re incarnation two minds of christ in article may geneva rutgers edu tedr athena cs uga edu ted kalivoda writes nabil wrote 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 clh
