A fully human will, with its own natural energy, is part and parcel with orthodox Christology, if one accepts Chalcedon and councils 5 and 6. Will is a property of nature, and hence there are two wills in Christ as the Calvinists will admit, and one will in the Godhead. If they admit a human will in Christ, then absurdquestions arise: will they admit that is raised/deified? Nope. If not, then our wills are not healed/raised/deified. If we no longer have a natural will, then Christ is not consubstantial with us, even if he had two. St. Gregory of Nazianzus stated it perfectly when he said, “what is not assumed [by the Logos], is not deified.”

The Calvinists can’t grasp that they have a faulty anthropology and view of pre-lapsarian man, which inevitably screws up their Christology. They don’t understand that theology begins with Christology, not soteriology. God hammered it out that way in the councils. Every Calvinist who does grasp this has left that heresy (and I know several). Once they stop confusing nature and grace as well as nature and person, they see they light.

Monergism, the Calvinistic view, presupposing its Pelagian view of pre-lapsarian mandenies the possibility of anything fallen retaining a naturalwill, with its own natural energy. In thier view, the fall has erased the freedom of the will, and so it follows Christ cannot have a free human will, since He is supposed to be consubstantial with us. It must also then, deny that will is a property of nature, if Christ assumed our corruption (1 Cor. 15:35-57), whilst it denies that Christ had a fully human will. It’s one or the other: our view is orthodox: their view leads to the error of mon – energism, that in Christ there is only one will, the overpowering divine will. In this view, grace must replace nature, the human will is replaced by the divinewill. This makes sense, given their view of the fall. In conversion, there can be no natural human will raised effectually to the divine life, but a dead will, replaced by the divine will. Grace replaces nature. The Incarnational theology Chalcedon refused such a confusion of the divine with the human. Grace raises nature, and never replaces of destroys it. This is why synergism is always true, though God can effectualy move free will.

A fully human will is part of what it means to be made in the image of God. This natural will has not been lost in the fall, otherwise human nature has been lost, and Christ could not have assumed it. The monothelites said there was one theandric enegy in Christ: the divine will. This is precisely how the 6th council defined the two natural wills in Christ:

The Sixth Council states in its Definition of Faith:

“And these two natural wills [in Christ] are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

So, the choice is clear: deny Chalcedon and embrace monothelitism, or in humility embrace the Catholic Theology you fail to understand.