The “Will” of God

The title of this article is a misnomer, as I am going to argue there is no specific “Will” of God. Before I do that, however, I want to give some context. I was sitting around trying to decide what I wanted to write todays article on when I decided to open up Wikipedia and read about the first seven ecumenical councils of Christianity. And while reading through the list, I became remarkably peeved with the sixth council, also known as the Third Council of Constantinople.

The Third Council of Constantinople established that Jesus was both dyoenergist and dyothelitist (meaning two energied and two willed, respectively). This carries from the logic developed in the Second Council of Constantinople that decided that Jesus was one individual that was two natured. You start to see a pattern, and much of this was because early Christians were wrestling with what it meant to be both fully man and fully God. And while there is a lot of nuance around this topic that involves discussing man’s sin nature, or the purpose of Christ sacrifice, or whether Christ was an inherited human, none of this really matters.

The reason a nuanced discussion about Christ in relation to these, and many other, topics is because the points made in the Third Council of Constantinople are just wrong. Jesus had only one Will. And I don’t mean that he had a divine Will, either. Rather, a Will is a neutral capacity which corporeal beings possess. To simplify what this means, there aren’t distinct Wills between fish, humans, dogs, lizards, we all just possess a Will. So when Jesus was on the earth He merely possessed a Will.

Now, for those who have read my first article, “God is Experience,” they would know that I have argued that Will and non-Will would merely be points within God. I have also argued in my article, “Sin: Misunderstood and Misused,” that man is born morally neutral and not in a state of depravity. With these taken as true, Jesus did not need a divine Will to ensure He was sinless, and there is no need of a divine Will because there is not a being which is unique from other beings which govern us. And even if there was a unique father figure sitting on the throne of heaven, why does this demand that he have a unique relation to the make up of his will power?

Continuing further, why does Christ also need to be dyoenergist? I cite the same argument I’ve provided above as to why it is illogical to argue Jesus is of two energies. In fact, I go a step further and invoke my, “God is Experience,” article again to say the essence vs energy distinction is a mute point. There is merely God–Experience–that we perceived/consume in bitesize morsels. There isn’t a unique energy for both God and man. Rather, all manifested reality is just a finite amount of the infinite, let’s call it energy, that is God.

In the end, this is why I chose to pick a fight with the Third Council of Constantinople. It stands in support of two doctrines that are, quietly frankly, stupid things to gripe about and split hairs over. Even worse, these two doctrines are radically incorrect and once again need to be done away with.

I also want to be completely clear in saying that I am not supporting their historical opposites (monoenergist and monothelitist). Both of these beliefs were made intentionally vague to attempt to solve what was already a silly schism. There is only one type of Will that all with Will possess (including Jesus and humans), and energy as a concept is outdated and should be replaced with the updated concept of God being Experience and all that is possess a finite amount known as experience (little “e”).

Appendix A

This may seem odd to relegate to an appendix, but I believe my argument above is enough for this to follow. The Dyophysite concept of Jesus having two natures in one is also unnecessary. One again, there is no divine Nature, only Nature. This means that Christ has only one Nature, Nature. Now, some may argue that Christ needs to be Dyophysite to ensure the Hypostatic Union, but that’s not true. If my article, “Who was Jesus?,” is taken to be true, and this article is taken to be true, then Jesus possess all the attributes of humanity (Will, limited experience, nature, a body) and is the Avatar through which God operates (making him unique to all other creation). Does that mean I am arguing Jesus is created? You’ll just have to wait for a future article to find out.