Response to Edward Dalcour on Oneness
At about 5:52 - 6:11 into the video, Dr Dalcour said that I hold bizarre views which are rejected by Oneness folks. Then Dr Dalcour goes on to say that I said that there are two persons in John 1:1.
Where did I ever say that there are “two persons in John 1:1?” Oneness theology teaches that only one divine person is our Heavenly Father who also became a true human person in the incarnation through the virgin. Apparently, Mr Dalcour is misunderstanding me when I have taught that Jesus Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) as a true human son (distinct from God as God the Father) in God's expressed thought (the Father's word/logos) before the world began. To say that I am teaching that there are “two persons” as two God Persons is using dirty tactics to mislead people into thinking that I am a binitarian.
At 108:00 – 108:14 Dr Dalcour falsely alleged that I said that I believe in two persons in John 1:1 and that I teach binitarianism.
I have taught that God foreknew that He would become a man and that the Son was foreknown in God's logos (His expressed thought) before he actually became a living human Son. All knowledgeable Oneness theologians know that the One true God Person also became one true man person as “the brightness of his glory (the Father's) and the express image of his person (the Father's Person - Heb. 1:3).”It was in the context of citing Hebrews 1:3 that I said that the Father's divine person also became one true human person. That is two persons because one person as one person cannot dialogue with himself. Therefore I was affirming what the Bible teaches: God's One Divine Person also became a distinct human person because 1 Timothy 2:5 says that there is "One God (the Father) and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
God as our Heavenly Father “has life in himself” and He “has He granted the Son life in himself” (John 5:26). Oneness theology affirms that God the Father is God the Father outside of the incarnation with the divine life in himself who also became Immanuel, God with us as a man inside of the incarnation with a distinct human life in himself. After the incarnation took place, God now modally exists as the Father outside of the incarnation and as the Son (as a true human being) via his virgin conception and birth inside of the incarnation. Therefore my statements have always been in line with scriptural Oneness Modalism rather than Binitarianism which is a belief in two God Persons.
BINITARIANISM DEFINED: The belief, particularly among some Christians, that God is two personae (persons), two individuals, or two aspects in one Godhead (or God), these being God the Father and God the Son (Jesus Christ).
Apparently, Dr Dalcour was referring to my debate with Pastor Bruce Bennett back in 2011 when I said that I believe in two persons because God the Father also became a true man (a human son). I spoke these words when citing Hebrews 1:3 which says that Jesus as a Son is “the brightness of his glory (the Father's) and the express image of his person (the Father's Person)” as a true human person. I explained our Oneness theological position in this manner so that Trinitarians in the audience could understand that we are not saying that Jesus prayed to the Father as the Father, nor are we saying that Jesus was tempted of evil as the Father which would be Apollinarianism rather than Modalism. For Oneness theology (modalism) affirms that Jesus is “God with us” as a true man because the Father’s Divine Person also became a true human person. Wherefore, our omnipresent Father who is one divine person can operate modally by also becoming a distinct human person because one divine person as one divine person cannot dialogue with himself.
Dr Daniel Segraves is one of the most prominent Oneness theologians who teaches at the most advanced UPCI Bible College. Dr Segraves said, “Everything that Jesus did and said, he did and said as who he was, God manifest in genuine and full human existence.”
Here we can see that Oneness theology teaches that Jesus did not act and speak as God the Father in the flesh and at other times as a human son. Jesus clearly acted and spoke as God manifested in an “authentic human life” (D. K. Bernard) just as Jesus said in John 5:26, “As the Father has life in himself (the divine life outside of the incarnation) so also has he granted the Son life in himself (a human life inside of the incarnation).” Hence, after the incarnation, our omnipresent Heavenly Father simultaneously exists both outside of the incarnation with a divine “life in Himself” and inside of the incarnation with a distinct human “life in himself” (a divine life and a human life). Wherefore, Jesus as a true man living among men was "made" just like all men so that we can be called “his brethren” (Heb. 2:17; Rom. 8:29-30). This explains the ontological distinction between the Father and the human son.
Dr Dalcour accuses Oneness theologians about semantic disagreements with each other while Trinitarian theologians have more areas of disagreement than Oneness theologians.
At 18:10 into Dr Sproul’s YouTube Video entitled, “The Immutability of God”, Dr Sproul said, “One of the worst HERESIES of the nineteenth century is called the KENOTIC HERESY, based on the hymn that Paul used in Philippians chapter two.” Then at 19:08 into the same video, Dr Sproul said that the Kenotic heresy says that God “emptied Himself of His deity” and “became human.”
Trinitarian theologians are clearly divided in that some of them believe that a God the Son left heaven and His divine attributes to become a man while others believe that it is heresy to believe that God could ever vacate heaven and empty Himself of His deity to become human. Trinitarian theologians have more substantial areas of disagreement among each other than Oneness theologians so it is blatant hypocrisy for any Trinitarian theologian to accuse Oneness theologians of divergent views while Trinitarians are the worst offenders.
This is part one of my seven part response to Dr Dalcour’s video about Oneness. In Part 2 of my YouTube Video Entitled, “Trinitarian Theologians Disagree About The Trinity,” I will be exposing Dr Dalcour’s hypocrisy for criticizing Oneness Theologians of alleged divergent views while Trinitarian theologians are the worst offenders.