People are often too unware about some of the Christological implications of their positions are. Someone rightly tried to avoid divine-human monergism by saying that Christ didn’t have an uncreated character at the incarnation. They thought I was saying that the divine will determined the human will and this is why it was impossible for Christ to sin. However I wasn’t saying that, since that would just be a kind of Monergism (one work/activity) where the human becomes simply an instrument or tool of the divine. However by saying Christ had a created Character, they put themselves in the same box as the monergist.
We need to make the distinction between a person and their nature. Sincy this allows the distinction between a persons usage of that will (mode of willing) and the natural faculty of the will. The former is a personal property, the latter a property of nature. The will is a natural property, the mode of willing however is determined by the hypostasis and thus a hypostatic property. Making the character and the person prior to the natural faculty of the will. That is how Christ can have one uncreated character yet two faculties of willing. That’s why the Logos still has it at the incarnation because he is the same Hypostasis.
What they I was saying was that Christ’s divine will determined his human will. That’s wrong and is precisely the point St Maximus per the sixth ecumenical council denied. First of all, Christ had a free human will *because* it wasn’t determined by the divine will. And second, the reason it wasn’t determined is because the Logos posses the divine will and is prior to it. There is no *will* behind the divine person determining him. So the divine Character is not a property of the will but the One willing.
That’s why even in his humanity, being the same *person* He willed with his *personal* character.
In order for their schema to work, you would either have to conflate the mode of willing with the will itself (making character a natural and not personal property). Such that Christ had two natures thus two characters, one created and one uncreated. Or they’d concede that character is a personal property, but have to be Nestorian and say that Christ had two characters because he had two persons.
So either they conflate a personal property with a natural one, reducing persons to nature (which would imply either Arianism or modalism, since we affirm only one divine nature) or they can go the Nestorian route by saying character is a personal property, but Christ had two, ergo two persons.
This is also why predestinarian view of salvation that is monergistic is problematic. If Christ really *the* predestined Man, and our predestination is in Christ and Christological in nature, then his predestination is the model or logos after which ours is formed. In Him we find the human-divine relationship at its peak. Which means if it’s monergism for us, it’s monergism for Him. And that’s a problem. One can eithrr accept the heretical positions or they can disconnect their predestination from their Christology. But then, how is it Christian?
Or one can follow the teaching of the Church as established in the Ecumenical Councils; Christ is free in his Humanity and so are we.