false or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

All BS! There is no god!!