The Trinity and the Early Church: Debunking the Oneness Myth answering Ed Dalcour Once again

mlculwell:In Dalcour's submitted writings on his Department Of Christian which can be found here http://www.christiandefense.org/

which will, from now on be referred to as; DOCD. Dalcour offers absolutely nothing to disprove the Oneness doctrine from either (so called )church fathers or from scripture. I will deal with every so called church father he has submitted to disprove the Oneness doctrine or passage of scripture he thinks disproves our doctrine. Ed Offers the following passage.

Dalcour submits:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,

and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Cor. 13:14).[1]




mlculwell: Dalcour thinks because three titles are mentioned in the above passage then we most certainly must have "three distinct persons of God". Not so! All three of these titles must be mentioned as they are three different aspects of God in relation to our salvation.


Allow me to explain; The One spirit, God(God the father who is *spirit (John 4:24) and is *Holy (Psalm 99:9 , 1st. Peter 1:15) thus God the father is the Holy Spirit) shows mercy and offers a one time sacrifice for all men (Not just all kinds of men only)through his *only human born son through the virgin birth,*Begotten, sinless son and then gives men, through that sacrifice, his spirit in men ,but it first the spirit must be purchased for that to happen through the sacrifice(There is an orderly way and method to God in his dealings with mankind and that is what the passage Dalcour submitted deals) We would not have salvation if it were not For God giving grace. I heard One preacher explain grace as God's Redemption @ Christ's Expense, GRACE. which I would most certainly agree. Do we have three persons of God with the passage? Most certainly we do not! we only have One god and one person dealing with mankind..God as spirit first
planned this
from the foundation of the world we see this
from many prophecies which I will not offer at this time but I will offer one from (Revelation 13:8 ) which states :the Lamb was slain from and before the foundation. certainly that was not literal but was the plan of God for future redemption.




Ed Dalcour
Virtually all non-Christian cults (esp. Oneness believers and Jehovah’s Witnesses) reject the doctrine of the Trinity and teach that the early church had no such concept of a triune God, but rather they held to a unitarian concept of God (i.e., God existing as one Person). Because of a great lack of study in the area of Patristics (i.e., church Fathers), these groups normally assert that the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity first emerged at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

mlculwell: First of all Dalcour is being presumptuous to both set himself up as the final authority on who is a "non christian cult" and naming Oneness believers as such without a scriptural pattern for determining and making the unfounded remark, he simply is forcing his trinitarain view and presuming he has truth and that only those who deny the trinity doctrine are those who are cultic.

If in fact he(Dalcour) wants to prove his doctrine is true then it should be no problem for him to do a side by side comparison of the two doctrines according to scripture in a debate. It has been my experience Dalcour will cry foul and say "proper exegesis is not being done" on the part of those that are other than his ilk. This is simply his way of maintaining his self acknowledged expertise while excusing himself from discussion.

Dalcour also makes a fatal mistake in assuming those men from historical writings are preaching "truth" simply because they were closer to the time of the Apostles and Jesus historically If that is so there should have been no person or persons preaching false doctrine what so ever but we see different all through scripture, the first that comes to mind is Hymeneus and Philetus in (2nd. Tim. 2:17) To my knowledge we are not told to look to those men from history salvation is just too important Jesus said he would pray for everyone that would believe on him through their words(The Apostles John 17:17-20)

what is to stop others of doing the same thing? Who determines the historical writings from men as trustworthy to follow? What churches from history or writers are we to look, I say we have the compiled cannon, the intent of this writer is not to go into that debate which writings are the completed cannon as one must start from the idea the 66 books of the bible both Old and New testaments are God's words to mankind


Ed Dalcour
So vast is the evidence that the early church envisaged a tri-personal God and not a unitarian or unipersonal deity to which groups such as Oneness Pentecostals (as well as Muslims, Jews, and JWs) hold, that Oneness writers such as William B. Chalfant make desperate attempts to convince Oneness believes that the early church Fathers were really modalists

mlculwell:There is no "clear evidence" as Dalcour props up as fact, he simply takes writings from History and inserts his doctrine where he thinks a so called tri-personal language is used in reference to God from both history and scripture. One has to remember; he see's father,son and spirit as a" tri personal God" anytime, anywhere in scripture or historical writings where those titles are used it must prove a distinction of "persons of God" where Oneness views the language in relation to a man having different relationship roles to his family but not as three different persons. Even the term "trinity" may not be an exclusive term as to distinctions of God





(Oneness):

the trinity doctrine exists only on paper. . . . No apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ ever taught such a doctrine. . . . None of the immediate disciples of the apostles (e.g., Clement Ignatius, Hermas, or Polycarp) taught such a doctrine . . . Trinities Abound in the ancient, false religions. . . .[2]

mlculwell:Here Dalcour sets up a strawman that he thinks is both meaninful and relevant, it is only meaningful and relevant to Trinitarians who actually believe the writings highlight their view. I Like to ask the question to those who always submit history and "patristic writings" (so called)if we should add those writings to scripture?(What is that I hear?) They a are good read but they are not close to the same level as scripture, it is simply a ploy as there are many other teachings that Trinitarains would not touch with a ten foot pole it is al'a cart historic doctrine pool, take what you think is relevant and reject what ever does not apply.


Dalcour Writes:
With no historic justification, Chalfant (and others Oneness writers) conveniently assumes his conclusion that is meant to be proved, namely—that the early church Fathers were modalists! What I find interesting is that nearly every non-Christian cult uses this same line of reasoning, which is nothing more that patent historical revisionism.

mlculwell: The same charge can be made toward the Triniarian's, that will be more apparent when we actually deal with the historical writings Dalcour submitted.


Dalcour:
It is not surprising that the greatest and most authoritative Christian theologians and church historians[3] objectively disagree with the Oneness historical assumption that the early Christians in the days immediately following the apostolic age were Oneness.

mlculwell: It is not the concern of this writer as to what those (so called) "early Christians" were, immediately following the Apostolic age. The biggest concern is that we should model ourselves after what is written in scripture.

In carpentry you do not take lumber and then measure that one piece of lumber and then compare and cut all other lumber by using the first board, you would end up being way off the original measurement, you use the first measurement that was used on the first board and cut all others to the first measurement.

Jesus said the following; neither pray I for these alone, but for them also that shall believe on me through *their words.*( John 20:17) who were the their words that Jesus referred? Was Jesus referring to the "early church fathers" immediately after the Original? Did Jesus tell us to look for the historical writings immediately following the Apostles? Absolutely not! This would be like ignoring the actual measurement and going straight for something else. To be fair, I think it is Dalcour's point that since they were so close to the original, that they absolutely must have truth and the correct measurement of what a 21st century church should look like. But what about those to whom we read in scripture that were actually there with the Apostles? A good example are Hymeaneus and Philetus in (2nd Tim.2:17-18) the original measurement is found in the New Testament and we are complete and thoroughly equipped (furnished) unto every good work.(2nd. Tim 3:17)
But we are most certainly not from the writings of history and if they are wrong then we are wrong.



Dalcour
Despite the fact that many church Fathers utilized first person plural references in the OT (“Our,” “Us”; cf. Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8) to substantiate that God was multi-personal, it was the Trinitarian baptismal formula (cf. Matt. 28:19) that was used and quoted by many early church Fathers to show that God was Triune. The evidence clearly shows that the early church conceptualized a distinction of Persons in the Godhead—they were not Oneness.

mlculwell: using first person plural in Gen. 1:26, 3:22,11:7,Isa.6:8 does not substantiate God was "multi -personal" from history or anywhere else because Dalcour thinks that is the case.

(Gen.1:26) Seems to be the single most used passage by Trinitarians to force such an interpretation, if this passage were isolated from all other passages then trinitarian's might have an argument but of course there are other passages that deal with creation and one of those creation passages are found in (Romans 5:14)

(Adam) who was the figure of him that was to come. Was it not Adam who was created in God's very image, and Likeness? *Figure* is the very meaning of the word likeness and alludes to God's image and likeness. God when he said; "let us make man in our image, after our Likeness." was referring to creating mankind in the coming incarnation and included the humanity of the son and not "God the son" when he said "let us make man" as there is no such thing in all of scripture. So that is was not three persons of God but that which purchased our redemption the sinless son of God whose deity was God the father)(John 14:10 and not "god the son."




Ed writes the following:
Apostolic Fathers

Some of the earliest writings that have come down to us are those that belong to the category of the “apostolic Fathers.” Many of these men were actual disciples the original apostles and leaders of the original churches. The few citations below (there are massive amounts!) plainly indicate their view of a triune God.

mlculwell: We shall see if this so.

Ed Dalcour:
The Epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 70):



Probably not written by the biblical character Barnabas, but whoever the author was the Epistle of Barnabas was written very early when some of the original apostles were still alive. Notice how the plural “Us” in Genesis 1:26 is used differentiating God the Father from Jesus:



And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God [the Father] said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men (Epistle of Barnabas, 5).

mlculwell: First of all, there is nothing here that refutes the Oneness view. Jesus most certainly is the *Lord of all* and God the father most certainly did say; "Let us make man after our Image, and after our Likeness." I would like to point out though, that none of these so called "pratristic writings" can be claimed exclusive to the Trinitarian group nor can they be used to prove one group over another that is simply pompously begged by Mr. Dalcour..The above says nothing of a trinity doctrine being claimed by the writer Barnabas, when the very unscriptural terms three persons of God and trinity are forced and used by historical writers that is where we take exception, if the writing throws up a flag to do so.


Ed Dalcour
Clement bishop of Rome (c. A.D. 96):



Clement of Rome wrote an epistle to the original Corinthian church. He was perhaps the same Clement who was Paul’s close companion mentioned in Philippians 4:3. In Clement’s salutation, he clearly distinguishes the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ:



The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied (Letter to the Corinthians, 1).

mlculwell: There is nothing in the above either to refute the Christian Monotheism Oneness doctrine. The purpose of the incarnation was to redeem mankind through humanity, because it was humanity that caused the fall from the garden, therefor it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away the sins of mankind but the sacrifice of his son through his body once for all.(Hebrews 10:4-10) it was not a fictitious unbiblical "god the son" that was able to do such a great thing otherwise it already would have been done before, but rather, the biblical sinless son of God through the sacrifice of his flesh purchased our redemption when the fullness of Time was(Ga. 4:4 it was God the father who ultimately made this all possible, there most certainly is a biblical distinction between father and son but it is not of multiple "god persons" but rather God who is spirit and flesh of his only begotten son through the virgin birth and for anyone to teach other than this must be held to the standard of the scriptures and not through (so called) patristic writings.




Dalcour writes:
Surely if Jesus as the Father (the Oneness view) was the “apostolic doctrine,” as Oneness teachers would like us to believe, why was Clement, who was perhaps Paul’s associate, clearly distinguishing the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ? Clement then refers to a very Trinitarian passage (Eph. 4:4-6):
Let us cleave, therefore, to the innocent and righteous, since these are the elect of God. Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? (ibid., 46).



mlculwell: First of all, there is not one Trinitarian passage in all of the scriptures and Dalcour is being presumptuous again, anyone can do that. Second( Eph.4:4-6) reads there is One Lord (Not three) One faith, One baptism, One God and father of *all* that is above all(Not equal)through all, and in you all. Nothing in the least Triniarian about that passage. Then there is absolutely nothing written by Clement that contradicts Oneness doctrine but even if we(Apostles) or an angel from heaven were to preach any other doctrine than what you have heard (contradict what was being taught and written by those to whom Jesus himself commissioned) we are told to let them be accursed.(Gal. 1:8-9) We are never told in scripture to believe in "multiple persons of god" or in a "trinity "doctrine that is a pompously assumed doctrine and everyone knows what happens when you assume and add to scripture things that are not there. Dalcour assumes that since
"one
God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace mentioned that gives license and green light to the trinity doctrine, the scriptures are filled with such threefold salutations and the Oneness view are not blind to those salutations.
please allow me to take this time to explain way those threefold salutations must always be included and in our remembrance, it is because God(The father) first provided our salvation and redemption as spirit gave mankind his only begotten son through time and not eternity(Gal.4:4) and as the son who did not exist beside, with or ortherwise and God the father came to man himself and robed himself in the flesh of His only begotten sinless son in the incarnation and redeemed mankind and gave all power without measure(John 3:34, Math. 28:18, 1st. Cor.15:45) to that son making him the one and only true God forever more, who also now has the glorified body always and forever. I am neither speaking of *Adoptionisms (*that Jesus was adopted into the sonship by an act of God)nor any other false doctrine.(such as Apollinarianism or Docetism) I will deal with the rest of Dalcour's writings in another post coming soon.

James White and the Forgotten Trinity , Better Forgotten.

James White writes the following from his book The Forgotten Trinity

Chapter 12 pg 171 A Closer Look


James writes: "There are three kinds of beings who are personal:God,
men, and Angels. I have being ,I exist, Yet I am personal.My being is
personal and finite.It is limited to one place geographically
speaking,and one time temporarily speaking."

There are more gems from this book but this is damning enough to ask; where does Jesus
stand in this? Will anyone come to Jame's defense? I cannot wait to dig out more .


Which Being Is Jesus? Is he the being of man, or the being of God, or
the new being of both?

I ask this question because James is Caught in a dilemma with his doctrine He quotes on the same page;" the divine being( God) is One"( being) the divine(God) persons are (shared by) three" (persons.)( parenthesis are mine)


Which Being Is Jesus humanity? Is he the being of man, or the being of God, or
the new being of both? Humanity most definitely is being. This contradicts White in his book.

To be fair I submitted this critique on my debate group and received the following reply from a Trinitarian.

"The content of the quotation you included does not directly deal with this question, as Mr. White's point is not to consider the relation of the human to the divine in Jesus but to demonstrate that there is a 'personal' aspect of God and angels and humans.

Notwithstanding that, there is nothing directly in this quotation that would preclude Jesus from being located within its categories.

If you supplied the surrounding context it would probably present a far better overview of Mr. White's thinking along this particular argument".

I will do just that!

James writes on page 158 -160 How that Jesus is One person with two natures. James continues "he is not two persons nor are his natures somehow mixed together."

Very good, that gives us something to work with. What I do not see in all of Jame's book is an answer to these important question. Natures do not die, people die!

At the outset James stated; "he was one being", is not Jesus real humanity a being? He simply never says in his book, that I can see. (James makes an attempt in pages 66-70) of his book but nothing really meaningful. God is One Being, Jesus is a real human being, thus in my estimation we have two beings, "one of these things are not like the other." to quote the ol Sesame street song. We do not have two beings of God, we also do not have two of the same beings, we have one human being, and one being of God. In the incarnation, if true, we have two beings, but not two persons, God is not a person , persons die...When Jesus died as to his real humanity the being of God did not die, God cannot die. The Trinitarian view of Jesus would be a new being. Just because you equivocate with the copout of natures does not excuse us of answering these questions that are important. I believe the trinitarian view of being and person is weak and showcase those weak areas of thier doctrine especially since Dr. White is the contemporary Authority on the subject.