In the seventh century, the Third Council of Constantinople (680-81) denounced monothelitism, the belief that the incarnate Christ has only one will. Consequently, the dyothelite (two-wills) position would become accepted orthodoxy in all three branches of Christian theology: Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. But in recent decades, several Christian philosophers and theologians have called into question the church’s conciliar position on the volitional life of Christ. For various reasons, these scholars believe that the one-will view better accounts for the unity of Christ's person and the coherency of his Incarnation. This dissertation analyzes three overlapping categories of contemporary monothelitism: abstractist Christologies, kenotic Christologies, and Spirit Christologies (chapter 2). It then seeks to retrieve the biblical and theological rationale for the dyothelite position. After surveying the emergence of the dyothelite consensus in the Patristic and medieval eras (chapter 3), special consideration is given to four Reformed theologians, who each defended the dyothelite position as a part of his broader Christological program: John Calvin, John Gill, William G. T. Shedd, and Thomas F. Torrance (chapter 4). It is concluded that the case for dyothelitism is cumulative and systematic in nature, taking into consideration not only the witnesses of Scripture and tradition, but also the implications of the debate for various loci of systematic theology (chapter 5).

‘Simul sanctification' is a transformational program for sanctification derived from Karl Barth's radical appropriation of Luther's dictum simul iustus et peccator. Barth's simul establishes the Christological link of the Second Adam with every human being. From this emerges what I contend is a ‘Chalcedonian anthropology' built on a double-duality: the original Chalcedonian formulation gives rise to a second duality revealed within Christ's one human person—the duality of a true, iustus humanity and a corrupt, peccator humanity. In order to appreciate the benefits regarding Barth's Spirit-charged epistemological program for sanctification and conversion, it will be imperative to elucidate the comprehensive nature of Barth's actualism as a way of establishing Barth's view of humanity's dynamic and free iustitia in Christ. Central to assessing the threat of the peccatum determination will be an examination of Barth's theology of the cross, especially in regards to his single subject economy derived from the person of ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified.' Through Barth's assessment of the cross I exposit the similarities and the differences between Chalcedonian Christology and ‘Chalcedonian anthropology;' the latter duality is proven by resurrection revelation to be ultimately provisional in nature. From here I probe Barth's position regarding the annulment of the simul as well as its beginning. By investigating Barth's doctrine of creation I argue that Barth's simul is reflective of the original antithesis between God and nothingness, the darkness under which Christ first placed himself so that humans would know both his solidarity in the darkness and his victory over it. Christians continue to dwell in the overlap of the simul's two mutually exclusive determinations, but by looking through Barth's simul to our true, created and redeemed humanity in Christ we are equipped to interpret our lives and the world around us most hopefully.

Bibliography: leaves 118-124 / Did Christ, in the incarnation, take a fallen or unfallen human nature? This question, in its various forms, has occupied the Christian Church for as long as it has existed. For the Seventh-day Adventist church, to which tradition I belong, the question centres on whether Christ as a human being had sinful tendencies or not. This question has divided the church into two main camps, with one camp saying he did, and the other saying he did not. And the debate goes on. It is from the Seventh-day Adventist church tradition that I picked up on this debate, following it up to mainstream Christianity and motivating this research. My research seeks to identify the causes of the debate. Its premise is that unless the specific causes of the debate are clearly identified and appropriately addressed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to conclude it. For a close analysis, two scholars, each representing one side, are picked and examined: Pannenberg, representing the fallen nature position, and Hatzidakis, representing the unfallen nature position. Their respective arguments are gleaned, compared and analysed; and their differences, causes and possible solutions are pointed out. The findings are then applied to the Seventh-day Adventist church debate and to Christianity at large. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / M. Th. (Systematic Theology)