*Below we continue with our categorical rebuttals to the charges of Edward Dalcour (HERE) against Oneness believers. I have copied Dalcour’s assertions in *bold black underneath with my immediate responses in *blue as here. Enjoy!
(Dalcour): eJiV (“one”): Now onto Perkins attempt to go against all mainline scholarship regarding the neuter adjective eJiV (“one”):
(Dalcour quoting my original rejoinder [cf. below]): Though this has been pointed out to Trinitarians ad nauseum, the masculine singular (3-3) adjective heis, translated “one” (εἷς), is indeed applied to God from the very lips of Jesus in Mark 12.29 as “the most important commandment.” If, as Dalcour asserts here, the masculine singular heis demands a single person (and it certainly does) the entire Trinitarian position is collapsed according to Christ Himself! That is, Jesus’ view of the Godhead was most definitely not that of a “Triune divinity”—and His view of both God and Scripture should equally be our view.
(Dalcour): First, he again, as with all unitarians, assumes unitarianism into Mark 12:29 (one God = one person). As much as Oneness advocates would like this point to be true, nowhere does Scripture indicate one God = one person. A redundant vibrato of citing passages that indicate “one God” is meaningless when “one” is left undefined as Perkins does—he merely assumes “one” means one numerically and one in solitary.
*Unbeknownst to Dalcour, in his last sentence above he openly suggests that he does not worship one God in the “numerical” or “solitary” sense (which, of course, we already knew). Further, we should expect Dalcour to provide the same and biblically define or identify the adjective translated “one” in John 10.30! Yet, to be expected, he does not—and cannot—do so.
*Moreover, we have, in the clearest way possible, pointed out to Dalcour that God’s usage of single-person-pronouns (ca. 9,000 of them) to identify Himself is not an “assumption” if the natural rules of grammar are to be left intact. It never ceases to amaze me how Trinitarians can attempt to force-feed “three co-eternal, co-equal, divine persons—each with their own independent mind(s)” into a single-person-pronoun – then charge someone else with supposed “assumption?” This is akin to Hillary Clinton disparagingly labeling someone else a “liberal!”
*As it relates to Mark 12.28-29 let’s take a closer look at the surrounding “context” that Dalcour complains about (and misapplies) in John 10 – even though he rejects the original audience’s understanding who actually-initially heard these words:
28 And one of the scribes having come up, having heard them reasoning together, having seen that He answered them well, questioned Him, “Which commandment is the first of all?”
29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear this O Israel: The Lord our God is One Lord, 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is not another commandment greater than these.”
32 And the scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher. You have spoken according to truth that He is One, and there is not another besides Him, 33 and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love the neighbor as oneself is more important than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Berean Literal Bible; Mark 12.28-33).
*Note above the consistent usage of the single-person-pronoun in this dialogue—clearly demanding one-single-person. In the conversation recorded above Dalcour would have us believe that the single-person-pronouns employed denote one person when describing Christ and the scribe. Yet when the same single-person-pronoun is applied toward God, the meaning subtly shifts to “three divine persons”—and the reader is expected to understand this faint pronoun amendment in midstream to maintain supposed “orthodoxy.” Pardon my frankness here, but this is just patently absurd.
*Worse, once again the original hearer understood Jesus’ assertion to demand one person as evidenced in his response:
“Right, Teacher. You have spoken according to truth that He is One, and there is not another besides Him, and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love the neighbor as oneself is more important than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
*Being a typical Trinitarian, Dalcour offers radically different conclusions some 2,000 years later than the original audience did—just as he does at John 10.30-33. But, anything to protect those infallible “orthodox” councils of men under the guise of sola and tota-scriptura! Incidentally, we should note how Dalcour repeatedly juxtaposes the terms “historical” and (supposedly) “biblical” in his effort to defend the indefensible Trinity doctrine. Of course, this once again exposes his propensity toward supplemental-foreign intrusions into the scriptural data itself (so all non-Christian groups).
(Dalcour): Although in both the OT and NT “one” can mean composite/compound unity, one group, people, one union between husband and wife, one section or many, etc. Further, at least nine words in Hebrew can mean “one” (Morey)—and Perkins knows this. An undefined “one” rather proves the Trinitarian positon, since the foundation of the Trinity is monotheism (one God), and the foundation of Oneness is one person. So in spite of Perkins’ overly complaining, Mark 12:29 does not show what Perkins wants it to show—Jesus was not a unitarian.
*We would love to know how on earth an “undefined one proves the Trinitarian position?” Dalcour is drunk on his Trinitarian froth and delusion at this point and just makes things up as he goes along (so John Calvin, Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, etc.). An “undefined one” will never “prove Trinitarianism” despite how hard Dalcour attempts to injure the scriptural data with his religious traditions in his rejection of biblical Monotheism. (Note: To imply, as Dalcour does above, that Christ was a supposed “Trinitarian” has the same merit as the existence of the planet Kolob! Such an assertion is simply laughable.)
(Dalcour): Second, Perkins goes on to say,
“Although lexical quotes abound to this end, ironically, Dalcour’s quotation from Robertson above is one of the most conclusive citations from Greek linguists (cf. Zodhiates, Vincent, Thayer, BDAG, Wuest, et al.).”
(Dalcour): Please note: Not ONE of these sources applies a unipersonal (viz. that God is one person) meaning to eiJV at Mark. 12:29 (Deut. 6:4, LXX), not one. Hence, Perkins references (“Zodhiates, Vincent, Thayer, BDAG, Wuest, et al.”) is his rickety attempt to sustain a unipersonal meaning of eiJV at Mark 12:29—but again, scholarship (esp. the ones he references) is decidedly against a unipersonal meaning of Mark 12:29 (or any other passage).
*First, as has been pointed out to Dalcour ad nauseum, Dr. Thayer was not “decidedly against” the biblical proclamation that God exists as one person—he was decidedly in favor of it! Here Dalcour lives up to his usual slapstick “scholastics” in yet another erroneous claim and misassertion.
*Second, Dalcour repeatedly appeals to the Jewish Targums in his desperation to locate the Son of God in the OT—yet we would love for Dalcour to demonstrate where this same Jewish resource arrived at his Triune divinity doctrine:___________? Or, where even “one” of Dalcour’s oft-quoted Jewish sources arrived at his three-personed-deity interpolation (?). “Source abuse” indeed!
*Incidentally, regarding Dalcour’s repeated usage of the Targums, as Dr. Bruce Metzger once observed: All translations of the Bible are necessarily interpretive to some extent, but the Targums differ in that they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase (Cf. Bruce M. Metzger’s article, “Important Early Translations of the Bible,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 [Jan 93], pp. 35ff).
*Further, Dalcour is fond of appealing to the NT epistles addressed to churches that had been water/Spirit baptized in Jesus’ name and spoke in tongues (e.g., Ephesians, Romans)—all of which Dalcour rejects! That is, the NT letters to the churches were specifically directed toward born-again believers via John 3.3-8/Acts 2.37-38 salvation. Thus Dalcour is guilty of spiritual invasion of privacy since he is opening letters addressed to someone who had already enjoyed the very salvific experience that he wars against! Ironically, Dalcour attempts to chide Oneness believers for their supposed poor resources—and yet he doesn’t even blush!? Like Haman, Dalcour once again hangs himself with his own fabricated rope.
(Dalocur): Perkins says, “when heis is used “one person” is in view . . . lexical quotes abound to this end.” (Dalcour): And then Perkins tell us: “Indeed, heis is used c. 100x in the NT alone and in no instance does it denote more than one-single-person. . . . the masculine singular heis demands one-single-person.”
(Dalcour): This assertion again reveals the stock of knowledge Perkins has in Greek. Although he has been consistently refuted on this point, Perkins still presses it. One wonders if he does this purposefully hoping no one will verify this.
*Yet below Dalcour informs us that this specific form of the adjective used by Christ does indeed “most of the time” mean “one person” (although he goes on to deny this force when applied to God [a farcical claim]). For someone who consistently bumbles in the Greek text Dalcour needs to sweep around his own porch before (mistakenly) dusting off his broom to tend to mine. Perkins presses this grammatical point because it rightfully repudiates Dalcour’s false doctrine(s). Further, we would like to see even one “refutation” of the biblical force of this masculine singular adjective translated “one” in Mark 12.29 (what Dalcour erroneously and consistently identifies as a “pronoun” above):________?
*In point of fact, contra his claim above, not a single meaningful refutation has been offered from Trinitarians concerning the force of the masculine singular adjective εἷς. As we shall soon see, Dalcour’s wobbly attempts to negate the “most” natural reading of the adjective below fails exegetically as well. We will continue to await Dalcour’s evidence of these “consistent refutations.” To borrow from his own (usual) ad-hominem attack above, perhaps Dalcour “does this purposefully hoping no one will verify this!” Simply put – take your own medicine Mr. Dalcour!
(Dalcour): The masculine eiJV is similar to the English “one.” Here we have again, Perkins assume unitarianism into the term. “One” what? Yes, most of the time, “one person,”—when man is in view. However, not “every time” as Perkins would like it to mean. The fact is, if there is even one place where eiJV is used to signify more than one person, Perkins entire premise implodes. This is true with the multitude of plural verbs, nouns, adjectives, and prepositions applied to the “one” God, which is a thorn in the flesh to Oneness advocates—showing again that Oneness unitarianism is not consistent with biblical view of God. For example, note Gal. 3:28:
*Here Dalcour’s feet dangle at the bottom of his own noose. He openly concedes above that the “most” normal usage of the 3-3 masculine singular adjective demands “one person.” However, he then desperately flails to wiggle out of it by shifting the natural usage of this adjective when it’s applied to God. Of course, he offers absolutely no textual support for this claim—but we will be sure to check 3 Timothy for Dalcour’s textual evidence!
*We are curious why Dalcour has no problem borrowing from what he thinks is the most normative application of prepositional constructs – “when man is in view” – for pros + accusative case (e.g., John 1.1) and para + dative case (e.g., John 17.5) toward God? Dalcour then concedes that when applied to human beings this adjective does indeed mean “one person,” yet rejects the “most” natural force of this particular adjective when applied to God! Why doesn’t he apply the same methodology to the prepositional law(s) at John 1.1, 17.5? Why the subtle shift in grammatical praxis? Simple – theological prejudice under the banner of “exegesis” to the untrained and unsuspecting eye. This adjective places Dalcour’s Triune divinity canard in its coffin where it belongs and he simply cannot have that!
*Moreover, Dalcour’s shoddy hermeneutics is once again placed on open display in his assertion that if “even one place” carries a different meaning of the adjective translated “one” (εἷς) at Mark 12.29 this then blankets an “entire premise.” Does this self-fabricated technique equally apply to the sole witness of Matthew 28.19, the 9,000 single-person-pronouns applied to Yahveh, the prepositional constructs referenced above, etc.? That is, if “even one place” in the biblical data negates Dalcour’s understanding of these texts will he now walk away from his “entire premise” according to his methodology above? For some reason we are thinking not!
*I could just as easily claim that if there is “even one place” where εἷς means “one person” then Dalcour’s entire premise at Galatians 3.28 implodes. Though this has been pointed out to Dalcour before, in Romans 12.5 Paul switches from the neuter singular ἓν when addressing “many” to the masculine singular εἷς when addressing “individuals” (HERE). Paul does the same thing at Galatians 3.20, et al. It’s no use for Dalcour to complain, “But this makes the point about the neuter singular ἓν!” – since he has already informed us that we cannot apply normal grammatical rules for men to God (well, until he comes to prepositions and prepositional phrases)! Keep in mind that this is the same Paul who was careful to employ this same masculine singular adjective to identify God’s numerical existence (e.g., Galatians 3.20; I Timothy 2.5).
*Opposite Dalcour, clearly Paul understood the grammatical distinction between the neuter singular ἕν and the masculine singular εἷς—as demonstrated by his switch in Romans 12.5, Galatians 3.20, I Corinthians 14.27d, etc. Moreover, God Himself applies the masculine singular εἷς to His numerical identity and orders that this be the “most important commandment.” Down goes Dalcour’s co-eternal, co-equal, Triune divinity!
(Dalcour): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one [eiJV] in Christ Jesus.”
*Yet I thought Dalcour just objected to applying the most natural grammatical rules for human beings toward God? Why does he now (mis)apply this method at Galatians 3.28 – but then abort his criteria with this same adjective at Mark 12.29? That is, Dalcour applies this adjective to God as used for separate human beings in Galatians 3.28 in his effort to erase the same adjectives meaning as applied to God in Mark 12.29, Galatians 3.20, James 2.19, etc. ad nauseum. Quite revealing!
*Further, if Dalcour would do his homework he would recognize that some MSS actually read the neuter singular ἕν—not εἷς:
(A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament; 2nd ed., Bruce Metzger): A number of other readings arose through the inadvertence of scribes. Instead of εἷς, several witnesses read the neuter ἕν, perhaps with some allusion to ἕν σῶμα in 1 Cor 12:12. Two manuscripts read ἔστε Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (P; compare), “you belong to Christ Jesus,” which may be an assimilation to 3:29.
*The critical apparatus to NA28 lists this adjectival phrase as: ⸂ἕν εστε εν Χριστω⸃ F G 33. Hence, this slight—yet noteworthy—variant is lost on Dalcour due to his sloppy scholarship. The New International Greek Testament observes:
Although Paul does not use “body” language in Galatians, his present statement is practically equivalent to ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ (Rom. 12:5), ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν (1 Cor. 10:17). Here, however, there is special emphasis on Jews and Gentiles (not to speak of free persons and slaves, males and females) being one in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:15).
(Zondervan’s Exegetical Commentary; Galatians 3.28 translation footnote; Drs. Thomas Schreiner and Clinton Arnold): Some texts read “one” (ἕν) “perhaps with some allusion” to 1 Cor 12:12 (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 526).
(UBS Handbooks for New Testament [for translators]; Galatians 3.28): you are all just like one person in being joined closely to Christ Jesus, ” or “…you are all the same in being closely tied to Christ Jesus.”
*Similarly, in his effort to reject the name of Jesus Christ in the water baptismal formula as demonstrated in Acts (e.g., 2.38, 8.16, 10.48, 19.5, 22.16), Dalcour plays theological leap frog by jumping back to David’s assertion to Goliath that he came “in the name of the LORD” (I Samuel 17.45). In his on-line presentations Dalcour derides the most natural reading(s) of the Acts baptismal accounts by claiming that since David used this prepositional phrase (“in the name of”) to Goliath—and David’s name was not Yahveh—this somehow enables him to spin away from the plain biblical texts in Acts (?). Of course, such an abnormal interpretive approach demonstrates how far Dalcour is willing to torture the plain biblical data to maintain his far-fetched and unusual explanations of the clear baptismal accounts in Acts.
*As we have come to expect from Dalcour, he is quite selective in what he utilizes for humans and what he disallows in his grammatical applications to God—just so long as his unbiblical Trinity is protected! This again betrays Dalcour’s theological agenda under the guise of “exegesis,” and he does this on virtually every page of his book. Since Dalcour is constantly requesting the conclusion of “even one” grammarian regarding biblical passages, perhaps he will now accept Dr. Thayer’s exegesis at Galatians 3.28 (?):
and where it takes the place of a predicate, Galatians 3:20 (cf. Winer’s Grammar, 593 (551)), Galatians 3:28 (ye that adhere to Christ make one person, just as the Lord himself).
*Or, how about Meyer’s Commentary:
Proof from the relation cancelling these distinctions, which is now constituted: For ye all are one, ye form a single moral person.
*Still not enough? How about Elliccot’s Commentary for English Readers in this verse:
One.—The word “one” is masculine—“one man,” “a single person”—as explained in the paraphrase above.
*Need yet another Greek expositor Mr. Dalcour? Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
[ye are all one] ‘ye’ is emphatic, pointing to those who are ‘sons of God,’ Galatians 3:26. ‘One person,’ or ‘one man’.
*Wait, don’t hang up Mr. Dalcour – here is yet another one! Vincent’s Word Studies:
Ye are all one: One moral personality. The individual differences are merged in the higher unity into which all are raised by their common life in Christ. This is the one new man, Ephesians 2:15.
*And they just keep coming! Wayne Walden HERE:
Another gender observation in our verse is that the “one” is masculine, that is, “one person” (NEB, REB, Cassirer, New World). Taking the words contextually, again, instead of literally, individuals in the list have all done the same thing, and God views the matter as though it is the same person, without additional prerequisites, who has come into Christ and is clothed with Christ (v. 27) and who, consequently, belongs to Christ, is Abraham’s progeny, and therefore an heir to the promise to Abraham (v. 29).
*Based on the contextual emphasis inherent in the verb ἔνι and the gender of the adjectives in the verse, Walden proposes the translation: Whether one is Jew or Greek is irrelevant to the matter. Whether one is servant or free is irrelevant to the matter. The subject of “maleness and femaleness” is irrelevant to the matter because, with Christ Jesus, all of you are one and the same person.
*Again, I’m thinking Dalcour will deny the “scholarship” that he repeatedly calls for from these grammarians above. However, since his eternal soul is at stake – let me try another resource with this verse that Dalcour himself employs below:
One—Greek, “one man;” masculine, not neuter, namely “one new man” in Christ (Eph 2:15)—Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary.
(Dalcour): Of course, Christians naturally and rightfully cite this passage to show the unity of believers in Christ—because it plainly states this, as with biblical scholarship. The fact is, Perkins will put a doctrinal spin on any verse if it disagrees with what he believes.
*Trinitarians might cite Galatians 3.28 to dodge the “most” (Dalcour’s own term) natural reading and meaning of the adjective translated “one” in Mark 12.29—but biblical Christians allow the inspired grammar to stand on its own force. And, in all sincerity I could not word it any better than he has done immediately above to describe Dalcour’s “hermeneutical” methodology! I would just advise him to once again take his own medicine!
(Dalcour): Note Perkins comments: “Galatians 3.28 will not do at this point (as Trinitarians typically use to evade the force of heis) since the entire point of Paul’s discourse in these texts is that biblical Christians are ‘one person in Christ Jesus’ (cf. NEB, ASV, ERV).”
(Dalcour): “The force of heis”? What does that mean?
*While I’m not surprised that Dalcour does not follow common exegetical lingo, I’m not sure how else to explain such uncomplicated jargon (as a simple on-line search will quickly reveal). This is standard and ordinary usage in grammatical-exegetical papers.
(Dalcour): First, Perkins misleads he readers here. For both the ASV (“for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus”) and the ERV (“You are all the same in Christ Jesus”), none say “one person.” As said, Perkins has a reputation for misquoting and botching sources. He selects translations that he can put a spin on, as he did with the older ed. of the AMP of Gal. 3:20. The fact is, the translators of the ASV (note, Philip Schaff had chosen the scholars for the project) and the ERV (produced by the WBTC), NEB, and the AMP were translated by Trinitarian scholars, who naturally saw the Oneness view as a perversion of Scripture.
*Here Dalcour again exposes his theological bias contrary to his repeated claims of supposed “grammar” and “exegesis.” Sorry Mr. Dalcour, we were under the impression that theology was not to interfere with direct translation! In fact, the Greek professors I’ve taken classes from rarely even mention theology, but rather focus on the actual inspired grammar itself. And, not to beat a dead horse at this point, but as we have demonstrated above it is Dalcour who is often all-thumbs with his resources—and I have many more of his bungled quotes!
*Regarding the older publication of The Amplified Bible (we note the theological alterations made to the newer ed.) at Galatians 3.20, no “spin” is necessary since the text plainly speaks for itself:
20 Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both].
*If Dalcour had a single translation, quote, Bible verse, fragment or sliver that stated that “God is three persons” he would be grinning like a toothless possum and parading it all over the web. It wouldn’t matter if it were found inside a Bigfoot mask—Dalcour would be frothing at the mouth over such a quote! Not to worry though, such a Bible quote simply does not exist to Dalcour’s aggravation.
*Apparently Dalcour should revisit his monstrosity of a “campus” at Columbia Evangelical Seminary to learn what an antithesis is in connection with Galatians 3.20. Paul is stating in the clearest way that although a mediator demands more than one person (literally, “not of one”), but (δὲ), literally, “the God is” the inverse of the role of a mediator—viz., one person (HERE). Hence, Paul’s original audience would have already read v. 20 prior to reading v. 28—which, again, emphatically declares that God is “one person” much to Dalcour’s embarrassment.
*Further, Dalcour once again bumbles his own resource above. Just as I stated in my original refutation to his eisegesis of John 10.30, the ASV affirms that Galatians 3.28 teaches that believers are a sole person as located “in Christ” (ἐν [+ dat.] Χριστῷ). Indeed, this is the very emphasis Paul is making by using the masculine singular contra the neuter—and only furthers our point: “for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.” How many “persons” does Dalcour suppose language such as “one man” naturally communicates? Three, or one? And Dalcour is charging me with placing a “spin” on resources (shall we discuss how Dalcour attempts to weave three-divine-persons into passages such as Isaiah 44.24, etc. ad nauseum?)?
*Moreover, just for kicks, let’s take a look at more of Dalcour’s clumsiness with the Greek text shall we? In the link immediately below at the 3:45 minute mark while discussing the supposed syntax of John 6.38 Dalcour claims that an aorist tense verb precedes a perfect tense verb—which is patently false! In point of fact, the polar opposite is true – the perfect tense verb καταβέβηκα (“I have come down”) appears anterior to the aorist tense πέμψαντός (“having sent”).
*Next, Dalcour erroneously claims that the Greek prepositional phrase παρὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ appears in John 6.38 at the 4:10 minute mark. Problem is, no such prepositional phrase appears in this verse at all! The prepositional phrase actually employed by Christ in this verse is ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Dalcour then mistranslates the singular noun for “heaven” as the plural “heavens” – which, again, does not appear in this verse.
*At the 4:48 minute mark Dalcour claims, “Jesus said my will is distinct from the Father.” Of course, Jesus never “said” any such thing. Apparently Dalcour thinks he can just make up his own Bible (see HERE for all of these recent flubbed assertions from Dalcour regarding John 6.38)!
(Dalcour): That Perkins will rest his interpretation of Gal. 3:28 on a few obscure translations in the face of virtually every other biblical translation is a flimsy argument esp. in the context of Christians being “one in unity” in Cristw. Again, the translators to which Perkins appeals were Trinitarian. Also, contrasting the masculine eiJV and the neuter eJn in John 10:30, noted Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson points out: “Not one person (cf. ei in Galatians 3:28), but one essence or nature” (Word Pictures).
*First, note that Robertson translated εἷς in Galatians 3.28 as “one person.” How this is lost on Dalcour is mind-boggling since he argues opposite overhead. Second, I think we have provided far more than a “few obscure translations” above—esp. since Dalcour repeatedly appeals to these same grammarians! And, again, theology has no place in the actual translation of manuscripts (as Dalcour continuously infers) and this only reveals his typical scholastic hypocrisy. Moreover, we have repeatedly demonstrated above how Dalcour’s quote from Robertson backfires on him at Galatians 3.20, James 2.19, Mark 12.29, etc.
(Dalcour): Perkins’ strange interpretation that “biblical Christians are one person” is, of course, restless eisegesis. Perkins main howlers here is that critical biblical exegesis is NOT derived from looking at translations trying to find which one matches a view, but rather proper exegesis.
*First, Dalcour constantly employs the very same grammatical resources I have appealed to above – all of whom state that Galatians 3.28 denotes “one person in Christ.” In fact, assuming that the masculine singular εἷς is original (cf. the slight variant cited above), as exegetes overhead point out, this is the very basis for their rendering “one man/person.” Dalcour simply has his trifocals on at this point and actually rejects what he above labels as “proper exegesis.”
*Further, “proper exegesis” does not (i) repeatedly misidentify Greek adjectives as “pronouns,” (ii) misquote Christ’s usage of the preposition εἰς at Matthew 28.19 (claiming an entirely diff. prepositional usage than what was used), (iii) misunderstand lexical quotes (cf. Dalcour’s charges regarding Thayer above), (iv) omit the semantic range of Greek prepositions from his audience’s consideration, (v) fail to consult the “critical” apparatus in Greek texts (e.g., NA28; UBS-5), (vi) repeatedly flub the syntax of Greek clauses as seen above, etc. ad nauseum. Simply, Dalcour is certainly in no position to be correcting others regarding “proper exegesis” (more aptly dubbed “exit-Jesus” as it relates to Dalcour’s mishandling of the text!).
*Finally, we are not quite sure what a “main howler” is as Dalcour charges above, but perhaps if Dalcour would clear the red from his eyes and slow down he might make more sense…all the while charging Oneness believers with sloppy scholarship (?)! Typical Dalcour.
(Dalcour): The Greek phrase, panteV gar uJmeiV eiJV este en Cristw Ihsou, literally, “All indeed you one are in Christ Jesus.” The Greek completely erases Perkins odd interpretation and affirms clearly, “one in unity,” not in one man. As mention, this one passage, which denotes a clear one in unity meaning, turns Perkins eiJV view upside down.
*Coming from someone who constantly fumbles the ball with the Greek text—and who militates against a myriad of grammarians above—I think we’ll play it safe and reject Dalcour’s agenda-driven theology here also! The grammatical-contextual facts are that Dalcour is flat wrong in his assertion here as established overhead. In fact, the very reason Paul used the masculine singular (3-3) adjective in this text was to negate Dalcour’s separation eisegesis (as noted by Greek scholars above). Simply, grammarians say the polar opposite of Dalcour concerning the (variant) tag of the adjective used in this text. This is nothing more than Dalcour’s typical evasion tactics in the name of supposed exegesis.
(Dalcour): Note that Paul’s salutations grammatically denote two distinct persons (cf. Sharp Rule 5). Grammatically (as circumstantiated by grammarians [Sharp, Greenly, Wallace et al] when there are multiple personal nouns in a clause that are connected by kai and the first noun lacks the article, each noun must denote a distinct person, as shown in all of the Pauline salutations: cariV uJmin kai eirhnh apo qeou patroV hJmwn kai kuriou Ihsou Cristou, literally, “Grace to you and peace from God Father of us and Lord Jesus Christ” – no articles preceding both personal nouns (patroV and Cristou)—thus, this indicates distinct persons.
*But I thought Dalcour sought to defend his Triune divinity hypothesis here—why no mention of the Holy Spirit in these Pauline salutations? Dalcour need not complain about “arguing from silence” since he practices this methodological hermeneutic quite frequently (as seen below). And, problematic for Dalcour, these verses do not say God the Father and “God the Son” as he repeatedly parrots.
*Most significantly, note Paul’s specific usage of the noun translated Christ (Χριστοῦ) in these salutations—a functional term contra an ontological expression as Dalcour erroneously claims. As certified above, this noun (Χριστοῦ) defines as “one who has been anointed” (cf. NET TN). Would Dalcour pray tell us how one supposed ontologically co-equal divine person could “anoint” another ontologically co-equal divine person in eternity past? Frankly, such a construct is utterly convoluted and completely foreign to the biblical data.
*In summary, Dalcour’s earth-shattering Pauline salutations prove nothing more than the duality of God both within and without the Incarnation. Simply, the one God of the biblical data simultaneously existent (i) transcendent (God-Father) and (ii) descendant as a genuine man for the redemption of mankind (Lord-Christ). This is precisely the biblical-Oneness message relative to God’s identity and is our very point.
*Concerning Dalcour’s reference above to Granville Sharp’s (GS) Rule V, here is the actual rule itself:
And as also when there is no article before the first noun, the insertion of the copulative kai before the next noun, or name, of the same case, denotes a different person or thing from the first.
*Note above that GS Rule V does not employ Dalcour’s subtle entry of “distinct”—but rather “different.” There is a vast disparity between something that is designated as “different” (so Sharp) and what is identified as “distinct” (so Dalcour’s intrusion into the rule). Distinct explicates what shares common-recognizable qualities, while “different” – as Sharp used – describes something unlike or vastly otherness. Hence, Dalcour need not appeal to Sharp’s Rule above since it actually opposes his Trinity dogma in its wording! However, using Dalcour’s hermeneutical standard above, viz., if “in even one place” this rule is invalidated his “entire premise” then implodes, let’s test this “rule” below shall we?
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2.36; ESV)
*In the Greek phrase translated “both Lord and Christ” above (καὶ κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ χριστὸν), both personal nouns (Lord and Christ) lack the article, are connected by καὶ, and are of the same case—which Dalcour informs us “must denote a distinct person.” Thus since he appeals to GS V above, Dalcour has just made “different persons” within Jesus since the rule itself says absolutely nothing about “distinct” persons (note: there are many other places in the Greek NT demonstrating that this rule is quite suspect and an ex post facto invention, but this one suffices for now). If he keeps multiplying his divinities like this we can expect to see “Elder Dalcour” at the LDS general conference with his Mormon brethren in Salt Lake next year!
*Note also that Peter, at the inaugural date of the church, declares that the titles Lord and Christ refer to the one who was “crucified” and was “made” (aorist tense ἐποίησεν) both Lord and Christ. If these nouns “must denote” distinct divine persons as Dalcour asserts above, we would be quite interested to know how divinity can be “made” Lord in eternity past by another divinity? Wouldn’t this being already be “Lord” from eternity according to Deuteronomy 6.4? Clearly such plain-inspired language stands in opposition to the fanciful notion of a Triune divinity.
*Significantly, this reveals both the paradigm and template of subsequent NT writers when they utilize the same Greek nouns. Or, would Dalcour have us believe that Peter introduced one denotation of these titles and later NT writers offered a radically different understanding than originally designated and presented at Pentecost? That is, did Peter introduce and identify these titles with the Crucifixion – then following NT writers make a U-turn with these same terms back into the eternal “preexistent” domain? Sorry Mr. Dalcour—we aren’t looking for a theological traffic ticket for illegitimate U-turns. We cannot afford to pay the eternal price!
(Dalcour): Along with Gal. 3:28, Perkins Oneness unitarian view of eiJV is esp. refuted by 1 Cor. 8:6:
*Actually, as exegetically demonstrated above, Galatians 3.28 “refutes” nothing – other than Dalcour’s theological dodge-ball tactics.
(Dalcour): “yet for us there is but one [eiJV] God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one [eiJV] Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”
(Dalcour): Remember, Perkins argument is “when heis is used “one person” is in view.” But wait. Perkins trips here (as with Gal. 3:28) on his own so-called linguistic rule. If eiJV means, in every case, one sole person, as Perkins asserts, it would follow then that the Father is one sole person and the Lord is one (another) sole person since the double usage of eiJV precedes both nouns, that is, both sole persons, which is consistent with Trinitarianism, not Oneness.
*But wait, Dalcour trips here on his own dodge above! If the masculine singular adjective translated “one” does not demand one person—then why is Dalcour using it at I Corinthians 8.6? He has just (mis)informed us that the adjective does not necessitate a sole person, hence, we could just as easily reject the same in his earth-shattering verse here. But since we seek to practice balanced scales in all things exegetical – opposite merely a negative argumentation – let’s analyze this verse more closely.
*Note that Paul cites the Father as “God” and then specifies the “Christ,” which, again, defines as “one who has been anointed” (cf. NET TN)—which Dalcour informs us is explicating the pre-existent-eternal age. As pointed out above, we would be quite intrigued to know how one co-equal God-person could “anoint” another ontologically co-equal God-person? Wouldn’t He already be inherently “anointed” as God-proper? What the verse does not say is God the Father and God the Son—and completely omits the Holy Spirit! This is far from being “consistent with Trinitarianism” as Dalcour merely pontificates above.
*Moreover, Paul is writing post-Pentecost where Peter (with whom Paul had already deliberated) has identified these same titles of Jesus as referring to “who you crucified,” viz., the God-Man opposite a preexistent divinity. That is, contextually, these titles elucidate and celebrate the majestic cross-work of Jesus.
(Dalcour): Two distinct persons, the sole person of the Father (who is eiJV) and the sole person of Lord Jesus (who is also eiJV). To argue that the double usage of eiJV represents both the Father and Lord Jesus defies the plain and natural reading here, Compare Eph. 4:4-5 and 1 Tim. 2:5, where, as with 1 Cor. 8:6, the multiple use eiJV preceding both the Father and Jesus heavily challenges and clearly refutes the Oneness perspective of eiJV and a unitarian Jesus.
*We are rather confused by this assertion made by Dalcour (?). I have not argued the “double usage” of the masculine singular εἷς, Dalcour has! I actually presented the sole usage of the masculine singular adjective as carefully employed by Christ when designating “the most important commandment” in the Bible—which Dalcour himself states “most of the time” means “one person” (although he then amusingly attempts to spin away from it)! Speaking of defying the “plain and natural reading” of biblical passages, perhaps Dalcour will once again take his own medicine at Colossians 2.9—as well as the entirety of the biblical presentation of God:
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (NKJV).
*Will Dalcour stick by his guns here and accept the “plain and natural reading” of this text (as well as the Greek text)? Cf. Isaiah 9.6; chpp. 42-44; etc. ad nauseum.
*We are rather curious as to what Dalcour thinks Ephesians 4.4-5 proves? In fact, when describing the Holy Spirit in v. 4 Paul uses the neuter singular adjective rendered “one” (lit., ἓν πνεῦμα)—which Dalcour informs us demands more than one person at John 10.30! Thus, using his own criterion, he now has more than one divine person within the Holy Spirit! Further, v. 5 vindicates the Oneness message by affirming that there is “one (εἷς) Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
*Presumably Dalcour means v. 6 in another of his mis-citations above, which states εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ – lit., “one God and Father” (and, why not make two divine persons out of “God and Father” Mr. Dalcour?). Note again the Pauline connection and linkage of the nouns translated “God” and (καὶ) “Father,” revealing that for Paul, the sole God was the Father. Hence, when Paul utilizes these nouns (often interchangeably) he has “the Father” in mind as the one “God” (cf. I Corinthians 8.6; [see also John 17.3]). That is, within the Pauline corpus “God” is the same as saying “the Father” as demonstrated in Ephesians 4.6. We have already established above via I Corinthians 8.6 that, for Paul, the appellation “Lord” refers to the “Christ”—or the God-Man (God descendent)—contra Dalcour’s conjectured preexistent God-persons.
*I Timothy 2.5 (NASB): For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. This passage most certainly does not help Dalcour either since it specifically identifies Jesus in His mediatorial role as “the man” (ἄνθρωπος), Christ Jesus. In the clearest way this verse offers a positive affirmation that the NT terms “God” and “Christ” denote an ontological distinction between the “one” invisible-omnipresent God and the “one” visible-limited “Christ”—whom Paul would go on to identify as this very self-same God enfleshed a little later in this same letter (I Timothy 3.16). One would think that Trinitarians like Dalcour would sprint from this verse quicker than Hillary would from the FBI!
*Moreover, this text states that there is εἷς Θεός (lit., “one God”)—whom Dalcour informs us is defined as a Trinity. If “God” equals a Trinity for Dalcour then he has now unwittingly placed “Christ Jesus” outside of his Trinity altogether! If Dalcour counters that the noun translated “God” (Θεός) most generally describes the Father in the NT (as pointed out above), he will then have to shape-shift this explication when the noun is applied to Christ in the very same epistle (i.e., I Timothy 3.16 [cf. Dean Burgon at this variant]; cf., e.g., John 1.1; Titus 2.13; I John 5.20; et al.). At this point Dalcour will likely appeal to his (mis)understanding of the supposed context (cf., e.g., Philippians 2.5-8) in an effort to dodge his usual double standards and imbalanced scales.
*So far, Dalcour’s misapplication(s) of various grammatical “rules” above has unwittingly produced multiple persons within (i) the Father, (ii) the Son, and (iii) the Holy Spirit! The way Dalcour’s grammatical “rules” continue to multiply divinities he should drop the verbal confession of “Monotheism” altogether and just join up with the Hindus! I mean why even fake it any longer?
(Dalcour): Perkins simply dismisses all of this when he says:
“This is the adjective [eiJV] carefully and intentionally employed by Jesus when specifically describing God’s numerical identity.”
(Dalcour): Again, this only shows how controlled Perkins and Oneness believers are to a unitarian a priori assumption. Perkins as shown is dead wrong in his assessment of what Christ meant.
*First, I could not have “dismissed all of this” in my original refutation against Dalcour – since he had not yet presented these arguments! Does Dalcour expect me to predict every single dodge he offers (although I am familiar with ca. 95% of them!)? Silly.
*Second, despite Dalcour’s laborious evasion efforts, Perkins has not been “shown dead wrong” in anything relative to Mark 12.29. In fact, the diametrical opposite has been “shown”—it is Dalcour who opposes what Christ both said and meant in his effort to reconstruct this key biblical text with his Triune divinity intrusion.
*Third, of course Oneness believers are “controlled” by God’s repeated self-identification as a sole person – Jesus commanded us to (Mark 12.29)! As pointed out above, over 9,000 times God uses single-person-pronouns to present Himself. Dalcour vainly attempts to force-feed his “God with God” and “Elohim with Elohim” mantras into thousands and thousands of single-person-pronouns—then charges Oneness believers with supposed “assumption(s)?” Mind-boggling. We are exclusively “controlled” by the God-breathed Scriptures allowed to stand on their own strength and unaided by religious tradition(s).
(Dalcour): Jesus and the NT never once saw or called Jesus the Father. Rather He is the monogenhV qeoV (John 1:18); He was the Son who was worship as God, (God commanding the all the angels to worship God, the Son; Heb. 1:6); the Son is the YHWH of Isa. 45:23 (Phil. 2:9-10); and the YHWH of John 2:32 (Rom. 10:13); and the YHWH of Ps. 102:25-27, the unchangeable Creator (Heb. 1:10-12); and the YHWH that Isiah saw in Isa. 6 (John 12:39-41)—note, all these are references specifically to the Son.
*Since Dalcour again erroneously argues from silence perhaps he can point us to the NT passage that “in even one place” (to borrow his terminology) identifies Jesus as the “second of three divine persons in the Trinity:”__________? Biblical Christians have been waiting on Trinitarians to fill in this blank for almost 2,000 years now! Worse, Dalcour is flat wrong in his assertion above. Though he fights this self-declaration of Jesus like a tiger to protect his Triune divinity canard, John 14.8-10 could not be clearer:
(BLB): 8 Philip says to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus says to him, “Am I with you so long a time, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one having seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak from Myself; but the Father dwelling in Me does His works.
*Dalcour typically attempts to dodge this silver bullet from the lips of Jesus Himself by seeking refuge in v. 6, all the while negating the ensuing verses. However, who would read this text for the first time and—allowing the inspired data to stand alone—identify Jesus as someone other than the One Philip asked to see? The Trinity doctrine must necessarily be imported into one’s psyche at this point. If Jesus is not actually the Father in some sense then His response was entirely non-sensical: “Have I been with you so long a time, and you have not known me, Philip?”
*Note that Christ expressed surprise that Philip did not recognize that the One he was inquiring about was standing right in front of him! What sense do the words of Jesus make here from the Trinitarian viewpoint? Note also that Jesus declares that the Father was “dwelling” (present active participial verb μένων) within Him. Again, how can it be said that one omnipresent divine person literally indwells another omnipresent divine person? Will Dalcour maintain a straight face while telling us that omnipresence literally indwells omnipresence? Regarding the identity of Jesus as the sole biblical God cf. also Matthew 28.18-20; John 12.45, 17.11; Colossians 2.8-10; I John 5.20; etc. ad-nauseum.
*Concerning Dalcour’s oft-repeated appeal to Hebrews 1.6, though this has been pointed out to him repeatedly, the very fact that the angels had to be commanded to worship God’s Son (or, as Dalcour says above, “God commanding the angels to worship God”) demonstrates that they were not already worshiping the Son of God under the OT (contra the Trinitarian understanding of Isaiah 6 in cf. with John 12.41). Or, would Dalcour have us believe that God ordered the angels to do what He had been observing them already do from all of eternity?
*Exegetically, the temporal particle-conjunction translated “when” (ὅταν) at the beginning of Hebrews 1.6 is explicating the action of the main aorist subjunctive verb (εἰσαγάγῃ; lit., “He brings”). Simply, the command to worship the Son of God was performed “when…He brings the firstborn into the world”—clearly militating against Dalcour’s theologically-driven notion that this same action was being practiced from eternity-past.
(Dalcour): The, Perkins amazingly cites Trinitarian A. T. Roberson in response to my original citation. I say “amazingly” because as, Perkins certainly knows, Robertson saw all forms of Oneness unitarian theology as heretical. When Perkins (and other Oneness defenders) appeals to numerous Trinitarian grammarians and scholars, I suppose he sees them as “hostile witnesses.”
*Of course I cited Robertson at John 10.30 inasmuch as his oft repeated quote backfires on Trinitarians in general at Mark 12.29 (et al.) and Dalcour in particular at Galatians 3.28! And, I suppose Dalcour thinks Oneness believers should view Trinitarian attacks as “friendly witnesses” contra “hostile?” Yet, we wonder if this is how Dalcour sees those who oppose his (false) Trinity doctrine? Me-thinks not. Once again, Dalcour needs to take his own medicine before writing prescriptions for others!
(Dalcour): Since Perkins does have a reputation of misquoting sources, before citing Perkins’ analysis of what he feels Robertson meant, let us read in full (since I only cited partial) the grammatical comments of Robertson said pertaining to the neuter adjective eJn in John 10:30:
*Actually, as repeatedly demonstrated overhead Dalcour is the theological ventriloquist—speaking with a voice foreign to the Greek text(s). He constantly misquotes and misapplies the original languages of the Bible (he does the same thing with the Hebrew of the OT). And yes, by all means let’s read Robertson’s full quote below in considering the straightforward assertion of Jesus’s usage of the masculine singular adjective heis in describing God’s numerical identity at Mark 12.29 as the “most important commandment.” Let’s follow along carefully!
(Dalcour quoting Robertson): “One (en). Neuter, not masculine (ei). Not one person (cf. ei in Galatians 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumu (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (John 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (John 5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (John 17:11, 21 John 21). Note en used in 1 Corinthians 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in Jo 17:11 Jo 17:23 of the hoped for unity of Christ’s disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ’s claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger (Word Pictures, emphasis added).”
*Note above that Robertson shamelessly endorsed “separate” divine persons within God—which Dalcour adamantly and openly rejects! As usual, Dalcour cherry-picks what suits his theological fancy and then denies what militates against the same. Dr. Robertson apparently misquotes I Corinthians 3.3 since the adjective ἕν does not appear in this passage. Presumably Robertson intended to reference v. 8 instead of v. 3. If Dalcour were a more careful student of God’s Word he would have recognized this mistake and not have endorsed it—all the while he attempts to correct others for their supposed “sloppiness.”
*Regardless, observe that Robertson’s cross-references in usage of the neuter-singular ἕν describe separate human beings, i.e., I Corinthians 3.3 (8?), John 17.11 and John 17.23. Dalcour marshals these references in his attempted rehabilitation and defense of the Trinity doctrine once again demonstrating his conceptual Tritheism. That is, Trinitarians like Dalcour frequently and flagrantly appeal to the concept of separate human beings as the reflection of their Triune divinity and yet still somehow feign supposed “monotheism” with a straight face!
(Dalcour): Incongruent to what Robertson actually said, Perkins comments:
“Robertson’s point is that if Christ would have employed the masculine singular (3-3) adjective heis (translated ‘one’) in John 10.30 then this would have demanded ‘one person’—since this is the natural force of the masculine singular tag. However, as mentioned both above and elsewhere Jesus does indeed use the masculine singular heis in delineating the ‘most important commandment’ of the emphatic-monadic identity of God (Mark 12.29).”
(Dalcour): Perkins is unequivocally wrong. Robertson made no such point.
*Actually, Perkins is unequivocally correct! As pointed out to Trinitarians ad nauseum, Robertson’s point was that if Christ would have used the masculine singular εἷς contra the neuter singular ἕν at John 10.30 He would have then been presenting one person—which explains Robertson’s comment “not one person.” Problem for Trinitarian exegetes is that Christ did carefully use the masculine singular εἷς regarding God’s quantitative identity in Mark 12.29 (as well as other passages) in explicating the “most important commandment.” Thus using Trinitarian exegete’s own premise – down goes their entire Triune divinity conjecture!
(Dalcour): Again, “Not one person (cf. ei in Galatians 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumu (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted.” Oh my, it seems as though Perkins may assume that no will fact-check his sources—in context. The point of fact, Robertson bluntly refutes Perkins position—“Neuter, not masculine (ei). Not one person.”
*And again, Robertson openly affirms “separate” persons and specifically cross references Galatians 3.28 in expounding on the force of εἷς—both of which Dalcour denies! Before Dalcour gets too excited above he might need to “fact-check” his own sources since he’s been repeatedly caught red-handed with his hands in the proverbial cookie jar. Again, I have numerous other fumbles by Dalcour. The “point of fact” is that Robertson bluntly refutes both himself and Dalcour when his own exegetical claim is applied to biblical mandates such as Mark 12.29, James 2.19, Galatians 3.20, etc.
(Dalcour): I understand that Perkin (and many Oneness believers) is very passionate (and always seems very angry) in promoting what he believes to be true. Although, Oneness theology is clearly not according to the teachings of the biblical authors—it does matter.
*This is nothing more than another of Dalcour’s ad hominem attacks. I could just as easily join the countless voices that have pointed out Dalcour’s obvious arrogance and pomp (a natural outgrowth of his non-Christian “Calvinism” cult). Further, I do not “believe” anything other than what the Scriptures actually command me to “believe”—which is the very source of my rejection of Dalcour’s fictitious Triune divinity (or, as Dalcour repeatedly claims, “God with God” absurdity).
(Dalcour): On this point, again citing Trinitarians, Perkins refers to footnote in the NET translation, which was edited by Daniel Wallace, Greek grammar and textual authority, and Yes, solidly Trinitarian:
*As noted previously, theological bias should have no place in the direct translation of θεόπνευστος (God-breathed) Scripture – and we really don’t know what Dalcour thinks this proves (?). To solidly drive this point home, Dalcour often appeals to the Jewish Aramaic Targums and the LXX in his desperation to locate the Son of God in the OT with the “Angel of the LORD.” Yet, both of these ancient Jewish translations openly (and rightfully) reject Dalcour’s “co-eternal Trinity” doctrine! Now what Mr. Dalcour?
(Dalcour requoting my cf. to the NET tn): “See here also the NET translator notes: The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν ({en esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one ‘thing’”
(Dalcour): Note that Wallace has written countless works on the Trinity and has definitely commented on the many passages that exegetically prove it. Perkins shoots himself in the foot here; he seems to be uninformed. We as with Wallace, see John 10:30 as totally opposing the Oneness-unitarian view that Jesus and the Father are the same person, rather they are one in essence and unity (one thing, not one person).
*Again, Dalcour omits both the “context” and remainder of my quotes in the above partial citation. Far from being misinformed or shooting myself in the foot with this self-refuting quote from the NET translators notes, here is the remainder of my original excerpt that Dalcour neglected to include in his extract overhead:
Of course, this only serves as another lexical testimony to the force of the masculine singular heis as demanding “one person.” And, as we point out above, there are no “implications” of Trinitarianism in John 10.30 as evidenced by the response of the original audience of this message.
(Dalcour): Then Perkins goes on to complain about the contextual understanding of eJn
*Actually, Perkins specifically appealed to the “contextual understanding” of this adjective that Dalcour desperately flails to explain away – as anyone can plainly read in my original (partially quoted) article below. Nice try though Mr. Dalcour.
(Dalcour): In John 17:21, for example, Jesus prays that His disciples may “be one [hen] even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us.” The same neuter adjective is used. . . .
(Dalcour requoting my response to his original assertion immediately above): *Note here that in Jesus’ High Priestly prayer He is praying that His disciples—who were separate human beings and not merely ‘distinct persons’—would share in the same oneness as the Father and Him shared. Since Dalcour is appealing to this passage in connection with the neuter sing. hen (translated ‘one’), will he now inform us that God the Father and ‘God the Son’ are equally as radically separated as human beings, and each are fully God? Or will he now modify this assertion to conform to his predisposed religious tradition?”
(Dalcour): Perkins again ignores the context of the entire chapter. Unity Mr. Perkins—that is the idea being expressed here, as the statements directed to Jesus disciples clearly indicate. Thus, the context governs the meaning of the neuter.
*Nice dodge Mr. Dalcour, but this does not explain why nor how you repeatedly appeal to passages that describe radically separated human beings as the model for your Trinity theory (betraying your Tritheistic paradigm)—then attempt to spin away from the same template when your incongruence is pointed out. Merely throwing out the word “context” does not serve as the same.
*Stay tuned for the final installation (IV) of this surrejoinder against Dalcour. Thank you for reading and may God bless!
Apostolic Academics 