Section 03: The Two Wills of Christ

The dyothelite controversy of the seventh century and St. Maximus the Confessor’s theology of the two natural wills. This section traces the imperial “unity projects” — monoenergism and monothelitism — from the Pact of Union (633) through the Ekthesis (638) and Typos (648), and sets out Maximus’s mature Christology of will as a faculty of nature, anchored in his reading of Gethsemane and crystallised in the Disputation with Pyrrhus (645).

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox (Church Father)

Contents

File Topic
The Monothelite Controversy The Pact of Union (633), Sophronius’ protest, Sergius’ Psephos, the letters of Pope Honorius, the Ekthesis (638) and the Typos (648); why the empire wanted a single formula; Maximus’ emergence as head of the resistance
Dyothelite Christology Natural will (thelēma physikon) versus the mode of willing, why two natures entail two wills, the Gethsemane exegesis, the Disputation with Pyrrhus (645), and how the argument extends Chalcedon’s logic

How to Use

  • Read The Monothelite Controversy first for the historical frame — the imperial decrees, the patriarchs, and the geopolitics that made “one will” attractive to Constantinople.
  • Read Dyothelite Christology for the doctrine itself: the technical vocabulary (natural will, gnomic will, mode of willing) and how Gethsemane anchors the whole case.

Why This Section Matters

Monothelitism was the last great Christological heresy of the patristic age, and the most dangerous precisely because it claimed to be Chalcedonian. By granting “two natures” while insisting on “one will,” it hollowed out the reality of Christ’s humanity. Maximus saw that a nature without its own will is no nature at all — and that a Christ with no human will could not have saved the human will. His answer, vindicated at Constantinople III (681), completed the Chalcedonian synthesis.

Cross-References

References

  • See the collection README for the principal sources; each content file carries its own full reference list.