"Top" Tiktok Unitarian Halal Christian Gets EXPOSED!

So, you're just going to redefine the word "being"?

>> We're not redefining it.

Okay. What do you think?

>> Okay. So, yeah. [music]

Uh, X such that X exists.

>> So, does personhood equal being?

>> When [music] you pick out a When you pick out a When you pick out a being, you pick out both. That's been my point the whole time.

>> Okay. So, you're saying that X

>> I just want to speak to Nick.

>> I was just curious about your metaphysical issue with it.

>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean like uh for more information uh please pull up the uh the PDF I sent you with all my objections clearly outlined and uh clearly

>> you can get your favorite one right now if you want and we can talk about it.

>> Yeah, I mean you can just Objection one is like the the beginning of it. So you agree that one will doesn't necessarily constitute one God, correct?

>> Yeah.

>> Good. So I never ever ever want to hear you on a panel say your God is one because one nature, one will, one agent, one God. Ever.

>> I say it's because he has one existence, not just one will specifically.

>> Okay. So what constitutes an existence?

>> The substance, the being.

>> So God is one being because he's one being.

>> No, we're saying he's one God because he has one substance, one existence. So because he has one nature specific

>> said what's in existence. You said the being.

>> Yeah. Which is going to derive the substance. So then nature.

>> Okay. So okay. So okay. So one nature necessarily constitutes one being.

>> Yeah. If something has one nature then it's one being. Yes.

>> Okay. So how many natures does Jesus have?

>> Two.

>> So how many beings would he be?

>> Yeah. If you're just talking about being as nature then two.

>> Oh Jesus would be two beings. If you're talking about being as in nature, then yes.

>> Yeah. Jesus would be two beings. Yeah. Sure.

>> Yeah. As long as you're referring to being as nature. Yes. What's the problem?

>> I'm referring to being as being the same way I defined it for God.

>> Okay. How do you define being?

>> Yeah. It's something that exists.

>> Okay. Do you think that their distinct existences, the human nature and the divine nature? And according to what you said, the same principle that you applied to define the oneness of God if applied to Jesus gives you a Jesus of notorious.

>> But no, it doesn't. There's not two persons in Christ.

>> Well, that's your problem. If either then admit So then admit that one one uh one nature doesn't necessarily uh doesn't necessitate one being.

>> No, it I'm saying it doesn't.

Okay, one having Christ having two natures doesn't mean he's two persons. How does that lead to two persons? That's what notorianism is.

>> You're not getting it. I'm saying the whole premise of the argument is this. The standard that you use to say that your God is one if applied to Christ would give you a Jesus of notorious. So if you tighten it in the trinity, you loosen it in Christ. If you loosen, if you tighten it in Christ, you would end up a seellian or a triist.

>> I want to know how that leads us to notorianism because where do you get different

>> Yeah, because you just said that one you just said that one nature necessarily constitutes one being. So if Jesus has two natures, then he would be two beings.

>> No, you're that is the principle that you use to define the oneness of being. One nature constitutes one being. Understanding what I'm saying?

>> Two natures constitutes two beings. So you're trying to give me like this whole like

>> I mean, how does that not follow?

>> Because I'm saying that if something has one nature then it is necessarily one being itself. Now something having two natures does not make two persons. You have to show me how that makes two persons.

>> Accepted. So now listen to what I'm saying. Accepted. So now you have to accept that one nature doesn't necessarily constitute one being.

>> That's the point.

>> You're not answering my question. My question is where are you getting it from? That

>> because that is the bridge that you just person.

>> Okay. Is a person a being?

>> Yeah. All persons are beings. Yes. [laughter]

>> Okay. So then if one nature constitutes one being, two natures would constitute two beings. And if a person is a person, he would be two persons.

>> I'm saying where are you getting personhood from? Because not everything that is a being is a person. So where are you getting two personhoods from? In the context of Christ, if we're talking about a will, that's going to be a rational seat of choice only applied to a person.

>> Okay. What do you define personhood as?

>> Yeah. I would just say an individual substance of a rational nature.

>> Okay. So, if it's an individual substance of a rational nature, we don't think that he has two different subsistences.

>> Accept it. But the problem is is like that principle doesn't hold in God. [snorts] If you say that God is necessarily one because one nature constitutes one being. That principle doesn't hold. You're literally saying it doesn't necessitate that Jesus is two beings. Okay, accepted. Like I'm accepting that like that is a valid objection if I'm doing an internal critique. But then you can't say that one nature now necessitates one being. You have lost that.

>> Okay, I'll show you. Do you do you think there has to be multiple substances for multiple persons?

>> You guys like bend the rules when it comes to Trinity and Jesus. So

>> I'm asking you generally, do you have to does there have to be multiple subsistences for multiple persons?

>> Jeopardy music commence.

>> I got muted. I was speaking the whole time. What the hell?

>> Yo, does it have to be multi? I don't know who muted you. If someone muted you, that's wrong.

>> Don't mute her. mods.

>> Does there have to be multiple substances for multiple persons?

>> Does there have to be multiple subsistences for multiple persons? I mean, within a human being, how many subsistence is?

>> Yeah, but within a human being, how many subsistences are there going to be?

>> One,

>> right?

>> My sub your subsistence.

>> So, I'm asking how.

>> No problem. But like, but this problem is like Jesus is like Yeah. But the problem is is like you're saying that Jesus is this exception.

>> Okay.

>> And you're saying because of this, this, this, and this. Okay. You don't need to get into it.

>> What

>> the problem that you have is that you you have to admit that the principle doesn't necessarily hold in God.

>> Wait, you literally didn't answer at all. I I just I asked you a question. I I believe I believe Yeah. I believe Yeah. But you're going to say no. We We just have a different idea what a person is.

>> No, I'm not going to say no.

>> No. But this is the problem. This is the problem that you're going to have.

>> If the principle doesn't hold in God, then the principle doesn't hold then and you're going to like basically special plead and say, "Well, I'm going to use it here and not use it here." then it's no principle at all.

>> No, I agree in every case in both in God in the hypoatic union etc that there has to be multiple subsistences for multiple persons.

>> And so there's not multiple subsistences in the hypothes.

>> Well, that's what notorianism is is multiple persons in Christ.

>> That's your problem. That's your problem. Yeah, I know whatism is.

>> So how do we fall into if there's Okay. Okay. So, how do we fall into if there's not multiple existences in Christ?

>> Because of the principle that you use to establish the oneness of God.

>> That's why.

>> How does that make multiple persons though? If you just admitted there has to be two If you are two beings by definition, how many persons are you?

>> It it doesn't say you being two beings doesn't say how many persons there are.

>> If you are two beings, how many persons are you?

>> It doesn't tell you because you can two dogs.

>> Didn't you just say 5 minutes ago that one person is one being?

>> Person is not identical to being. No, two dogs are two beings.

>> Okay, no problem. But we're now going from being, right? If you're two beings, how many persons are you?

>> It doesn't tell you cuz not all beings are persons. Okay. So, you can have two beings. That's one person.

>> I'm saying that Jesus is Wait, hold on. I'm saying you can have

>> Jesus is two beings, one person.

>> No, you're not listening. I'm saying you can have two beings that are two persons. You can have two beings that are zero persons.

>> Baba, listen. You can have two beings that Yeah, we're talking about obviously someone with a rational seat of choice. So, like, put that away.

>> It depends how many we're talking. We are talking about being. You just admitted on 4K to everyone here that Jesus is two beings.

>> I said if what you if we're talking about the nature.

>> Yes. So Christ has two natures. That's all we're saying. We're not saying

>> you said Jesus is two beings. You said Jesus.

>> We're not saying being in the normative sense. We're saying in the sense of nature. We we already established that.

>> You don't get to redefine being to save your christologology. What? Okay. Can being can being actually pick out nature?

>> You just you just said well I I believe that you know when you when you say a being you're picking out a subject. You're picking out the person and the and the nature.

>> I'm asking can a being pick out a nature?

>> Can a being pick out a nature?

>> I don't know.

>> You don't know?

>> I mean I don't think so. No.

>> Okay. So when we say a dog is a being, what are we picking out there?

>> I'm going to pick be picking out the instance that has the nature of whatever, you know, has the the nature of animality, let's say.

>> Okay, that's the nature.

>> But it's going to be both. It's going to be

>> of what?

>> It It's Well, I don't know. Like I wouldn't use the word person. Like what word would you use for a dog?

>> Exactly. Cuz a dog doesn't have person. Whatever like whatever like the the the the instantiator is whatever word you'd use the animal let's say the animal that has

>> the nature the animal okay we're just going to replace the word animal with n with person but the the point is is like if you say that a dog is a being just picking out Hold on when you say a dog is a being are you saying wait hold on

>> when you say Jesus is God

>> right, let's start Are you are you picking out the who, the what, or both?

>> When we're saying Jesus is God, we're talking about his nature cuz that's what makes him God.

>> Jesus is a nature.

>> No. When you say he is God, you're picking out his nature cuz that's what makes God God.

>> Say when you say the word Jesus, you said do pe you said do beings pick out natures? I said I said it picks out both. I said it Jesus and the nature. When you say Jesus is God, you're saying the person Christ is God. He has the divine nature,

>> right? So the person that is both that has the nature of man and God. That that's what you're referring to, right?

>> Yeah, we're talking about the person of Christ.

>> The person that has the nature, right? So then you're referring to both. So I was correct. So now we go back to my original objection. So if one nature necessarily means one being, two natures would by that same principle you apply for God would render you how many Jesuses?

>> No, it would how many Jesus? What? Wait, how many Jesuses? You're talking about a person now, right?

>> You have two beings.

>> Wait, when you say Jesus, you're talking about a person now, right?

>> I'm talking about the being.

>> So why did you say Jesus? You said the person.

>> Two beings. So, are we talking about the being of Christ or the person of Christ?

>> Nickicknick.

>> Because you're you just said Jesus means person. Now you're saying being?

>> No, because I'm saying I'm applying that principle to Christ. If Jesus has two natures by the same principle that you applied to God, how many beings would Jesus be?

>> It depends how you're using the term being. If you're using it for nature as we just said, then two. If you're using it as existence,

>> no being. But we already established that being when you when we already established that a being picks out a person plus nature.

>> So

>> no necessarily. Wait, necessarily?

>> No. When we're speaking about like rational agents.

>> Okay. When you're speaking about rational agents, yes, it's going to include the nature plus the person.

>> And in this we are so then if Jesus is two beings, how many Jesuses you got?

>> Okay. Again, I don't think he's two beings colloially. How many?

So, you're just going to redefine the word being?

>> We're not redefining it.

Okay. What do you think?

>> So, yeah.

Uh, X such that X exists.

>> What?

X such that X exists?

>> Yeah. Something that

>> Wait, does personhood have true existence?

>> I don't know what that means. Like,

>> does personhood have concrete existence?

>> I mean, it exists.

>> Okay. So, you said X such that X exists. So, does personhood equal being?

>> When you pick out a When you pick out a When you pick out a being, you pick out both. That's been my point the whole time.

>> Okay. So, you're saying such that X exists.

>> You're saying you're saying

>> being in person, but both exist, right?

>> They don't exist independently of each other. That's

>> Do they exist distinctly?

>> Sure. But they don't exist independently of each other. Like when I say Nick, when I say Nick, right, can Nick just be referring to

>> like like some abstract who and or just some abstract what?

>> It has to be both. I agree. That's not my point.

>> The person that is a male.

>> No, I I totally agree that. So what I'm asking you then is if being is X such that if being is X such that X

>> two Jesus, this is

>> Hold on. If being is X such that X exist and you have two distinctions in your existence, person and being. You agreed they're distinct but not independent. How many different existences do you have in you

>> distinctly? Not independently and that's not going to be analogous for the hypothatic union.

>> Just asking a question.

>> That's not analogous for the hyper so I can understand your view of metaphysics. How many how many existences and beings would you be?

>> You would be one being. But wait, you just said being is such and exist and you have two different existences.

>> The word I was just I was just defining the word being as something that exists. Okay.

>> Yeah. And I'm showing you how that doesn't make sense. So you said that you have distinction between personhood and being.

>> So what do you think a being is? You don't you disagree that a being is something that exists?

>> I think it's something that has concrete existence in its substance.

>> Right. So who plus what essentially?

>> No. A being is not. You think being equals who plus what?

>> Yeah. When we're speaking of rational agents, he's like, "How many?"

>> So, wait. So, special pleading. Wait, so you're special pleading specifically for that?

>> We're literally speaking about a rational agent.

>> We want to know what being means. Period. Not just in one exist. And you just said you agree. So then answer my question.

>> If it's something if it's Oh my. If it's just something that exists, does personhood exist distinctly

>> from nature?

>> I just said no. I said they don't exist. Well, this independently like your who is not the what, but like they don't exist. They don't exist independently of each other. Like, dude, Nick, you're just asking the same questions over and over again. Like a

>> I never asked that. I said distinctly. Do they exist distinctly?

>> Like some abstract who exists distinctly from an abstract.

>> The personhood is a distinct existence from the nature.

>> The personhood is a distinct exist. It just depends on how you qualify that question. But I wouldn't say the personhood equals the nature. No.

>> So it's distinct from the nature, right?

>> Yeah, I've already said that.

>> Okay. So if it's distinct from the nature, that's two different existences, correct?

>> Two different existences. No,

>> you just said they're distinct. So then how are they distinct that they're not different existence?

>> Wait, do you believe that you're two existences?

>> No, I'm critiquing your view. No, I'm asking.

>> No, I already said I already I already told you. But I just said I literally if you had a problem with my first definition, I just said something that exists and you're still trying to hold me to the prior definition even though I've already like

>> something that exists. Okay. And you said that personhood has a would definitionally it has to have a different existence.

>> Okay. Wait, Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick, one second. Do we agree on the definition of being?

>> No, I think that being is going to be something that exists pertaining to substance.

>> Okay. So, a thing that has a substance. Correct. So the who plus what?

>> It's going to be protecting the substance. It's not who plus what? Because a dog doesn't have a who plus what?

>> I I understand. I understand. Like an animal plus the nature. A a plant plus whatever plant it is.

>> The animal is the nature.

>> A person a person plus their nature. Like

>> animal doesn't the animal is the nature itself.

>> Some some placeholder of the category of the kind of whatever they are plus whatever nature they have. Cool.

>> Well, it depends. Are you a nominalist? I don't even [clears throat] know what that is.

>> Do you hold that universals are true that have true existence?

>> Um, I don't know. I I don't know.

>> I mean, cuz you said earlier that the dog the instantiation of it, that's what I was wondering.

>> Yeah. I don't Yeah. I don't I don't know. I don't really know what they're saying to be honest with you. I don't know.

Well, that's what when you said instantiation, that's a particular of a universal. That's why I was wondering.

>> Yeah. Sure, sure, sure, sure, sure.

>> So, I'm saying if a universal has true existence, right? Then that's what we're going to be referring to when we refer to like an animal.

>> Okay. And so it's not going to be a that's how is this refuting but I'm telling you how is this refuting what I've said to you about what you clipped in 4K saying Jesus is two beings.

>> Yeah. I'm showing you the distinction. The distinction is the divine nature is not a universal.

>> Oh my goodness. I never said it was.

>> Okay. So if the divine nature isn't a universal then it's not going to apply to there being different beings because if we're counting beings by different universals then this is why I said that this is why Christ is one being in this case if we're using it as purely existence because so then what you're essentially saying is that I mean okay what you're essentially saying is that let me get this right. So basically what you're saying is that because because it's God essentially [clears throat]

>> why somebody tells her to get down, you know.

>> Hold on. Hold on. So he's basically just saying, let me get this straight. Sorry, I got a message. I didn't realize. So what you're basically saying is that because it's God and for no other reason than that I believe that it's God,

>> then I'm just not going to apply the principle. Cuz I would I would apply we're talking about the principle that you use to establish nature count to being count.

>> No, it just logically that God can't be multiply instantiated

>> cuz I never said that. And I never said that. I never said that God isn't. We're talking about how you

>> No, that's not what the critique is. You're you're attacking a straw man, Nick. That's not what my critique is. My critique is this. You apply a principle that you say holds that establishes nature count to being count and you say this holds. You do not hold that principle. You abandon that principle in in Christ. Okay. So then outside of you essentially either need to I mean you already did concede that you got two Jesuses but

>> oh my nobody did nobody can see that we can see that Christ has two natures.

>> You said he's hold on did the words Christ is two beings come out your mouth.

>> What did I say right? I said if you mean nature by being.

>> Okay. So you did say if Christ is two beings if you mean nature. Right.

>> So the Christ has two natures. What's the problem with Christ having two natures?

>> Okay. Okay. Okay. Now, does being when we're talking about rational persons, does it include the who and the what?

>> Yeah. If you're talking about rationality,

>> okay. And Christ is a rational agent, right?

>> Yes.

>> So, when you said he's two beings, it's going to require the who and the what, right?

>> If you're talking about the existence, then it's only going to be one being. That's why I said it depends how you're using the term being cuz the term being is not univical.

>> Okay? So Christ is going so if you're talking about existence now then Christ is going to be one being because he is not he does not have a particular instantiation of his divine nature.

>> Yeah. Yeah, Right. Right. So now this is what you need to do. So I I get what you're saying. So now what you need to do is you need to Oh my goodness. I have to get the PDF out. Objection 14. Let me pull it up.

>> One hour later.

>> Uh yo dude I can't lie. Like I feel like I'm being put on the spot. I need to find it and I can't find it cuz it's like 20 pages. I'm trying to like

>> the bag. Don't tumble the bag. We trust

>> it's literally He knows. He's seen the PDF.

>> Can't find your argument.

>> No, it's 20. Like it's 20 pages, dude. Like you've seen the PDF for yourself. Like it's

>> just control F like objection.

>> The same word is written like a gazillion times.

>> Just be like objection 13.

>> Okay. [clears throat] So I've got a question for you, right? So I'm just going to kind of go in order. So because I've got like for one more. Okay. So, okay. [clears throat] So, the subordination of the human will in Gethsemane, is it an act or not?

>> What his like him praying?

>> Yeah. Him Jesus subordinating his human will in Gethsemane. Is that an act or not?

>> And if you're specifically talking about the prayer, then yes.

>> Okay. And if it's an act, which nature performs it?

>> Natures don't perform actions, persons do.

>> Sure. But the problem that you have is that uh when Constantinople 3 when you have you would say that operations you would say that Christ will I'm just quoting it now. So Christ will and operateth in a manner corresponding to each of his natures as each nature is capable of operating. So

>> yeah, that means the person acts in virtue of a nature that but the the natures don't act that would be wrong.

>> So we have to okay so then does okay so now so now this is then going to go to objection three. So okay so your strongest and most traditional reply to objection to is uh uh maximum anxiousness sorry action s supposositorium can't read actions belong to the person the nature is the by which uh the person is the who, right? The hypothesis wheels through the natural will now um when you say the person performs the yielding does the person's performing add any act over and above the to natural operations or not.

>> What does it mean to do an act above natural operations?

>> Well, here's the problem that you have. Like your grammar your grammar predicates the action to the person.

>> Yeah. But what does it mean to do an action above natural operations?

>> I'm I'm I'm going to answer you. So you would say that so uh as per your I'm not sure if it's Constantinople or Maximus, but you would say that uh you know operations belong to the nature, right? Um operations

>> operations come from the nature but the person

>> Yeah. Come from the nature.

>> Okay. So this is the problem that you have. You keep saying you keep using the person almost as like a grammatical place marker right because if a person is doing something then the person is asenting to do that right that that in itself is a valition. Okay. The person wills will be proper to the person. So you grammatically use

>> will is not proper. Yeah.

>> Okay. So then the person does nothing.

>> What the what is that? No, the will is proper to the nature. The person acts if the if the operations Hold on, let me just read the quote again. Let me just read the quote again. It says um it says Christ willth and operate in a manner corresponding to each of his natures as each nature is capable of operating.

>> So the person does things in virtue of the nature.

>> Okay. So then this is why we went to objection three. So when you say Christ yields his human will. Okay. Is that an does Christ have to ascend the person? Does Christ have to will to do that?

>> Yeah. Christ has to will to do any action? Yes.

>> Okay. So, notice your language again. You're saying Christ wills. You're predicating the willing to the person and then and then in your theology saying no, no.

>> Just like we say Christ has flesh, right? It doesn't mean that flesh is a property of his personhood, but we're just attributing something of his nature to him. It's not the same thing. This is this is an act. It's a valid this, you know, having flesh is just how you ex, you know, it's just how he is, right? We're just saying you can attribute property to the person's nature.

>> Sure. But like when you're acting, it's different, right? You have to ascent to do something. You have to like exercise some faculty of valition. Okay. Vocabulary predicates it to the person.

>> No, we're predicating. Like so like when you say so when you say like so when you say Christ

>> you know acts through the nature does the through add anything essentially

>> yeah adds it that's what grounds it

>> in what

>> so when you say like Christ you know when you say like Christ acts through the nature okay I understand but look what you're doing you're saying that Christ the person wills So if the person is exercising the faculty of willing, then the will is going to be predicated to the person. But in the same breath, you turn around and say no.

>> No. Cuz we just said the person wills in virtue of the nature. So it's grounded in the nature still. So then you have then you just have another problem because if so what you're essentially saying is that the nature performs the the nature the nature does the operation and then the person does the person do the operation

>> the person does the operation in virtue of the nature

>> but you but that's not what that's not what Your That's not what your doctor said.

>> My doctor?

>> Yeah. I'm using doctor to mean like your church authority.

>> Yo, Nick,

>> which a church authority says the person doesn't do the operation.

>> Yeah. So, if you go and again, I cited it. So, if you go to uh if you go to page 13 and then I cited like the book is going to be like right above it. Uh I think it's going to be Maxim uh Maximus's dispositions with Pius. So it literally says uh it's going to be a translation by Frank something and you go to page 13. He says no the natures are the one that's operate. You see this like you have a problem.

>> Yes.

>> What does it say?

>> I just read the quote to you.

>> Yeah. I just read it again. So it says uh as each nature is capable of operating the nature is operating. The nature is acting.

>> Wait you said that was from Constant the third council of Constantinople.

>> No I said this is Max. No that was something else that I quoted to you before.

>> This is the same quote you just gave though today from Constantinople.

>> No that was the last objection. This objection I've been saying the same thing. This is going to be page.

>> Let's get the citation. Let's go to the quote.

>> Yeah. page 13 of um Maximus's dismisses, is it disputation against Pyus? Uh translation by Frank something.

>> All right,

>> I can send it to you if you want.

>> I mean, if you have it, you can just show us.

>> Um I don't know where the hell it is, bro. I've got like 50 million files. I can't be bothered right now to get my computer out and like I'm on my laptop. Can't bother to turn it on. [snorts]

>> But yeah, I citation. I mean, I just read it like verbatim.

>> All right, I got it up here. All right. So

>> So like in one in one sense like you're saying like here here's the thing, right?

>> Like

>> here I got it up here.

>> Yeah. Go on.

>> All right. So

>> like you're basically saying like it's just predicated to the nature but

>> 13. So here So here it is, right? Like I just showed this is the the thing that you wanted me to go to. This is it. Okay.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

>> Uh let's go to page 13. Just like you said. All right. Here is page 13 here and we'll read it. Who then attributes necessity to God? Consider, my friend, if thou will the blasphemy of such a proposition? For if one saith that the wills in Christ are natural, and if according to thee, he who has a natural will does not have a voluntary motion, then it necessarily follows that then which is in a natural way a movement that is voluntary. But then God, who is beyond beings, and all beings with a rational and intellectual nature, and which possess the faculty of will, and have involuntary motion, and only that which is without a soul and without a will, have voluntary motion. But the blessed serial in the criticisms of his third chapter against Theodora released us from any further argument by stating quite explicitly nothing which is natural is involuntary in the rational nation.

>> So where does it say anything about that there?

>> Hold on. Let me put it up. Let me just get it. I cut up the wrong page. Hold on. Just give me a moment. Can I have like 10 seconds while I put it up?

>> It's under uh She's got a phone.

>> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I asked you. Wait, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. You backtracked. You went back to objection two. When I asked you, Nick, I said,

>> "Wait, hold on, hold on, hold on. I'm I'm trying to put your way of not finding the quote."

>> Hold on. Let

>> it, bro. [laughter]

>> Yo, that was

>> I let people run for it, bro. If you going to quote my father, we going to know. Hey, hey, [clears throat] that Hey, w hell. She said, "All right, I'll be right back." Listen, one thing I do, bro, if people knows and when I debate, if you bring a quote, you

>> wait. Can you bring page? Can you do uh Can you check page 101?

>> Somewhere between 101 to 105. Can you just like control F it? Can you search it?

>> I don't even Is there even a P? Let me look. There's not even a page 101. It's 74 pages.

>> STOP THE [screaming] CAP RIGHT NOW.

>> WAIT, hold on. Can you It might be the column number then. I might have quoted it differently. Hold There's 74 pages total.

>> Hold on. It might have been the column number. Wait, hold on.

>> 20 minutes later.

>> Page four at the bottom.

>> It was It was It was number 13. Sorry, I got it mixed up. So, I wasn't lying.

>> I didn't say you were lying. All right, page four.

>> I got to go after this. I can't lie. Like, I need to leave. But

>> page four.

>> Yeah, at the bottom. Yeah, that paragraph.

>> Oh, 13.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. That's the 13 I was talking about like I wasn't like

>> okay therefore Christ exist as God and as man by nature then did he will as God and as man or only as Christ. If it were Christ who w initiated actions being both God and man then it is clear being one and the same he willed dually and not singly. For if Christ be nothing else apart from the natures from which he is and which he exists then obviously he will then operate in a manner corresponding to each of his natures. In other words, as each nature is capable of operating and if he has two natures, then he surely must have two natural wills and the essential operations being in the number of natures.

>> Okay. So, did it say that natures operate?

>> Yeah, it says in a manner corresponding to his nature.

>> That's literally what I said. I said [laughter]

>> what I said.

>> You said that natures do operate.

>> I said in a manner corresponding to each of his natures as each nature is capable of operating. That's exactly what I said.

>> You said that's what the quote said.

>> I said it says that the natures are capable of operating. Correct.

>> You said the natures operate is what you said that they do operate

>> right now. Yeah. But when I read the quote and then you said where does it say this? Did it say what I said? say that the nature's You said it says the natures operate. It doesn't say that.

>> No, I didn't. I said that right now. You're

>> said You literally said that 10 minutes ago,

>> Nick. I said that.

>> Yes, you said that.

>> 10 seconds ago. I said that. I said that.

>> No, you said that 10 minutes ago. Everyone in the comments.

>> I said he willth and operateth in a manner corresponding to each of his nature.

>> Nature is capable of operating. So will you agree that if we played a recording back and you did say that the natures operate that you blundered?

>> Yo are the nature's capable

>> I just want to make sure

>> the nature is capable of operating.

>> No I just want to make sure will you agree if we go back and you did say that the nature's operate you blundered.

>> Yo I just asked you a question.

>> So you know you said it bro. Why are we lying?

>> All right cool. So then the quote that I read did you find it? Yeah, the the quote. No, not the quote that you said. I found a quote that said

>> that wasn't a quote. I wasn't saying a quote when I asked you the question. How dishonest are you?

>> What? You said Maximus says this.

>> So dishonest. I actually read the quote. You said, "Hey, go find it." I go find the quote and I said, "Does the natures operate?" to that as if that was

>> You weren't saying a quote before. Then why did you say your doctor says this?

>> He says that the n Oh my goodness. you. So, so were you reading a quote or not? 10 minutes.

>> I said when I said as per your doctor, I read the PDF.

>> So, the quote, right?

>> And it said Yeah.

>> So, you were reading a quote.

>> That's what I said. I was reading a quote.

>> That's what I said. And then you wanted to fact check.

>> No, you just said you were say what I said originally.

>> You just said 5 seconds ago you weren't reading a quote. Which one was it? I literally said when I was reading the PDF, then you sent me on a wild goose chase to go and find the quote. Yo, you're so dishonest. I wasn't a quote.

>> You bro, you just changed your answer within 10 seconds. First, you said you were reading a quote when you're reading the PDF, then you said,

>> "No, you know, you know, you know, Nick, Nick, it's right there in your PDF, page seven." Okay.

>> Yeah. And what he says is specifically in the context, he says he operates in a manner corresponding to each of his nature. What does he mean by that?

>> As read read the next bit.

>> In a manner corresponding to his other natures. In other words, each nature is capable of operating. And if he surely must have two natural okay so the natures are capable of operating. Correct.

>> Capable. Yes. Not that they operate.

>> Okay. So okay. So then this is why then I asked you when it says Christ wills through. So then this is this is why now we go back to the initial this is why now we go back to the initial objection. If you're going to say that when I asked you I said when the person when the person performing the yielding right uh sorry so then I said to you this I said when the person performs the yielding does the person's performing act you know add any act over and above the two natural operations cuz you say Christ wills in virtue of his humanity. And I asked you what does it mean above operation natural operation.

>> So essentially when it says okay to do something you have to

>> Yeah. So to do something you have to will it. Correct.

>> Yeah. I'm asking what does it mean to do it above natural operations.

>> Yeah. Because you you're the one that's saying in one breath that Christ wills in virtue of you know his nature. And then in another breath you say that um that each nature is capable of operating.

>> Yeah. So what does that So what does it You're not telling me what it means to operate above or to natural operations.

>> Nick Nick is operating a verb.

>> What does what how how are you going to go?

>> Nick Nick is on earth are you going to go off topic and just not answer

>> I'm showing you I'm answering your questioning a verb. I'm answering your question by showing you is operating a verb. Well, I mean, a verb is just an action, so I get you could say it. Yeah, it would have to,

>> right? And an action needs a performer, right?

>> Yes. Now, will you answer my question?

>> And who is the And who is the And what is and what is the the the subject that the operating in that sentence is being predicated to?

>> The person is the one doing the action.

>> No, that's not what it says. So, the nature is capable as each nature is capable of operating.

>> Yeah. And he says right before that, what when he explains it, he says operate. manner. What does it mean in a manner corresponding to it? What does that mean?

>> That's what I'm saying. The object, this is the whole point of what the objection is is in one breath you're saying that Christ when when you're essentially saying that Christ wills, okay, or Christ does something. [gasps] Essentially, the word Christ is just an empty place marker to it's just a a predication of grammar and nothing more than that.

>> All I'm trying is that you still have not told me what it means for a to do an action.

>> You're the one you're the one that's your burden because you say that Christ how that's your burden. How is it my burden if you're the one you asked me is the natural you asked me so is he acting above the natural will how is it my burden if you're the one asking the question

>> yeah because I just asked you I said is operating a verb and you said yeah

>> what what does that have to do with asking the question

>> and the operating in the ver the operating in the quote is being predicated to what

>> the oh my [snorts] god

>> the nature

>> why are you not my question then yeah because the verse I keep saying the verse I keep thinking it's the Bible. The um the quote is saying that the natures are the one that is capable of operating predicating action.

>> It does not tell me what you mean when you say

>> so when you say so when you say

>> when you ask me the question the action does the action correspond above the natural will that doesn't tell me what that means. So essenti so then this is oh my goodness

>> like you just got this like argument from like ch. So when it says Christ wills okay if that will is being exercised by the person then will is proper to person. If you're going to say no will is proper to nature but then still in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>> Will is grounded in personhood.

>> Yeah. I believe that will is proper to person. I don't believe will is proper to nature.

>> So, anything that we say halal does, you have to You're speaking about me the person that because that's what it means to be a person. And it means to will, to act, to have rationale. That's what it means to be a person like you.

>> So if I say halal breathes, is that a property? Is breathing a property your personhood or your nature?

>> Yeah. But the problem is that's not a uh that's not a valitional act. That's just something I do by nature. I respire even when I'm sleeping. When you're talking about willing let's say halal walks.

>> Yeah. I have I have to ascent to want to do it. I have to like if I'm in bed, I have to will to get out of bed and walk.

>> Yeah. Is that have to be in virtue of your nature or of your personhood?

>> Me I the person will that.

>> Okay. But is it in virtue of your nature that you walk?

>> You are the one you are the one that's saying that the willing will.

>> Can you walk without your without the human nature?

>> You Oh my goodness. I can't walk if I don't have legs.

>> Okay. So, it has to be in virtue of the human nature, right?

>> But you're But you're the But this is the problem. The willing though is proper to me, the person. You're saying no, the willing is proper to the nature, but then in your language predicate the willing to the person that's where the problem we have. This is where you and I are having the

>> it's not a problem because the person does it in correspondence to the nature

>> as a grammar of predication. But you don't actually believe that the will is proper to person.

>> Exactly. That's why it's in virtue of the nature.

>> So then when it says Christ wills, this is the word Christ is just a grammar of predication. Like the person isn't actually doing anything. It's the nature that's operating.

>> It's the person that's doing it. But it's what we're talking about.

>> Do it at the will. It's proper to person. I'm sorry. You have to read.

>> That's not okay. What does it What does it mean for something to be proper to something?

>> Yeah. Literally, it belongs to

>> It means it's grounded in, right?

>> Yeah. Belongs to

>> Okay. What is will grounded in?

>> I would say personhood.

>>