Well said, Edward Dalcour:
Recently, many troubling statements made by Dr. Michael Brown regarding Oneness theology and those who hold to it were brought to my attention. Overall, I find that Dr. Brown is misguided as to what Oneness theology actually teaches.
It seems that Dr. Brown does not realize that “one God” in Oneness theology is radically different from how Scripture (Christians) presents “one God?” Oneness believers see God as unitarian (“one person”– as with Muslims and JWs), whereas Scripture teaches that the “one” true God is multi-personal (triune). This, is a qualitative, not a semantic difference.
Further, is Dr. Brown completely unaware of the fact that the standard Oneness position denies that God the Son was incarnate? For in Oneness theology, “Jesus” as the Father preexisted, came down from heaven, and manifested a physical body called, “Son,” thus rejecting the preexistence and deity of the person of the Son.
So, when the Son says, for example, “Unless you believe that I am [the eternal One] you will die in your sins” (John 8:24), we as Christians should see Oneness doctrine as heretical and those who hold to it as the object of evangelism—for again, they reject (among other doctrines) the preexistence and deity of the Son of biblical revelation. Dr. Brown is simply wrong here in his appraisal of Oneness doctrine and those who hold to it.
Michael Brown’s words can be found here:
Article by Gervase Charmley at this link.
We have made these studies of the so-called Great Heresies because they represent significant false steps in the history of Christian teaching; in each of them a true teaching is distorted, and so becomes false. Each precipitated a crisis that forced the Church to look deeper into the Scriptures and consider the fullness of God’s revelation there.
Our previous study, that of Apollinarius, marks a move from the question of the deity of Christ to that of the relationship between the Divine and human in Christ. Opposing the ruinous heresy of Arianism, Apollinarius took a crude approach, teaching that the Divine replaced a part of the human nature, a position that was rightly condemned on the ground that it made the Incarnate Christ less than human. The next great theological controversy would be driven at least as much by politics as theology, and ended in the great Council of Chalcedon. The two men who gave their names to the heresies condemned there were Nestorius and Eutyches, and they came from Antioch and Alexandria respectively.
HISTORY
After the Council of Constantinople in 381, theologians in the Eastern Church continued to debate the questions that had been raised by the Arian controversy, and consider how best to keep from falling into error on the question of the person of Christ.
Broadly speaking there were two main approaches, characterizing schools of thought based in Alexandria and Syrian Antioch respectively. The Alexandrians laid great stress on the unity of Christ’s person, while the Antiochenes stressed the two natures and the true humanity of Christ. The different emphases were not too much of a problem so long as they were only emphases, but there was always a danger of losing proportion; the Alexandrian emphasis could too easily result in a view of Christ that down-played his humanity, while the Antiochene approach might lead to a view of Christ that divided the two natures rather than just distinguishing them. Not only that, but there was a risk that the two schools might mistake a difference in emphasis for outright heresy.
This is what actually happened in the Nestorian controversy; Nestorius has perhaps the unique distinction of being the only one of the ‘great heretics’ who almost certainly did not teach the heresy that his name has become attached to. Complicating this were political issues; the church, freed from persecution and favoured by the Caesars, had developed its own complex political system of parishes, dioceses, bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs. The Patriarchs were archbishops of five particularly significant cities. These were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople. Jerusalem was always small and rather insignificant, while Rome, away in Europe, was distant and had its own concerns. Continue reading