Monday, December 22, 2008

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.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was wondering where Codex's best buddy had gone/ I see you still have no real sense of what the Oneness doctrine is. Thanks, Manny, for helping the rest of us look smart.

- Joel

mlculwell said...

Well then,"Polycarp" you should take that superior knowledge and teach me something about Oneness in a debate right here on my blog.

mlculwell said...

Polycarp was it you that said *Christ * was Jesus name and that Jesus had no real human spirit and that you follow so called church fathers instead as trust worthy as the scriptures. LOL!

Anonymous said...

Actually, 'Manny', I do not follow the Church Fathers as equal with the Scriptures, but they are useful for interpretation of the Apostles.

Yes, and aren't the preterist that demands Christ has two wills, two spirits, and God has two minds.

Silly, aren't you?

mlculwell said...

polycarp

Actually, 'Manny', I do not follow the Church Fathers as equal with the Scriptures, but they are useful for interpretation of the Apostles.

mlculwell:As I recall you gave them as Much credibility as the trinitaraians, I disregard them because for the Life of Me I cannot find any writings of any Oneness writers do you not think that strange? That gives me som pause to believe maybe just maybe they were destroyed by their enemies seeing that they were in the majority. The only credibility I give and know is true are the scriptures.(66 Books)



Polycarp:
I find it odd that you would choose polycarp as your identity Who never sounded Oneness either in his writings and the trinitarian's claim as their own

Yes, and aren't the preterist that demands Christ

mlculwell: Um, No Joel Watts, the preterists do not demand Jesus have "two wills". I think you are confused, preterism goes beyond belief in the Godhead and has nothing do with that.

What do you do with the passage where Jesus says: "Not my will by thine be done"? I would really be interested to know

That is not two wills of God that is 1 will of a real man and 1 will of God. Which is greater?

What this shows me as always about you is that you like for men to uplift and call you a great scholar Like codex. I could care less about that, I only seek the truth and will submit what I see without fear or favor, and if your Church of what ever it is teaches what you teach I am glad I was never apart of such heresy!

Polycarp:
has two wills, two spirits, and God has two minds.
Silly, aren't you?

mlculwell: God only has One mind,and one will, Jesus as a real human man had a real human will, Jesus did have two spirits though, 1 Human, and 1 divine this has been taught and submitted in debates before you were born, and voting candidates who believe in Abortion because your union dictates you do! Sir, it has been my experience with you that you put man and what he thinks of you over your God.

Anonymous said...

Manny, still haven't developed the reading comprehension that is so vital to intelligent discussions, have we? I never said that preterism had anything to do with your warped view of the Godhead.

What exactly has Polycarp said that was anything but biblical?

Jesus was the image of God - His will was to do the work of His Father who had sent Him.

Manny, just who do you think debated about the Word-Flesh of Christ? It was Trinitarian Church. Were you there? Tell me, where did that human spirit go?

Oh, yes, the old Union jibe. Have you surrendered yet to your False Prophet of the Christian nation?

mlculwell said...

Joel watts:

Manny, still haven't developed the reading comprehension that is so vital to intelligent discussions, have we? I never said that preterism had anything to do with your warped view of the Godhead.


mlculwell:
I know what you said in your comment, maybe it was your writing and punctuation skills. You wrote:

"aren't the preterist that demands Christ has two wills, two spirits, and God has two minds".

What in the world was I supposed to draw from what you submitted above? You falsely accuse me of believing God had "two minds" and you say I have no comprehension.

Joel watts:
What exactly has Polycarp said that was anything but biblical?


mlculwell:
"who shall
believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that
raised him from the dead".(Polycarp 12:2) Our Lord and God and addition God's father??? So I guess Mary Could be God's mother.

I do not accept any writings as trust worthy accept the scriptures there is reason Polycarp is not part of those writings!


Joel watts:
Jesus was the image of God - His will was to do the work of His Father who had sent Him.

mlculwell; The above is scriptural but what I submitted is not so I should not be ridiculed for not accepting such fallacious writings as valid to my faith.


Joel Watts:
Manny, just who do you think debated about the Word-Flesh of Christ? It was Trinitarian Church. Were you there? Tell me, where did that human spirit go?

mlculwell; What is the word-flesh of Christ???I do not know what that is unless you are talking about the pre-existence of Jeus as another person of god known as the word taught by trinitarains which I vehemently deny such doctrine as it contradicts (Psalm 33:6) as the word by the breath of God's mouth.

And the reason is clear why you reject Jesus had a real human spirit making him a real human man it is because you do not know where his spirit went (Eccle 3:21) says all real human spirits go back to God who gave them but your version of Jesus makes him marionette and not a real human man but a hybrid a Hercules who could not have really died but went and sat it out in heaven for three days not experiencing real death for us and then in three days returned scamming everyone who witnessed the event claiming he died. I reject your view Marvin Hicks of the UPC which organization I came from, Debated this View for years and I reject any other view or organization who teaches otherwise. You teach the same mess the trinity folk do!



Joel Watts:
Oh, yes, the old Union jibe. Have you surrendered yet to your False Prophet of the Christian nation?


mlculwell: Never heard of it!But I sure have not surrendered to the unchristian nation of union folks being unequally yoked with a bunch Baby Murderers. Like I said you have Put your union views over your God and Voted for a bunch unchristian nation! I cannot help you disapprove of a group that a no part of but happen to believe the same it does not make that belief wrong you are simply grasping at straws to feel better about that Godless union you are part of! Oh I belong to a Union also but I do not allow them to dictate against my conscious as do you because you are in thick of them who gave you a temporary job against Christ who gives eternal life. I judge your Union as well as mine ungodly, it is a Union of men in work force that does not, nor ever should Guide my Christian views only the Scriptures do that.