An Answer To Reformed Cultist Edward Dalcour on Biblical Baptism versus Dalcour's          Trinitarian Baptism.

                                              Biblical Baptism applied by the Apostles.
Not once do we find a triune announcement called over any person being water baptized used by any Apostle in the pages of the scriptures.  For this very reason  this writer will attempt to show what is wrong with Edward Dalcour's assertions and misapplication that every single Trinitarian who writes on the subject gets wrong. Dalcour's words will be in blue. My answers will be in orange. 

Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

 

"The anti-Trinitarian Oneness Pentecostals, especially the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), assert that the so-called “apostolic” baptismal formula was “in the name of Jesus” only, recorded in Acts and not in the Trinitarian formula expressed in Matthew 28:19. This position is based on the following assertions (not exegetical ones) made by Oneness advocates:"

1) Unitarian Assumption. In order to circumvent and deny the clear Trinitarian teaching of Matthew 28:19 and Trinitarian implications found in the entirety of the NT content, Oneness believers start with their unitarian/unipersonal premise (viz. God existing as one person) and thus interpret the Bible through those lenses (as Muslims and JWs do).

Edward Dalcour by writing " Unitarian assumption" is showing his own bias which he is trying to highlight as absurd, he actually shows his own  bias with only one single obscure passage versus the six clear passages and let's us know he has a "Trinitarian  assumption." Well, we all know that we all have some bias, but in studying God's word it should the concern of anyone studying it to be thus saith the Lord.. Our bias  should go out the window in light of the truth of scripture. Jesus said  sanctify them(The Disciples later to become the Apostles) through thy truth, thy word is truth.(John 17:17)  It is the word that informs us concerning truth and has the final say. It is not councils or creeds or men whom some think were the so called "church" in history, but rather the word of God, the completed cannon of the New Testament.
Response: First, there is no place in the OT or NT where God is denoted as “one person.” Instead, Scripture clearly defines God as “one Being.” Monotheism is the teaching that God is one Being, not one person. Thus, passages that speak of one God (e.g., Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 1 Tim. 2:5), Oneness advocates radically re-define monotheism to mean unipersonalism (one person).

There is no place in scripture denoted where "God is three persons" either! The bible says God is one! One what? Here we go again with  the age old debate of what constitutes a being and a person? Well, if Dalcour wants to argue or debate that premise he and all Trinitarian's would lose that debate! There is no word in the New Testament Greek for the word person in the way in which he uses it for God's Spirit. The word either means the mask on the face of an actor or substance there are many words in our English that means substance, one of which means  goo. Neither of those words in the English helps Edward Dalcour in a Greek meaning or an English meaning.

The word "Person" for God forced upon the scriptures in the way that it is used by Trinitarian's would contradict everything they teach about the word "person" especially when it comes to the word nature.(Read 2 Peter 1:4) or being.
One would have to use the dictionary to find the meaning for the word person which says the following:   Merriam Webster.
Webster says one of three modes of being. Are you really going to use that Mr. Dalcour? since the word person does not exist in the way he forces it upon the pages of scripture for his dogma? Person and being are indistinguishable. The Trinity has three persons and three beings according to the dictionary meaning of the word person or three modes of being, neither of which helps in this discussion.

Second, in the OT there are many plural words describing the one true Yahweh (such as Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8; 54:5 [Heb. “Makers, Husbands”]; Eccl. 12:1 [Heb. “Creators”]; etc.). Further, there are places in the OT, where Yahweh interacts with another Yahweh. Note for example, Genesis 19:24: “Then the LORD [Yahweh] rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD [Yahweh] out of heaven” (cf. also Dan. 7:9-14; Hosea 1:7).Even more, the NT clearly presents three distinct divine persons, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit who share the nature of the one God (cf. Matt. 28:19; Luke 10:21-22; John 1:1; Gal. 1:3; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 1:3, 6, 8-10; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 1:3; Jude 1:20-21; etc.). These passages are only consistent with biblical monotheism in the context of Trinitarianism.

As usual we see that Edward Dalcour is not actually exegeting the subject to which he claims expertise at all, he is simply taking a very obscure (hard to explain) passage and uses it  for his trinity dogma  and nothing  about baptism at all.

Admittedly if one did not take the time to try and understand the text for which Dalcour forces his argument where supposedly  one YHWH  on earth rained down fire and brimstone from another YHWH out of heaven, it would be easy to be fooled by his doctrine. The rest of the passages are easily explained, but this one needs a little more time to do so.

I believe this was to help the Jewish people to understand the coming incarnation and was the temporary manifestation of God as a man on earth and at the same time  still remain in heaven as an omnipresent Spirit. It is no different than what modern Oneness teach and believe today about the incarnation or as God manifested or revealed  in flesh.  The Jews in their strict monotheism could never accept the dogma of the trinity and rightly so!
God did not give his glory to another, he did it himself as a man and this was a glimpse into it and Jesus himself said Abraham rejoiced to see my day. Literally! Only one day into a short glimpse when he bargained (not with another person of god) but God himself in flesh and yet still in heaven at the same time. This was only as a temporary manifestation not as something Trinitarians say existed as three persons of God.

2) In the “Name,” not “Names.” Oneness advocates argue that because the “name” in the passage is singular, the “name” then is Jesus who is the single unipersonal deity behind the masks or roles of the “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.”

The mask or role of the Father? The Father is who God is in relation to his covenant people. There is no "role or manifestation. God was revealed or manifested in the man Jesus who is the image or the seen of the unseen invisible God.(John 1:18,5:37,Col. 1:15) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not masks or roles anymore than I am a mask or role
.

Response: Grammatically, if the term onoma (“name”) had been written in the plural (onomata, i.e., “in the names”), it would have clearly indicated three separate beings—which is not Trinitarianism, but Tritheism (three separate Gods). In point of fact, never in church history has any church father interpreted Matthew 28:19 in this way. That the singularity of a word necessarily implies absolute solitude is refuted by such passages as Genesis 11:4. Here we read of the people of Babel saying: “Come let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name….” The “name” appears in the singular in both the Hebrew (shem) and in the LXX (onoma) being applied to a whole multitude of people—not to one person. Hence, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands the apostles to baptize their converts “in the name [not ‘names’] of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost”—the triune God.

Nobody here is arguing for names or onomata. One wonders why Dalcour is throwing up such a smokescreen diversion from the actual point that Oneness try and make? Dalcour actually contradicts himself, there were hundreds of thousands of human beings with thousands upon thousands of names. They were making for themselves a name in the sense of reputation. Onoma/name, as much as Dalcour wants to hide the fact, does not only mean reputation or authority or any other word that can be attached to it, but just means a person's name.Of course with Jesus as a historic figure as to his life and ministry  would be a person to hold all of those meanings to his actual name, reputation, power authority, with the actual name Jesus. .When you say the name Jesus, everyone knows who is being spoken of as to his reputation and authority all by saying the one name.Thousands gather together because of the name Jesus.

3) “Name”= Power/Authority. In the OT, the term “name” in the Hebrew mindset did not merely serve as a designation of a person (unless the context says otherwise), but rather referred to the essence of the person himself.[1] Thus, the phrase, eis to onoma (“in the name”) was predominantly used to signify “authority, power, on behalf of.” The NT import extends back to the OT in such places as the David and Goliath narrative: “You come to me with a sword, a spear and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD [Yahweh] of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted” (1 Sam. 17:45; cf. Acts 4:7). Thus, Christian baptism symbolizes the unification of the new convert into (cf. eis at 1 Cor. 10:2) the “name,” that is, in the power/authority of the one and only true triune God, Yahweh—the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
 

This is the very thing Oneness people  concerning the name Jesus believe. Scriptures teaches that it takes the actual spoken literal name Jesus for the power and authority to remit sin and belong to the Lord's body. It is above every single name that is named not only in this world, but that also to come.(Eph. 1:21) I would hope Dalcour would not mistake named in the passage as anything lesson than the name being said or mentioned.

Oneness adherents believe from scripture no less, that without the literal spoken name Jesus being said over a person being baptized; which gives to us many things in types and shadows. The Jews themselves would understand such that a male Jewish child was named and circumcised on the eighth day after their birth.(Luke 1:59) The child was not considered even born until this was done.  Baptism in Jesus name is a type of the Old circumcision of the Jews.(Col. 2:11-14) It is a type  and we are named at out new birth

Another type for Jesus name baptism is as a  marriage. The woman takes the name of her one husband. The church is the body and bride of Jesus not the trinity! It seems they( 2 persons of the Trinity) are doomed to eternal bachelorhood. In Oneness we understand that it is our God himself in the Lord Jesus Christ is the husband and we take his name in marriage.(2 Cor.11:2, Eph. 5:22-23, Rev. 21:9)

The Trinity church has no authority because it  has no name as a mere institution and has no real husband in a trinity.
English Standard Version
From whom every family in heaven and on earth is named(Eph. 3:15).
Yes we as Oneness know it says I bow my knees unto the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Jesus the man would have nothing without the only true God giving those things to him as a genuine man and not another person of God in the incarnation.( Matth. 28:18,John 3:34,1st Tim. 2:5)


4) Distinct Persons. There are also grammatical reasons refuting the Oneness position of Matthew 28:19. First, the text does not read, “In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” which would give some grammatical (but not contextual) merit to the Oneness position, since the reading contains only article (“the”) preceding “Father.” Nor is the preposition eis (“in,” or “into”) repeated as, “In the name of the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit,” which can be construed as three separate Beings. Rather, as Matthew wrote: “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (eis to onoma tou patros kai tou hiou kai tou hagiou).

Edward Dalcour is so dishonest in this supposed argument and sets up a strawman and then proceeds to knock it down. Why would Oneness even make the argument for three separate beings from scripture? That would not help either Oneness or Trinity positions.This is simply more of the same misdirection that Dalcour is known for to dishonestly make a false case.
One thing that Dalcour never mentions is that their is only one scripture and only one  in all of the bible never to be used, ever again, nor spoken of as a triune name in baptism. Peter and the Apostles Understanding was opened after the resurrection that they might understand the scripture.(Luke 24:45) Never ever is the three titles ever mentioned again by any Apostle in relation to baptism. No example not even one honorable mention.


It is because they knew what the one authoritative name was! All other names of the past used for God were below this name Jesus in authority and power! That is why God was known by so many. It all leads up to the crescendo in the name Jesus/Iseous.(Read Acts 2:38, 4:12, 8:16,10:48 *he commanded them to be Baptized in Jesus name.Acts 19:1-6, 22;16, 1st Cor. 6:11,15:29 *One is still dead in their sin before baptism at mere belief on Jesus.)

Second, as established by grammarians and biblical scholars (e.g., Sharp,[2] Warfield, Robertson, Greenlee, Wallace et al), Matthew 28:19 clearly denotes three distinct persons obliterating the “non-distinction of persons” assertion made by Oneness advocates. For the text reads: “In the name of the [tou] Father, and [kai] of the [tou] Son, and [kai] of the [tou] Holy Spirit.”[3] Note that in the Greek, the definite article tou (“the”) precedes each singular personal noun (“Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit”) and each noun is connected by the conjunction, kai (“and”). 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ and [kai] the love of the [tou] God and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit with all of you.”

 

  1 John 1:3: “indeed our fellowship is with the [tou] Father and [kai] with the [tou] Son of Him Jesus Christ.”

 

 Revelation 5:13: “the [tō] One sitting upon the throne and [kai] to the [tō] Lamb, the blessing and the honor and the glory and the dominion into the ages of the ages.”

 

See also 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; and 1 John 2:22-23, which also fall under this construction clearly differentiating Jesus and the Father as two distinct persons. Alongside the aforementioned, there are many passages where all three persons of the Trinity are in apposition (cf. Matt. 3:16-17; Luke 10:21-22; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:18; 1 Thess. 1:3-6; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:5-7; 1 Peter 1:2-3; Jude 1:20-21; etc.).

 

                         Which Formula Matthew 28:19 or Acts?

All of these can be lumped together for this point. If the other titles of God were added to the list of those three titles would we have more persons if I made my own list Example: In the name of the Lord, and of the consuming Fire,and of the Rose of Sharon? I highly doubt it. These three titles of God are in relation to his redemptive work toward mankind. They are not  three persons of God. God first loved his creation and provided redemption through a kinsmen redeemer our brother the Lord Jesus Christ.(1st Tim. 2:5) there is one mediator between (two parties) God and mankind, THE MAN Christ Jesus. Why? because he is the mediator by the means of death. God was both parties. Man and God, Father and Son, Spirit and Flesh, Visible and invisible, corruptible and incorruptible. A walking contradiction if you will He to whom both died and can never die.
This construction clearly distinguishes the three persons. There are passages in the NT that also fall under Sharp’s rule #6 distinguishing the persons in the Trinity. Note the literal rendering of these passages below:

 This construction of titles does no such thing as distinguishes  three persons of God any more than the other multiple titles of God that can be given distinguishes multiple persons of God. God's Spirit  in  completeness is sometimes described more times in the bible as seven Spirits of God(Isa. 11:2, Rev. 5:6, 13:8) That completeness was given to Jesus in the incarnation and is exactly what Isa. 11:2 speaks of. If Sharps rule proves persons then all the other titles used the same way prove more persons and the Seven Spirits of God prove more than three persons.

 

Because the few recorded baptisms in the Acts narrative were "in the name of Jesus" (or a variation), and not in the Trinitarian formula, Oneness advocates argue that the "correct" apostolic "verbal" formula was "in the name of Jesus," and not in the Trinitarian formula. However, even assuming that “in the name of Jesus” was a “verbal” formula utilized in Acts, there is a plausible explanation removing a “Matthew vs. Acts” conflict. Consider that when Jesus gives His disciples the so-called Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, He instructs them to go out into panta ta ethnē (“all the nations”). Many nations were pagan and were involved in worshiping creatures, things in creation, and not the true Creator (cf. Rom. 1:18ff.). Hence, the full revelation of the triune God was at issue.

Edward Dalcour if the Trinity were at issue, then the Apostles should expounded upon such a great issue, but no such thing was ever expounded upon and I would be helping you with your side of the issue because it was expounded upon. This is your bad theory that we do not see in scripture what soever. As was pointed out earlier Jesus opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures, but no such issue was ever taught once more no more mention of a Trinitarain baptism whatsoever.

On the other hand, in Acts, the new converts who were baptized were Jews (cf. 2:5; 22:16), God-fearing Gentiles (cf. 10:1-2, 22, 48) and disciples of John the Baptist (cf. 19:1-5). The new converts that were baptized as recorded in Acts had a prior conception (although incomplete and inaccurate) of God. Thus, in Acts, the emphasis of the baptism was on Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 10:43), and through Him, “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Lastly, consider for a moment what the recorded baptisms in Acts actually say. There are at least three “Jesus’ name” formulas stated in Acts: “on [epi + dative] the name of Jesus Christ” (2:38); “into [eis + accusative] the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16; 19:5); and “in [en + dative] the name of Jesus Christ” (10:48). If in fact these baptisms recorded in Acts were performed by means of a “verbal” baptismal formula (which will be argued against shortly) and thus mandated to the church, as is supposed, then according to the record, the early Christians did not utilize any “exact” verbal formula by which they baptized.

 
That is right! Give that man a prize! That is what Oneness teaches the only thing that matters is that Jesus name be pronounced at the baptism to remit ones sins as the only authority under heaven and earth backed by the Lord. One is not told what to preach word for word anymore than one is told the exact fluff to say given a short teaching moment at a baptismal for a repentant sinner. Who is not saved  at belief.(Read Acts 19;2 and 1st Cor. 15:29) Thank you for making this point Dalcour! We make the same point.

Although both views (the Matthean Trinitarian formula and the so-called “Jesus’ name” verbal formula in Acts) are both theologically possible, the Oneness inept hermeneutic of Matthew 28:19, along with their hyper-dogmatic strict “name" formula, which is required for salvation, sharply opposes the entire theology of both the OT and NT.

         Mere opinion from Dalcour who is reaching for something here but has absolutely nothing in the way of a valid argument. There is not one single passage for a triune formula for salvation.

                    Manuscripts and the Early Church: The Trinitarian Formula

 

Of all the extant Greek manuscripts that contain the ending of Matthew, not one omits the Trinitarian formula and no variant reading exists. Church history is utterly a throne in the flesh to Oneness theology. Even more, today there exists massive amounts of patristic writings (esp. the apostolic church fathers) and early documents that quote the full Trinitarian clause of Matthew 28:19 in a Trinitarian context. Within these writings, not one of these early fathers taught or even implied that a “Jesus’ name” baptismal formula was the “correct” formula and thus essential to one’s salvation, nor did any assert a Oneness interpretation of Matthew 28:19. For example, the early church instructional manual, the Didache (“teaching,” formally called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, c. A.D. 90-120), speaking of water baptism, provides clear instructions in a Trinitarian context alluding to Matthew 28:19:

This is more opinion. The scriptures teach the word is truth.(John 17:17) Until Trinitarains add the Diadache to the closed cannon or any of the supposed men  that Dalcour has also submitted as truth tellers to the scriptures those men have no place in any scriptural discussion concerning truth. When one builds a house they have a st of plans called the blueprints to build the house. When one wants instructions for an understanding of the  New Testament church and how it operates, you look to the scriptures not to men in history. The point is made very often by the men who prop up these fallacious kinds of arguments that well they were closer in history to the Apostles and that may very well be , but we are not told to look to anyone in history close to the Apostles for the instructions of the church. There were men who sat directly under Paul who did not teach truth and Paul  told us about those men when he wrote: And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;who concerning the truth have erred.
Being closer to the Apostles time and sitting under the Apostles directly does not automatically make one a truth teller concerning the word of God. If they are wrong and we follow them then we are wrong. One cannot be wrong following the bible.

Many more examples can be cited clearly demonstrating the fact that the baptismal formulaic norm of the early church was decidedly Trinitarian, not modalistic/Oneness. No Christian writings from the first several centuries insisted on a “Jesus’ name” formula or specifically discussed what baptismal formula should be used. The early church embraced the concept of the Trinity, as patristic authority J. D. N. Kelly points out:

 

But the Apostles in the scriptures did! Which should be to those concerned with truth everything.If you are looking for other than truth you will look somewhere else. history should not be trusted for truth but rather the truth the word of God.

Oneness-unitarianism is unequivocally non-Christian rejecting the biblical revelation of Jesus Christ. Oneness theology rejects the deity and unipersonality of the Son, it rejects the unipersonality of both the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it rejects the personal distinctions between Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit. These rejections constitute a rejection of the very nature of God Himself (cf. Hosea 6:6; John 4:24; 17:3; 1 John 2:22-23).

The same could be said of Trinitarainism and it looks exactly like paganism.(Tritheism) there is no biblical revelation of Jesus Christ as a third person of a Trinity, this is simply a very biased  opinion of a large number of people which is meaningless as far as truth should be concerned. The masses do not always follow truth.  It absolutely does not reject the clear distinctions between the Spirit and the man, those are very real distinctions what we reject is trinity dogma of three persons of God. One could ask what makes three gods? Well three persons does it not? Those who hold to that doctrine when asked that question will try to make every excuse they can to not answer it knowing it will incriminate them. The debate rages on and on and there should be more debates not just words written.