One of the chaps I read said that Nestorianism (I think it was Nestorianism) was the complement to Pelagianism. That the Christ of Nestorius provided the salvation for the humans of Pelagius. I don’t see that.
Here are two things I do see: the absolute transcendence of Plato’s notion of God needs to be tamed by Scripture. (Apparently, process thought thinks this is a Greek intrusion and not revealed. However, I think the book of Job is a good refutation of that.) Anyway, you have that sort of inexpressible transcendence and also the immanence of our benevolent Creator, and you have something you can deal with. If you leave it alone, Chadwick suggests, you get the impulse that leads to Arianism. I can see that. Hence is created son, a sort of first and intermediary, bridging the gap.
The other thing I see comes from Dawson. The monothelite controversy is about unity. That overdone passion for unity, for absolute singularity is the impulse that later gives rise to Islam, the religion of God’s absolute unicity (am I making up that term or did he use it?). Anyway, I see that too. Zeal for unity at the expense of all else, sweeping everything into submission with its uncreated decrees.
But I don’t see the first thing. Do you?