Oneness Questions

[votivesoul]

There are three main views of the nature of Christ. They are as follows:

1.) Monophytism, or single-natured

This is the view that the humanity of Christ, on one end of the spectrum, was actually divine (i.e. divine flesh) meaning there is no real human nature in Christ, all the way to the other end of the spectrum, in which it is believed that though he was human, the divine nature so overwhelmed the human aspects of Christ to the point of subsummation. This is called Eutychianism. Somewhere in between is Apollinarianism, which believes Jesus was human, had a human body, but His mind and inner identity was divine, i.e. the Logos, which was the chief/more important nature.

This first view is like an inflated balloon or a glass of water. The skin of the balloon or the vessel that holds the water is merely a shell or container for the real contents. In this way, the human body of Jesus is merely a container for God's Spirit. The man Christ Jesus is merely "God robed in flesh". The phrase "Jesus is God" when not properly qualified in any other theological terms (e.g. in the Incarnation, in the flesh, in the form of a man, and etc.), tends to imply monophytism, even if not actually intended.

This view is typically considered a heresy or a fringe view, but has found a foot-hold in some Oneness circles.

2.) Dyophytism (sometimes spelled duophytism), or dual-natured.

This view is the most common view, including most if not all Oneness and Trinitarian groups. That in Christ, two different, but mutually shared natures are present, one human, the other divine. This is where the theathropic or God-man principle comes from. If you've ever heard or read "Jesus was 100% man and 100% God", it comes from this view of Christ. Dyophytism was adopted as official Roman Catholic doctrine at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.

This view is like a bicycle. Two wheels, completely independent entities (i.e. Father and Son), nonetheless interacting with each other in harmony, sharing the same reality of what they are (i.e. God).

Common to one side of the spectrum of dyophytism is Nestorianism, which completely separates the natures to the point of having two persons in Christ, one the man, the other the God. Note, however, that a Nestorian Christology is Trinitarian only, in that it holds that God the Son united with the man Christ Jesus in the Incarnation. The council of Chalcedon was convened to address Nestorius' teachings, which they ultimately rejected as heresy.

Divisions of course erupt between Oneness and Trinitarians, as well all know, whether over Nestorianism or otherwise.

In an interesting turn, the other side of the spectrum is Unitarianism, which does not believe God became a man, and all that was and is God, while in Christ, was and is completely separated from the man Christ Jesus, so that Christ was just a man only, no more, no less, while the One God remains always and only God.

3.) Miaphytism, or mix-natured

This view holds that in Christ, the divine and human natures blend into each other so much, that one cannot tell where one begins and the other ends, to such an extant, that, in Christ, it is as if an entirely new nature has been created.

This view is common among Oriental Orthodox churches, who reject a Chalcendonic Christology as heresy. It's like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Once the two sides of the bread are joined, there is no separating the peanut butter from the jelly. In Christ, once the divine and human natures were joined in Mary's womb, there was no separating or distinguishing them.

This view has been accused as monphytism by opponents, because they believe that it means Christ only had one nature. Proponents of the view deny the accusation however.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________

With these three views in mind, we all have to ask ourselves, what do we believe and why?

What Scriptures seem to prove our views?

What Scriptures give us pause and make us reconsider our views?

Can two people who have different views of Christ still consider each other believers and brothers in the Lord?

Are any of the above views so heretical as to become damnable to the soul?

I can't answer for anyone else but myself. But I do recommend that each of us study to show ourselves approved, with a willingness to admit error if error is proven.

After that, to our own master we rise and fall.