Inaug.-Diss.--Leipzig. / Vita.

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).

Les termes logos (raison) et tropos forment un couple qui est très significatif pour la pensée de Maxime le Confesseur (c. 580-662). Dans notre thèse, nous examinons les contextes dans lesquels Maxime le Confesseur emploie le terme tropos (mode) soit à l’intérieur du couple logos-tropos, soit de façon autonome. Nous ne traitons pas le concept de tropos comme un terme invariant intégré à une doctrine uniforme, mais plutôt comme un moyen ou un «outil» conceptuel qui aide Maxime à résoudre des problèmes très différents dans plusieurs domaines de sa pensée. Nous examinons les différents contextes dans lesquels Maxime le Confesseur utilise le couple logos-tropos ou le seul terme tropos, comme, par exemple, la logique, la relation entre l’universalité et la particularité, la théologie trinitaire, la question du mal et la Théodicée, la cosmologie, la théorie du progrès spirituel, la théorie de l’achèvement ontologique, la christologie et l’eschatologie. Dans chaque cas, nous insistons sur les termes qui sont déterminés par le mot tropos et sur les relations de contraste, d’opposition ou tout simplement de distinction qui se forment entre eux. Nous examinons également le champ lexical des mots qui sont relatifs au terme tropos. En général, le logos exprime la stabilité et la permanence qui est nécessaire pour qu’il y ait un sens contemplé par le sage, alors que le tropos signifie une modalité qui ouvre la possibilité de contingence, de surprise et d’innovation à l’intérieur de l’Histoire. L’emphase est plutôt mise sur le fait que le tropos est exactement une modalité qui peut coexister avec le logos sans l’annuler, altérer ou corrompre. / The terms logos (reason) and tropos (mode) form a very important couple in the thought of Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662). In our PhD thesis, we are examining the contexts in which Maximus the Confessor is using the term tropos (mode) either inside the couple logos-tropos or independently. We are not developing the concept of tropos as a uniform doctrine, but we are examining it mostly as a means or as a conceptual “tool” which helps Maximus solving very different problems in diverse domains of his thought. We thus examine the use of the term tropos in contexts such as logic, the philosophical relation between universality and particularity, Trinitarian theology, the question of evil or Theodicy, cosmology, the stages of spiritual progress, the theory of the ontological actualization of beings, Christology and eschatology. In each case, we are insisting in the terms which are determined by the word tropos, the terms which are determined by the word logos, as well as the relations of contrast, opposition or simple distinction between them. We are equally examining the lexical field that is related to the term tropos. In general, logos expresses the stability and the permanence that are necessary for the existence of a meaning which could be contemplated by the philosopher, whereas tropos means a modality which opens a space for contingence, surprise and innovation inside History. The emphasis is placed on the fact that tropos is exactly a modality which can coexist with logos without annulling, altering or corrupting it.