| Part of a series on |
| Christology |
|---|
.jpg) |
Doctrines
|
Dyoenergism (fromGreek δυοενεργητισμός "two energies") is aChristological doctrine that teaches the existence of twoenergies—divine and human—in the person ofJesus Christ. Specifically, dyoenergism correlates the distinctiveness of two energies with the existence of two distinct natures (divine and human) in the person of Jesus Christ, the position known asdyophysitism.
Dyoenergism stands in opposition to the view ofmonoenergism, which is the doctrine that Jesus has only one energy. Monoenergism was advocated for bySaint Dionysius.[1] In contrast, dyoenergism teaches that Jesus Christ acts through two energies: divine and human. TheSixth Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 680-681, reaffirmed dyoenergism as church doctrine and condemned both monoenergism andmonothelitism,[2] stating:[3]
And as we recognize two natures, so also we recognize two natural wills and two natural operations [...] And, as has been said, we rejected and condemned that most impious and unsubstantial heresy which affirmed but one will and one operation in the incarnate Christ our true God.
The term energy is derived from the term energeia, which typically means "activity" or "operation",.[1] More specifically, in the sense employed by Saint Maximus, a "natural, constitutive power,"[4] in other words, a capacity for a pattern of activity. The primary difference in the monoenergist controversy of the 5th and 6th centuries was whether energy is to be associated withperson, which is one in Christ, or rather with his natures.[1] Dyoenergism is based ondyophysitism ('as we recognize[...] so also we recognize') - each differentnature corresponds to a different energeia, as expressed bySt. Cyril of Alexandria: "No sensible person would concede that things different in kind and nature possess the same operation."[5]
Similar Christological doctrines include dyophysitism andhypostatic union, both of which claim the presence of two natures within Jesus Christ – divine and human.[6] Dyophysitism and hypostatic union differ from dyoenergism by placing emphasis on the physical form of Christ having two natures.[7] Contrastly, dyoenergism emphasizes an internal element to Christ's divine and human natures. The language used to differentiate Christiological doctrines, such as this one, was debated among theologians, includingSaint Maximus the Confessor.[8] Maximus was a known dyothelite,[8] or person of the Christian faith who believed indyothelitism. He particularly uses terms such as “nature” versus “essence” and “person” versus “hypostasis” to clearly differentiate the definitions of doctrines and arguments for the presence of both divine and human natures of Christ.[8]
Maximus was also a known follower of Neo-Chalcedonianism, “a mixed political–theological project initiated by Emperor Justinian a century before Maximus. It aimed to reconcile the adversaries to the Council of Chalcedon with the followers of the council, for both ecclesial and political reasons, namely the unity of church and empire.”[9] Following these traditions also framed his arguments and guided his defense of dyoenergetic doctrines.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link){{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link) | ThisChristian theology article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information. |
 | ThisEastern Orthodox Christianity–related article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information. |
 | ThisEastern Catholicism–related article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information. |
_-_WGA13616.jpg) | This article aboutChristianterminology is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information. |