Trinitarian Theologian Distorts Oneness Pentecostal Theology, Response to Dalcour Part 3

 

At 21:39 - 22:17 Dr Dalcour said, “In Oneness theology Jesus is the Son and he is the Father. He is not the Son of the Father.”

 

Dr Dalcour uses dirty tactics in pretending that Oneness theology believes that Jesus is NOT the Son of the Father. That would be denying the true humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ which is not what Oneness Pentecostals believe. Therefore, Dr Dalcour is guilty of distorting what Oneness Pentecostals believe. Then he uses his own convoluted idea of what Oneness Pentecostals believe to tear down his own erroneous belief (that he himself invents), while pretending to refute Oneness theology.

 

I challenge Dr Dalcour to ask any Oneness theologian (or even a single Pastor) if we believe that “Jesus is not the Son of the Father.” No Oneness theologian or Pastor would ever say that Jesus “is not the Son of the Father.” Can Mr Dalcour cite a single Oneness theologian (or even a single Pastor) who would say that Jesus is NOT the Son of the Father? Any Oneness Pastor will tell you that Jesus is the Son of the Father because God also became a true man as a true Son of the Father.

 

What Dr Dalcour is doing here is misrepresenting Oneness theology by falsely portraying us as denying the true humanity of Jesus Christ. Mr Dalcour erects a false view of Oneness (a straw man) and then tears it down while pretending to be refuting Oneness theology. Erecting a false view of another theological stand is a form of lying. This dirty, dishonest, and unscholarly apologetic approach is truly shameful and unchristian.

 

Dr Dalcour is suggesting that Oneness theology believes in an Apollinarian Christ in which God would be peering out through the eyes of a human body without a true human spirit and without a true human nature. Contrary to Mr Dalcour alleging that “Oneness theology” believes that Jesus is “not the Son of the Father,” Oneness theology believes that God also became a man so that the Son is the Son of the Father and that the Father is the Father of the Son. In contradistinction to Apollinarianism, Oneness (Modalistic) theology teaches that God also became a true man as a true human son who grew in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and men (Luke 2:52).

 

At 1:12:48 - 1:13:08 into this video, Mr Reyes and Dr Dalcour pretend that Oneness theology does not believe in the true humanity of Jesus Christ.

 

Oneness adherents believe that the One true God Person also became one true man person so that there is an ontological distinction between the Father and the Son. All knowledgeable Oneness believers know that God also became a true human being within the virgin so that the Pauline salutations speak of One God who also became one true man as a human son. I have clearly documented the fact that prominent Oneness theologians believe that Jesus spoke in the context of “an authentic human life” (Bernard). Oneness author and Professor Dr Daniel Segraves wrote that “Everything that Jesus did and said, he did and said as who he was, God manifest in genuine and full human existence.” Therefore, we do not believe that Jesus is God the Father with us as God the Father merely in an external body of flesh (Apollinarianism) as we believe that Jesus is God the Father with us in a genuine and full human mode of existence as a true Son (Modalism).

 

Church historian B. B. Edwards wrote, “… that which makes out the Sabellians (Modalists) to be the same as Patripassians (meaning that the Father suffered and died as the Father), and represents them as denying the distinctions in the Godhead; is altogether a mistaken view of the subject.” (Comments in parenthesis / italics added - THE BIBLICAL REPOSITORY AND QUARTERLY OBSERVER. By B. B. EDWARDS. Under Views of Sabellius, The Biblical Repository and Classical Review, American Biblical Repository, 1835)

 

At 21:39 - 22:17 Dr Dalcour said, “In Oneness theology Jesus is the Son and he is the Father. He is not the Son of the Father.”

 

Dr Dalcour uses dirty tactics in pretending that Oneness theology believes that Jesus is NOT the Son of the Father. That would be denying the true humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ which is not what Oneness Pentecostals believe. Therefore, Dr Dalcour is guilty of distorting what Oneness Pentecostals believe. Then he uses his own convoluted idea of what Oneness Pentecostals believe to tear down his own erroneous belief (that he himself invents), while pretending to refute Oneness theology.

 

I challenge Dr Dalcour to ask any Oneness theologian (or even a single Pastor) if we believe that “Jesus is not the Son of the Father.” No Oneness theologian or Pastor would ever say that Jesus “is not the Son of the Father.” Can Mr Dalcour cite a single Oneness theologian (or even a single Pastor) who would say that Jesus is NOT the Son of the Father? Any Oneness Pastor will tell you that Jesus is the Son of the Father because God also became a true man as a true Son of the Father.

 

What Dr Dalcour is doing here is misrepresenting Oneness theology by falsely portraying us as denying the true humanity of Jesus Christ. Mr Dalcour erects a false view of Oneness (a straw man) and then tears it down while pretending to be refuting Oneness theology. Erecting a false view of another theological stand is a form of lying. This dirty, dishonest, and unscholarly apologetic approach is truly shameful and unchristian.

 

Dr Dalcour is suggesting that Oneness theology believes in an Apollinarian Christ in which God would be peering out through the eyes of a human body without a true human spirit and without a true human nature. Contrary to Mr Dalcour alleging that “Oneness theology” believes that Jesus is “not the Son of the Father,” Oneness theology believes that God also became a man so that the Son is the Son of the Father and that the Father is the Father of the Son. In contradistinction to Apollinarianism, Oneness (Modalistic) theology teaches that God also became a true man as a true human son who grew in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and men (Luke 2:52).

 

At 1:12:48 - 1:13:08 into this video, Mr Reyes and Dr Dalcour pretend that Oneness theology does not believe in the true humanity of Jesus Christ.

 

Oneness adherents believe that the One true God Person also became one true man person so that there is an ontological distinction between the Father and the Son. All knowledgeable Oneness believers know that God also became a true human being within the virgin so that the Pauline salutations speak of One God who also became one true man as a human son. I have clearly documented the fact that prominent Oneness theologians believe that Jesus spoke in the context of “an authentic human life” (Bernard). Oneness author and Professor Dr Daniel Segraves wrote that “Everything that Jesus did and said, he did and said as who he was, God manifest in genuine and full human existence.” Therefore, we do not believe that Jesus is God the Father with us as God the Father merely in an external body of flesh (Apollinarianism) as we believe that Jesus is God the Father with us in a genuine and full human mode of existence as a true Son (Modalism).

 

Church historian B. B. Edwards wrote, “… that which makes out the Sabellians (Modalists) to be the same as Patripassians (meaning that the Father suffered and died as the Father), and represents them as denying the distinctions in the Godhead; is altogether a mistaken view of the subject.” (Comments in parenthesis / italics added - THE BIBLICAL REPOSITORY AND QUARTERLY OBSERVER. By B. B. EDWARDS. Under Views of Sabellius, The Biblical Repository and Classical Review, American Biblical Repository, 1835) 

 

Under “Sabellianism”, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “It is true that it is easy to suppose Tertullian and Hippolytus to have misrepresented the opinions of their opponents (the Sabellians).”

 

While Tertullian mocked the Modalists for allegedly denying any distinctions between the Father and Son, there is some historical evidence to prove that they never denied these distinctions. David Bernard wrote, “Noetus said that Jesus was the Son by reason of his birth, but he was also the Father (Footnote 25 - Wolfson I, 591).” The Modalistic Roman bishop Zephyrinus had said, “I know only One God, Christ Jesus, and apart from him no other who was born or could suffer ... it was not the Father who died but the Son (Heresy and Orthodoxy Vol. IV, of A History of the Early Church, Pg. 155, by Jules Lebreton and Jacques Zeiller).”

 

Just as Tertullian and Hippolytus falsely mocked Oneness believers for allegedly denying the distinction between the Father and the Son in the early third century, so Mr Dalcour and Mr Reyes are doing the same in the twenty first century.

 

For More ARTICLES
For Free BOOKS
For Video Teachings, subscribe to our YOUTUBE CHANNEL

 

Please reload

C O N T A C T

© 2016 | GLOBAL IMPACT MINISTRIES