Jay Dyer has provided the odd accusation that Dr. White is a Monothelite (link to accusation in a comment box on my blog). Mr. Dyer tries to reason from inferences that Dr. White would hold to the idea that Jesus Christ has only one will.
However, as brought to my attention by a commenter named “Alex,” Dr. White has explicitly addressed this topic. In his debate with Robert Sungenis on Infallibity, the following exchange took place (at around one hour, thirty-six minutes into the three hour debate):
Sungenis: Ok, Dr. White, do you believe that Christ having one will is a heresy.
S: Do you believe that Christ having two wills is orthodox.
S: Could you show us from from Scripture where you know that to be true:
W: That comes from the fact that, as the Council of Chalcedon itself taught, the Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is both God and man – that he is one person with two distinct yet whole natures. And the Council of Chalcedon was perfectly Biblical in teaching that, because it recognized that the will arises from those natures. And therefore, all the passages of Scripture that refer to, for example, the Lord Jesus in Paul’s writings as they “crucified the Lord of Glory” [1 Corinthians 2:8] Here is an indication of the fact that Christ is one person with two natures. That the crucifixion is a part that was done to his physical nature and yet he was called the “Lord of Glory” in regards to his divinity. So, I firmly believe the Chalcedonian definition is Biblical in its foundation and therefore Monothelitism is in error, because it – in essence – undercuts that and results in someone saying that Jesus’ human nature was not fully human – he was not truly a man – and he was not truly united with us – and therefore the entire concept of the atonement is threatened. And that is, in point of fact, what was so troubling to many of those who encountered that particular belief in the days of Honorius, Sergius, and thereafter.