**John 6:38** >For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me Surely this implies they have separate wills?

I realize that monothelitism arose in the context of Chalcedonian dyophysitism, and that non-Chalcedonians have not been forced to deal with the distinction of monothelitism versus dyothelitism historically. According to this answer the heresy of monothelitism according to the Catholic church may essentially be attributed to making our Lord Jesus only appear human, in effect similar to monophysitism. I only recently started to learn about the history of the church, and lack formal education in the matter, but I wonder if dyothelitism does not risk becoming similar to Nestorianism. Simply put "two wills" sounds to me like it necessitates two *separate* persons. The Catholic church clearly disagrees, since they do not consider themselves Nestorian (note that this question is not about why the Catholic church disagrees). On the other hand miaphysites have traditionally considered Chalcedonian dyophysitism as Nestorian heresy. According to this answer and what I have been able to find elswhere, the difference between dyophysitism and miaphysitism is however smaller than one may initially be led to believe, lying mainly in *how* the full humanity and full divinity of our Lord should be considered. Would miaphysites consider dyothelitism an expression of Nestorian heresy in dyophysitism, when confronted with the question in theory? Since, to my knowledge, no corresponding issue has been raised within miaphysitism, I suppose there is an (oriental) orthodox view. It seems reasonable to me that since in Christ the divine and the man exist unseparably without blending, diluting, or diminishing; there should be one will that is an expression of this perfect union. Is this correct according to miaphysites?

Monothelitism is the belief that Christ has only one will. It was condemned as heresy at the [The 3rd Council of Constatinople](https://www.britannica.com/event/Third-Council-of-Constantinople-680-681) , but still has many adherents, including the famous apologist [William Lane Craig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) , who [writes](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/monotheletism) : > If Christ's human nature had its own proper will so that Christ had literally two wills, as the Council affirmed, then there would be two persons, one human and one divine. But that is the heresy known as Nestorianism, which divides Christ's person into two. I cannot understand how Christ's human nature could have a will of its own, distinct from the will of the Second Person of the Trinity, and not be a person. What is the biblical basis for this belief of monothelitism?

Two early heresies that intrigue me a bit are monoergism and [monothelitism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism) . Both basically suggest that while Jesus was both human and divine, he only had one "energy" or one "will." Both were eventually called heresy by the church, but why? Does this this guard against the frankly worse heresy of Nestorianism?. What is so bad about these heresies? What practical effect does it have on one's perception of Jesus if we fall into this trap?