*Below we post the fourth and final counter-response in this particular series toward the attacks of Edward Dalcour against Oneness believers. As before, I have simply pasted Dalcour’s article (found HERE) in *black with my responses immediately following in *blue, as here. Stay tuned for more information relative to the early church formula of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins (e.g., Acts 2.38). In the meantime we hope the following surrejoinder is edifying to the church. Enjoy!
(Dalcour): PLURAL VERB—esmen (“we are”)
(Dalcour): John 10:30 (as well as the entire chap.) at face value, in the most plainness way, indicates that Jesus is not the Father— egw kai o Pathr eJn esmen (“I and the Father one We Are”). After one reads John 10, he would never never get the idea that Jesus is the Father; only if he were superficially “taught” Oneness unitarianism would he come up with that.
*But, as pointed out above doesn’t Dalcour inform us in the preface to his book that: I find that Christians who have not been adequately taught about the Trinity make the same ‘error’. Thus, unstudied Christians too often unknowingly affirm Oneness theology in their efforts to explain how Jesus is God.
*According to Dalcour’s own quote here if these people are not “taught about the Trinity” they “often” arrive at the Oneness conclusion. Of course they do Mr. Dalcour—that’s the natural conclusion of the Scriptures themselves! And, since Dalcour is so fond of appealing to translation-consistency (rightfully so), perhaps he can point us to the consensus of Greek linguists who have adopted his esoteric “plain” translation of John 10.30 above:_________? Hear that music playing in the background Mr. Dalcour?
(Dalcour): To say again, no one in church history (viz. Christian fathers, ecumenical councils, or resulting creeds) or present-day recognized scholarship embraced Oneness doctrine—they have always rejected it as non-Christian, a departure from the Christ of biblical revelation.
*Once again, Dalcour juxtaposes extra-biblical resources alongside Scripture for his supposed “orthodoxy” (a buzz term for his beloved “creeds” and “councils” of men). Further, this assumes that Trinitarians constitute the biblical “church”—which, of course, the Scriptures themselves forcibly reject. Apparently Dalcour does not consider the book of Acts to include “church history” wherein converts are baptized in Jesus’ Name and spoke in other tongues upon receipt of the Holy Spirit (which, of course, Dalcour has not received). Not surprisingly, in his denial of the biblical testimony, Dalcour tries his hardest to explain all of these God-breathed passages away in an effort to protect his religious traditions.
(Dalcour): When ones reads plainly the entire content set forth in the literature of John, he sees clearly that Jesus and the Father were distinct not the same person. This is seen esp. in places such as John 10:15-18, where Jesus had clearly differentiated Himself from the Father. As well as the passages leading up to v. 30.
*As pointed out above, Dalcour attempts to erase the force of Jesus’s words in John 10.30 by donning his trifocals in the passages “leading up to v. 30,” yet completely disregards how the original hearers understood Christ’s affirmation of identity as the one “God” (cf., v. 33). And, specifically where can we read so “plainly and clearly” of “distinct persons” in any biblical corpus:________? Surely Dalcour will have no problem directing us to such obvious passages (?)!
*In his effort to evade the silver bullet of Tritheism Dalcour here slips in the modification of “distinct persons” in exchange for “separate beings.” However, as pointed out to Trinitarians ad nauseum there is absolutely no difference between “distinct” and/or “separate,” nor “persons” and “beings.” Since Dalcour most often appeals to human beings as the reflection of his Trinity doctrine – every human “person” I have ever met is equally a human “being!” As Dalcour’s very own resource overhead demonstrates (i.e., Robertson’s quote), many Trinitarian exegetes employ the term “separate” when attempting to explain their Triune divinity notions (cf., e.g., my debate with James White). This is nothing more than usual Trinitarian theology pawned off as supposed “exegesis.”
(Dalcour): The same Father of whom Jesus says, “For this Father loves Me” and in v. 18, Jesus says that He lays down His life ap’ emautou, “from Myself, My own [not ‘our’] initiative.” Jesus tells His readers as in John 6:38, before the incarnation He makes and possesses His Own determination/will (note the reflexive emautou) “of, from My own [not, “our own”], thus, distinct from the Father (cf. John 6:38).
*Before addressing Dalcour’s primary blunders overhead I want to point out his theological insertion above of the word “distinct” in his last clause. Here Dalcour slips in his Trinitarian-creedal commitments with the term “distinct” since absolutely nothing in the actual grammar of Dalcour’s supposed proof-texts would prohibit him from employing the descriptor “separate”…other than his Trinitarian theology. Every time Trinitarian apologists fabricate the term “distinct (divine persons)” biblical Christians/Monotheists should recognize this ploy and hold their feet fast to the biblical text itself!
*Dalcour once again offers partial quotations of biblical verses above. Here’s the final clause of John 10.18 that Dalcour omitted: “This commandment I received from My Father.” I ask honest readers if such language utilized by Christ as “commandment” naturally communicate “co-equal, co-eternal divine persons?” Can one ontologically co-equal, co-eternal divine person literally “command” another co-equal, co-eternal divine person? Why doesn’t the Holy Spirit ever “command” the Son of God? Or, why doesn’t the Son of God ever “command” the Father? Would Dalcour have us believe that only his supposed first divine person issues commands to the second divine person while the second divine person orders the third divine person? To borrow from Dalcour’s own playbook, such Trinitarian theology is “an utterly convoluted doctrine!”
*Note also Dalcour’s [bracketed] assertion above of “not our” when referencing John 10.18. I wonder if Dalcour will accept this identical hermeneutical methodology in the approximately 50 biblical passages that describe one divine person as the sole Creator? For example, though Dalcour does his best to erase this verse (and there are many more) using his own criterion above – perhaps he can point us to “our” or “we” in this verse:
(Isaiah 44.24; NASB): Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,”
(BHS): כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהוָה֙ גֹּאֲלֶ֔ךָ וְיֹצֶרְךָ֖ מִבָּ֑טֶן אָנֹכִ֤י יְהוָה֙ עֹ֣שֶׂה כֹּ֔ל נֹטֶ֤ה שָׁמַ֨יִם֙ לְבַדִּ֔י רֹקַ֥ע הָאָ֖רֶץ מֵי אִתִּֽי׃
(LXX): Οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ λυτρούμενός σε καὶ ὁ πλάσσων σε ἐκ κοιλίας Ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ συντελῶν πάντα ἐξέτεινα τὸν οὐρανὸν μόνος καὶ ἐστερέωσα τὴν γῆν. τίς ἕτερος
*Note the single person (independent) pronouns, masculine singular verbs, singular participial verbs and single nouns above in Yahveh’s declaration of His sole-creatorship (again, deserving of an entirely separate article!). Is Yahveh telling us the truth in this verse or should we accept Trinitarian explanations over 2,000 years ex post facto? A Trinitarian view is soundly annihilated and rejected at this point and cannot stand exegetically.
*To suggest that Isaiah 44.24 really explicates a “Trinity of divine persons” who “co-equally” created supplants the most natural reading for a painfully tortured and abnormal interpretation. Perhaps Dalcour should go inform his same Judaic resources (e.g., the Targums) that this verse really describes his Triune divinity opposite what Yahveh Himself affirms. Simply, Trinitarian conjecture stubbornly disallows Yahveh to identify Himself.
*Above, in his misunderstanding of the passage Dalcour again unwittingly argues for individual wills and minds within God by asserting that the supposed preexistent Son of God possessed “His own (independent) will” prior to the Incarnation. As repeatedly pointed out to Trinitarians, this is Tritheism defined—despite how many times they pay mere lip service to “Monotheism.”
(Dalcour): Perkins is simply in error. Yes, essential Unity, not identification—coupled with the plural verb esmen- not eimi, (“am”) or estin (“is”).
*The polar opposite is true inasmuch as the original audience understood Christ’s clear assertion as a statement of “identification” (v. 33). You know Mr. Dalcour—“context!” Dalcour would pompously have us accept his personal theology that directly militates against the actual text itself. Sorry Mr. Dalcour, eternity is not worth it – think we will stick with God’s Word and leave you to your “creeds” and “councils.”
(Dalcour): In point of fact, the Apostle John envisages the Son as the monogenhV qeoV (“unique God,” John 1:18), who was WITH the Father as a distinct person before time (cf. John 1:1, 18, 6:38; 8:58; 17:5; Rev. 5:13). Further, John sees the Son as God as the eternal God deserving of religious worship (cf. John 5:23; 9:38; Rev. 5:13-14). John sees the liar as any denying this Son of divine revelation (cf. 1 John 2:22-23).
*First, though he seeks to dodge it in his book, Dalcour understands that there is a meaningful and viable textual variant in John 1.18. Second, it never ceases to amaze me how Dalcour repeatedly identifies as “fact” what is completely non-existent. Absolutely nowhere does the Apostle John affirm that the Son of God coexisted with God “as a distinct person before time” as Dalcour “factually” asserts above. Again, Dalcour merely invents his own Bible and then arrogantly demands that this is “fact” to be accepted by biblical Christians and Monotheists.
*Not surprisingly, Dalcour’s cross-references that appear (parenthetically) above actually stand opposite his Trinity doctrine (cf. John 1:1, 18, 6:38; 8:58; 17:5; Rev. 5:13). At this point, I will simply let our audience read these verses for themselves to see if these passages naturally lead one to the Triune divinity conclusion.
*Moreover, the Apostle John was a preacher who water baptized in Jesus’s Name (cf. Acts 8.16), spoke in other tongues upon reception of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2.1-4) and taught that Jesus Christ was the one-sole “true God” in this same epistle (cf. I John 5.20). And Dalcour is seriously charging Oneness believers with supposed “source abuse” above? Far from explicating Dalcour’s fabricated “co-eternal, co-equal, God the Son” – or, as Paul would say, “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11.4) – John viewed Jesus as the one OT Yahveh enfleshed for the sins of the “whole world” (cf. John 1.1-14, 8.58, 14.8-10; I John 2.2).
(Dalcour): REVELATION 21:22: “I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.” (NASB)
(Dalcour): Perkins states that,
“The Greek verb translated ‘are’ (ἐστιν) in this text is the ‘singular verb estin’ that Dalcour requests above explicating both God and His Son. If a plural verb describing the Father and the Son quantifies as two divine persons—why does not a singular verb modifying the same subject equal a single divine person (esp. when this passage contextually describes the singular ‘temple’ of Heaven)?”
(Dalcour): Then Perkins provides a lengthy explanation, which only proves my point: Perkins is not a fan of context. Perkins simply attempts to isolate this passage from John’s own theology in both Revelation and in John’s entire literature. Simply, Perkins makes two slippery mistakes (perhaps hoping no one will fact check).
*Yes, I was just hoping, praying and sweating it out that no one would take the time to fact check my gleeful “mistakes”—and that is why I have submitted my textual refutations to Dalcour publicly! This is merely Dalcour’s typical smear campaign and diversionary tactic. The facts are that Dalcour is the one who repeatedly botches his assertions (or “mistakes”) with the Greek text as shown over and over above.
*Dalcour appeals to supposed “context” in an effort to spin away from another of his exegetical blunders. Yet, he aborts the natural authorial flow in his mishandling(s) of John 1.1-18, John 17, Hebrews 1.1-10, Philippians 2.5-8ff, Colossians 1.15-18, 2 Corinthians 13.14-17, etc. Worse, the context of this passage does absolutely nothing to negate the grammatical fact that a single verb is employed by John to describe both God and His Son (which I carefully explained in my original piece). This is nothing more than Dalcour’s usual smoke in a mirror.
(Dalcour): 1) John has already differentiated Jesus from the Father throughout the book.
*Actually, John opens both his entire gospel account and apocalypse by openly and specifically identifying Jesus as the sole Almighty God and writes from this splendid launching pad (cf. Revelation 1.8, 3.21, 4.2). Further, though Trinitarians have been told this until we could pass out, Oneness believers openly acknowledge a distinction between God and His Son. But this distinction is biblically demonstrated as ontological and not merely “functional” as Trinitarians claim. One wonders at this point if we’re even reading the same biblical data?
(Dalcour): For example, Revelation 3:21 presents the “Son” as sitting on His own throne (distinct from the Father’s throne).
*This is a mind-boggling assertion—even for Dalcour! Let’s take a look at what this passage actually says shall we? Remember, Dalcour is fond of stating that the book of Daniel teaches that there are multiple “thrones” for his alleged divine persons of the Trinity in Heaven (as per his misunderstanding of Daniel 7.9):
(Revelation 3.21; KJV): To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
*Here the KJV has a good rendering of the dative masculine singular prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ, lit., “in the throne.” Note this text specifically states that Christ is seated on the throne of Heaven with His Father—and John saw one sitting on this same throne (cf. Chp. 4)! We are honestly dumbfounded at how Dalcour can make the assertion that the Son of God is “sitting on His own throne distinct from the Father’s throne” in this (or any other) passage. If “two co-eternal divine persons” are in view here, apparently Dalcour thinks the Son of God is sitting in His Father’s lap (since he consistently argues for bodily separation within the Godhead)!
*In point of fact, this verse states the polar opposite of Dalcour’s assertion above and serves as further validation that Jesus is the sole God of Heaven – as well as again puts Dalcour’s shoddy scholarship on full display.
(Dalcour): And Revelation 5:13-14 presents two distinct divine objects of religious worship: “To Him [the Father] who sits on the throne and to the Lamb [the Son]: be praise, honor, glory and dominion forever and ever!”
*Specifically where in these verses are “distinct divine objects” of religious worship? Again, Dalcour slips in his theology in a biblical text that never states nor teaches the same. In fact, if used to teach multiple divine persons in Heaven this text would serve as another example of Dalcour’s radical (bodily) separation within the Godhead, contra Colossians 2.8-10; Revelation 22.3-4, etc.
*And, hasn’t Dalcour just informed us that the Lamb has “His own throne” in Heaven apart from God? By pointedly using the masculine singular article and masculine singular participial verb construct (τῷ καθημένῳ) this verse directly refutes Dalcour’s notion of multiple “thrones” in Heaven in the clearest way (again, not to mention how such a construct would demand bodily separation within the Godhead). John has already stated that there was one sitting on the throne (Revelation 3.21-4.4) whom, in closing his apocalypse, he identifies as Jesus Christ (Revelation 22.3-4).
(Dalcour): Passages such as Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 John 1:3; 2:22; and here Revelation 5:13 confirm a grammatical differentiation between two or all three persons of the Trinity.
*Once again Dalcour engages in his classic circular argumentation by assuming his conclusion at the starting point (i.e., that there is a “Trinity” contained in the biblical data). As shown above this is actually “grammatically” and exegetically false—and is the very basis of our rejection of Dalcour’s Trinity intrusion and imposition upon the biblical data. Simply quoting passages that speak of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit does not vindicate three co-equal, co-eternal, divine persons within the Godhead. Mere assertion never serves as solid biblical evidence—and never will. Dalcour assumes that mere distinction automatically translates into multiple divine persons – when the overarching biblical theme is that the one-sole person of God of the OT became flesh for the redemption of a lost and sin-stricken humanity. This is the biblical presentation and identification of Jesus Christ (cf. Matthew 1.23; Colossians 2.8-10; I John 5.20).
(Dalcour): Grammatically, along with Matthew 28:19, note 2 Cor. 13:14 and 1 John 1:3:
(Dalcour): 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.”
*Note again the usual Pauline usage of the noun “Christ” (Χριστοῦ) in this verse which, as noted above, is lexically defined as “one who has been anointed” (so NET tn). Since Dalcour is arguing that this passage “grammatically” explicates his ontological Trinity doctrine we would be quite intrigued to know which ontologically co-equal divine person “anointed” Jesus as God Almighty (Revelation 1.8)?
*Further, the Greek noun translated “Father” (πατρὸς) appears nowhere in this text. If Dalcour is defining the Greek noun rendered “God” (θεοῦ) as a “Trinity” he has just unwittingly placed both Christ and the Holy Spirit outside of the same – since these terms appear “grammatically differentiated” from the noun rendered “God!” If father Dalcour keeps multiplying his divinities like this he might as well turn his collar around backwards and join his Roman Catholic brethren for Mass this Sunday!
(Dalcour): 1 John 1:3: “Indeed our fellowship is with the [tou] Father and [kai] with the [tou] Son of Him Jesus Christ.”
*No fellowship with the Holy Spirit in this verse Mr. Dalcour? It will not do for Dalcour to protest that this is an “argument from silence” (as he does HERE) since he repeatedly (and fallaciously) claims that no biblical verse defines God as one person (contra the 9,000 single-person-pronouns) and that Jesus is supposedly never identified as the Father (against John 14.8-10; Isaiah 9.6; etc.).
*Of course Jesus is the Son of God. However, He is equally presented and identified as the one “true God and eternal life” in this same epistle.
(I John 5.20; NET): And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is (singular indicative verb ἐστιν) the (nominative masculine singular ὁ) true God and eternal life.
*We are aware of the debate surrounding these last two clauses and the demonstrative pronoun οὗτός translated “this one” above (cf. NET tn) and would argue for the rendering above (contra JW’s and Christadelphians). But, we really do not know what Dalcour assumes this proves for his Trinity hypothesis (?).
(Dalcour): And Revelation 5:13: “The [tw] One sitting upon the throne and [kai] to the [tw] Lamb, the blessing and the honor and the glory and the dominion into the ages of the ages.”
*We have already demonstrated how this verse actually works against Dalcour’s eisegesis above if the inspired text is allowed to stand on its own merit. John clearly identifies “one sitting upon the throne” and he had just presented the Lamb as coming out of “the middle (μέσῳ) of the throne” (5.6)—a perfect illustration of the Incarnation (and precisely the Oneness message). The same one on the throne is the same one who comes as the Lamb to save mankind, yet the throne is not emptied inasmuch as God-proper is an omnipresent Spirit. In sum, far from advocating a Trinity of divine persons Revelation 5 reveals that the one God of Heaven became our Sacrifice—despite how hard Dalcour stomps his foot in protest of the biblical testimony.
(Dalcour): According to the “normal” rules of Greek grammar (cf. Granville, Reymond, Beisner, Wallace, Greenly), Jesus (the Lamb) is distinct in person from the Father throughout Scripture. To make Rev. 21:22 militate against John’s own words in other places is blatant eisegesis—viz. again, a painful and flawed hermeneutic. But again, Perkins enjoys using and abusing naked words in spite of context to arrive at unorthodox interpretations.
*First, as repeatedly demonstrated above it is Dalcour who apparently enjoys misquoting, misidentifying and outright flubbing the Greek text. We can certainly sympathize with periodically missed citations, but Dalcour does this in virtually every one of his presentations. As stated above, I honestly feel sorry for his unsuspecting students and pray that the biblical Christ saves both them and Mr. Dalcour.
*Second, as shown overhead absolutely nothing in the Greek grammar normally points to Dalcour’s “distinct” persons. In fact, not one thing in Dalcour’s supposed proof texts would prohibit separate divine beings other than his cherished and venerated “councils” and “creeds” that he constantly juxtaposes right alongside Scripture (seize on his usage of the phrase “unorthodox interpretations” above).
*Third, again, I repeatedly appealed to context in my biblical refutation of Dalcour as the original article below plainly demonstrates. Indeed, biblical context is the very source of our rejection of Dalcour’s blatant Tritheism (masquerading as “Monotheism” of course)! Apparently Dalcour would have me adorn biblical words with his councils and creeds as he does opposite allowing the “naked words” (whatever on earth that means?) of the Bible to stand-alone. No thank you, we’ll leave that to agenda-driven Trinitarians like himself!
(Dalcour): 2) Since the Greek is clear, Perkins either has no concern about reading the text carefully in its original significance (Greek) whereby Perkins merely assumes all Oneness believers will blindly accept his assertions here or he just cannot read Greek. Simply, as Perkins knows it (it was brought to his attention over and over), Rev. 21:22 has NO syntactical parallel to John 10:30.
*Here Dalcour assumes that a syntactical parallel is demanded to have a single verb apply to both God and His Son (as is clearly the case with this text). Further, in reality, it is careful analysis of the Greek text that holds us hostage to deny Dalcour’s Trinity impositions in these passages. Once again, Dalcour engages in his classic Ad Hominem attacks by charging that I was hoping that biblical Christians would simply “blindly accept” my direct quotes from the original languages. Of course, this is an obvious attack on my personal character all the while Dalcour continuously fumbles with both the Hebrew and Greek texts.
*In point of fact (contra a mere case of one-upmanship), Dalcour has just explained himself perfectly as repeatedly demonstrated overhead. This tendency always astounds me about the nature of deception. Again, I have many more of Dalcour’s botches and gross misinformation recorded.
*Moreover, in my original piece below I specifically addressed this usual Trinitarian dodge of the single verb used in Revelation 21.22 that modifies both God and His Son. Once again, here’s my specific comment that, not surprisingly, Dalcour entirely omits from the consideration of his reading audience:
Trinitarians typically attempt to dodge this dilemma by stating that Revelation 21.22 is not syntactically parallel to John 10.30 and hence does not apply to the debate (as Dalcour does below). However, this is a subtle shift in argumentation to evade their obvious inconsistency since no appeal to syntax was marshaled from the Trinitarian camp in the original assertion. This is nothing more than the usual effort by Trinitarians to spin away from their discordant appeals. The exegetical fact remains that a singular verb modifies both the Father and the Son of God in Revelation 21.22 as the vast majority of reputable translations clearly affirm (e.g., ESV, NASB, BSB, NKJV). Why the double standard from Trinitarians? Inquiring minds want to know!
(Dalcour): John 10:30 reads: egw kai oJ Pathr eJn esmen (lit., “I and the Father one we are”).
*Greek has an entirely different plural pronoun translated “we” (ἡμῶν) that does not appear in John 10.30. Further, absolutely no reputable translation adopts Dalcour’s agenda-driven, personal esoteric rendering. I suppose Dalcour would have us believe that he sees something in this passage that all of these linguists have overlooked HERE? No thank you Mr. Dalcour – eternity is too serious to accept your words in opposition to the statements of Christ:
(Berean Literal Bible; John 12.48): The one rejecting Me and not receiving My words has one judging him: The word which I spoke, that will judge him in the last day.
(Dalcour): Rev. 21:22 reads: Kai naon ouk eidon en auth oJ gar kurioV oJ qeoV oJ pantokratwr naoV authV estin, kai to arnion (lit., “And temple not I saw in it, indeed [the] Lord the God almighty, temple of it is, and the Lamb”).
*Again, Dalcour militates against the majority of linguists and translators HERE.
*As demonstrated below in such excellent translations as the ESV and NASB, what Dalcour misses is that the goal of a translator is to supply the equivalent of the sender language into the receptor language. Apparently Dalcour thinks that these outstanding translation committees should have surely consulted with him before offering the following renderings!
(ESV): And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.
(NASB): I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
(Dalcour): Note that first in John 10:30, the verb (esmen, “are”) appears at the end of the sentence, after the phrase, “I and the Father,” thus, Jesus and the Father—“we are” one, not “we “is” (estin) or “am” one. Whereas in Rev. 21:22, the verb (estin, “is”) is before the phrase, “and the Lamb.” Thus, kai to arnion (“and the Lamb”) is an additional clause. No connection whatsoever—and Perkins knows this.
*Once again Dalcour shape-shifts and modifies his original argumentation to syntax from exegesis (which we readily oblige below). The grammatical fact remains that the plural vs. single verb that Dalcour is always complaining about relative to John 10.30 is provided at Revelation 21.22—despite how hard Dalcour attempts to spin out of his exegetical conundrums.
*But, since he apparently missed the following references in my original article—and since he is heading to the Judgment seat of God one day—here they are again (copied from my article below):
“Just for good measure, a couple of additional passages where singular verbs simultaneously modify both the Father and the Son of God as the same subject:
“Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you. (I Thessalonians 3.11; Berean Literal Bible)
“Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς κατευθύναι τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς· (NA28)
“The Greek verb rendered ‘direct’ (κατευθύναι) above appears in the aorist, active, optative, 3rd person, singular form describing the activity of the Father and Jesus. Will Trinitarians be consistent in their verbal appeals at this point? Or, will they now offer the usual spin-away-from-it tact? I prophesy the latter (and was indeed proven to be correct above)!
“Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word. (2 Thessalonians 2.16-17; NASB)
“Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ [ὁ] θεὸς ⸀ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς καὶ δοὺς παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα ἀγαθὴν ἐν χάριτι, παρακαλέσαι ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας καὶ στηρίξαι ἐν παντὶ ⸂ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ⸃ ἀγαθῷ. (NA28)
“You guessed it! The four verbs (two in participial form) above used to explicate the action of the same subject – God the Father and Christ – are all singular, not plural. Where are all the blog posts and lectures from Trinitarians concerning these singular verbs that modify both God and His Son? Why the deafening silence? Not to worry, we will shout it from the proverbial mountaintops for them!”
(Dalcour): Perkins lack of awareness in Greek (or purposeful fraudulence) causes him to assume that that lone context-less singular verbs constitute doctrine. However, the entire context and syntax must be considered—something Perkins does not do, as seen.
*Dalcour once again attacks my personal character. I could just as easily charge him with the same in his innumerable blunders and outright misinformation. However, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is simply a poor-sloppy student of the Bible (as noted both above and below) opposed to charging him with “purposeful fraudulence.”
*Further, of course “the entire context,” syntax, and exegesis should be considered. These are the very agents and sources of our denial of his multiple-divine-persons intrusion into the biblical data! As anyone can see both above and below on this blog I highly emphasize biblical context and grammar—something Dalcour opposes all the while providing lip service to the same! Mind-boggling.
(Dalcour): In the end, the only ones who will accept the assertions of Roger Perkins in his article are uncritical and disinserted Oneness believers.
*You can cool down your panic-mode rhetoric Mr. Dalcour. You have no one other than yourself to blame. And, we’re not quite sure what a “disinserted” Oneness believer is (?). Again, as noted by Oneness academics, Dalcour’s poor writing style makes it rather difficult at times to understand his assertions – or to take him seriously.
*More importantly, numerous ex-Trinitarians and current Oneness believers have contacted me personally and thanked me for helping them understand the biblical identity of God as well as the gross errors of the Trinity doctrine (this was esp. true after the White debate). In reality, it was critical-analytical examination that led them into a Scriptural view of Christ. To Jesus Christ belongs all the praise, honor and glory!
(Dalcour): Again, biblical scholarship is on the Trinitarian side, and thus in John 10:30—Jesus and the Father are distinct persons who are one in unity an essence. Oneness advocates like Perkins stand alone, for obvious reasons. Note the some robust (a few of countless) scholarly opinions regarding John 10:30 militating again the Oneness position:
*Once again we will point out to Dalcour that Dr. Thayer was openly and decidedly against the Trinity doctrine. Noted grammarian Adam Clark rightly rejected the anti-biblical notion of “co-eternal Sonship” (so Dr. Walter Martin). Dr. Daniel Wallace stated in the link provided earlier that the Trinity doctrine came after the writings of the Apostle Paul. James White stated that God exists as “three divine individuals, each with separate centers of consciousness apart from the other two divine individuals” (cf. White-Perkins debate). Dr. A.T. Robertson argued for “separate” divine persons—a term Mr. Dalcour denies…and on and on we could go. Not to mention how Dalcour once again commits the Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy above.
*Let’s see if Dalcour will accept these same “robust scholarly opinions” regarding the usage of εἷς at Galatians 3.28 (?). Or, we wonder if Dalcour will apply what these “same robust scholars” affirm about the force of the masculine singular εἷς had it appeared in John 10.30 toward Mark 12.29; Galatians 3.20; James 2.19; etc.? For some reason we’re thinking Dalcour will start his fancy footwork again at this point!
(Dalcour): New Testament scholar Murray Harris: “This dual conception of ‘distinction of person-community of essence’ also comes to expression in John 10:30, egw kai oJ pathr eJn esmen, which refers to neither personal identity (which would require eJiV esmen) nor simply to agreement of will and purpose (since John 10:28b, 29b implies at least an equality of power).” (Harris, Jesus as God, 285, n. 38).
*Dr. Harris serves as yet another testimony to the natural force of the masculine singular adjective εἷς as sole “personal identity.” We honestly do not understand why Dalcour cannot comprehend this—when he is posting the very resources that affirm our contention with this particular form of the adjective rendered “one” at Mark 12.29!?
*And, will Mr. Dalcour equally accept Dr. Harris in his exegesis of Colossians 1.15 (?) (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament; Colossians and Philemon; p. 39):
Εἰκὼν (-όνος, ἡ, image) is nom. after the vb. εἰμί, and is anar. because a pred. noun after εἰμί sometimes lacks the article (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4). It is definite (“the image,” “the visible image [NLT], “the visible representation” [Cassirer]) although anar. An εἰκὼν is a “likeness” or a “visible expression.” The degree of resemblance between the archetype and the copy must be determined by the word’s context but could range from a partial or superficial resemblance to a complete or essential likeness. Given 1:9 and 2:9, εἰκὼν here signifies that Jesus is an exact, as well as a visible, representation of God…The invisible God, who dwells in unapproachable light (I Tim. 6:16), is visibly expressed in his Son (cf. John 1:18; 12:45; 14:9).
*While we readily acknowledge Dr. Harris as Trinitarian in his theological commitments, he is what is often referred to as an “honest Trinitarian” (I have read much of his work). I ask the honest reader, does careful language such as “visible expression,” “representation,” and “copy” naturally communicate the eternal-heavenly realm—or is such grammar innately descriptive of the Incarnation? I will simply allow the integrity of your conscience be the guide!
(Dalcour): Marvin Vincent: “The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.” (Vincent, Word Studies in the NT, vol. 2)
*Precisely our point at Mark 12.29, Galatians 3.20, James 2.19, etc. ad nauseum. Jesus did not employ the neuter singular adjective ἕν in explicating the “most important commandment,” but rather the masculine singular adjective εἷς—which Vincent informs us here would mean “one person.” How many times do we have to repeat this for Dalcour?
(Dalcour): Robertson (as cited): “By the plural sumus [“are”] (separate persons) Sabellius [Oneness] is refuted, by unum [‘one in essence’] Arius” (Word Pictures, 5:186).
*But Dalcour denies “separate” divine persons in the Godhead. Wasn’t he just accusing me of alleged “source abuse” above (although the boomerang effect of Dalcour’s charge is painful to watch!)?
(Dalcour): Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: “‘Are’ is in the masculine gender—‘we (two persons) are’; while ‘one’ is neuter—‘one thing.’ Perhaps ‘one interest’ expresses, as nearly as may be, the purport of the saying. . . . Thus it will be seen, that, though oneness of essence is not the precise thing here affirmed, that truth is the basis of what is affirmed, without which it would not be true. And Augustine was right in saying the ‘We are’ condemns the Sabellians (who denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead), while the ‘one’ (as explained) condemns the Arians (who denied the unity of their essence)’” (JFB, Commentary, Volume 3: Matthew to Ephesians).
*God is not a “thing.” He is a personal-invisible Spirit that became a visible Man to save “whosoever will.” Moreover, note above that JFB claims that the verb translated “are” appears in “the masculine gender” – which is absolutely false! This Greek word (ἐσμεν) is a present tense, active voice, indicative mood, 1st person plural verb – that does not even have gender! Again, if Dalcour were a more careful student of God’s Word he would have caught yet another blunder in his selected resources.
*However, here is Dalcour’s same “robust” resource at Galatians 3.28:
One—Greek, “one man”; masculine, not neuter, namely “one new man” in Christ (Eph. 2:15).
*As noted, Dalcour treats his resources like a NYC cab ride—hop in where you want, but hop out when you don’t like where it takes you!
(Dalcour): David J. Ellis: “The neuter gender rules out any thought of meaning ‘one Person.’ This is not a comment on the nature of the Godhead. Rather, having spoken of the sheep’s security in both Himself and the Father, Jesus underlines what He has said by indicating that in action the Father and He can be regarded as a single entity, because their wills are one” (Ellis, “John,” in The International Bible Commentary, with the New International Version, ed. F. F. Bruce, 1249).
*At this point we are beating a dead horse, but, just for grins and giggles we will point out yet another of Dalcour’s resources openly affirming that when the masculine singular is used to explicate God “one person” is in view. I think it is well justified at this point to state that Dalcour’s arguments have succinctly backfired on him—all the while he has provided the ammunition for those he deems as the enemy (i.e., biblical Christians-Monotheists)! With this type of assistance from Dalcour we don’t even have to use our own ammo.!
(Dalcour): It is not surprising that Oneness-unitarians like Roger Perkins who after reading the plainness of so many biblical texts and examining scholarly and lexical sources makes so many errors in hermeneutics (as shown above and shown in debate) and his misuse of scholarly sources esp. lexical abuse.
*While I am not interested in engaging in a game of sophomoric one-upmanship we have both repeatedly and honestly demonstrated these exact words concerning Dalcour. Sincerely, I wouldn’t change a word of Dalcour’s fallacious charge above regarding himself.
*Further, the fact that there are no “plain biblical texts” affirming the doctrine of the Trinity—yet many to the contrary—is the very thing that forced me to walk away from Trinitarian churches. I simply take eternity very seriously and have to be completely honest with the “plain biblical texts” that clearly militate against Dalcour’s Triune divinity (e.g., Deuteronomy 6.4-8; Isaiah Chpp. 42-44; Mark 12.28-29; John 1.1-18, John 14.8-18; Colossians 2.8-10; etc. ad nausuem).
(Dalcour): So, what we have here is yet another Oneness advocate who is so controlled by unitarianism that he will sacrifice simply and verifiable truth for the sake of his tradition. Yes, it is a spiritual issue; Christians must keep praying that God will deliver Oneness Pentecostals from the bondage of the Oneness theology, which denies both the Father and the Son.
*Actually, what we have here is someone controlled by the biblical data itself in exchange for Dalcour’s unbiblical religious tradition(s) and factually-demonstrably erroneous “truth” claims. And, biblical Christians are indeed praying for the deliverance of Trinitarians like Dalcour in his obstinate and willful blindness.
*We have finally concluded an agreement point: This is indeed a both spiritual and eternal issue, which is precisely the reason we will continue to reach for the Trinitarian community toward biblical salvation and monotheism. Indeed, great revival is happening in many countries among Trinitarian pastors who are rightfully aborting their man-made creeds and traditions for biblical salvation and monotheism. To Christ be all the glory!
(Dalcour): I seriously hope that Oneness believers reading this will visit our website (www.christiandefense.org) or email me personally (firstname.lastname@example.org) regarding questions, concerns, or prayer.
*This is nothing more than Dalcour’s usual lip service. His typically pompous attitude and demeanor (a natural outflow of his “Calvinism”) betrays the polar opposite. We truly pray for Trinitarians whose hearts are not governed by the councils and religious traditions of men. Indeed, we have wept many heartfelt tears in private for Trinitarians—and will reach for them with a burdened heart for as long as God decrees our existence on His earth. Please feel free to contact me personally via the “comments” section of this blog. God bless and thank you for reading!
*Pastor Roger Perkins