Dyothelite

Dyothelites identified the energeia and will as natural properties, something unacceptable to their opponents.

John's willingness to relocate theandricism from the plurality of energies to the singularity of their actualized activity is, I think, what older dyothelites such as Maximus had finally intended.

A monothelite will say that only persons have a will, whereas a dyothelite will maintain that natures have a will.

Even the patriarch Pyrrhus was at one stage persuaded by Maximus' powers of rhetoric to defect to the dyothelite (two-will) camp, albeit temporarily.

Perhaps most troubling of all is the fourth objection; it is not clear that the dyothelite model actually succeeds in avoiding something that looks suspiciously like Nestorianism.

The nature of human nature, read through the lens of dyothelite Christology and Christ's new theandric energy, is that of a nature anteriorly ready to receive the unequalizable surprise of a second gift of grace realized in theandric action.

But at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 (the 6th Exumenical Council) it was decided that because a will properly belongs to a nature, rather than a person, Jesus must have had two wills and, furthermore, on the soteriological basis that 'the unassumed is unhealed', Christ must have had a human will (as well as a divine will) hence 'orthodoxy' was dyothelite (thelein: 'to will').