Oneness Pentecostalism with Simon Escobedo and Eddie Dalcour Pt. 2

James white and good afternoon everyone. This is not James white again.

This is Simon Escobedo filling in for dr White it is always an opportunity for me to be able to sit in the big chair when dr

White is away and have the opportunity of being a guest host for the dividing line. However Dr.

White is not on vacation and he is not outside of Phoenix But he is indeed a busy this afternoon and so he is graciously given up the chair and giving me an opportunity to sit in once again with you all and again, hopefully provide a

Program that will be both instructional and informative Particularly on the area of oneness theology now some time ago.

I had With Eddie d 'alcor began a series was a two -part series on one is theology.

I guess this was back January 26th and it was our intention then to do a two -part series that would be finishing the following week and Unfortunately, I took ill and we were not able to do that program

But Eddie is back with me this afternoon and our desire is to get back to it finish what we have started and Based on what

I have heard from Eddie and the things that I have received an email We certainly have stirred an issue

Because I have received quite a quite a bit of oneness Correspondence in the last several weeks and I know talking with Eddie.

He has received as well and so today it's an opportunity for us to once again get into this discussion and be able to get actually into some of the meat of What one is theology believes?

What are some of the passages they most frequently like to use and as well provide for your listening?

some very fascinating excerpts from one of the more high -profile personalities who articulates the oneness position

For your hearing and so I believe I can hear in the background that mr. D 'alcor.

You are on the line with me Yes, I am. How are you doing? Eddie glad to be here Simon. Well, it's good to have you back

And of course, I was so excited to do that second broadcast with you And you know that up until the very last minute it was my intention to do that and and Lord Providentially hindered there and I wasn't able to to join with you and then do that program tonsillitis

Tonsillitis took the best of me and we had to postpone and now it's been over a month And so I hope that some folks haven't forgotten what we've begun

But what I would like to do before we get into some of the substance of what we have this afternoon Eddie is give you an opportunity to Pull together some of the thoughts that we went over the last time that is some of the background for the oneness position and so On but before you get into that, why don't you tell our listening audience again?

We might have some some first -time listeners today who aren't familiar with you So give us some background about who you are in the ministry that you presently are in and some of the things you are doing

And why this particular area of study has been a very focused study for you something.

You're very passionate about Well, my name is he mentions Eddie Delcor. I have a ministry called

Department of Christian defense and you can get it on the web at Christian offense org or even calm

My ministry primarily deals with some of the more prolific non -christian cults however

Whatness theology has been one of my primary interests of concentration

And I think one of the reasons why I think is because whatness theology

Unlike Joe witnesses and Mormons where most pastors and most Christians are familiar with the differences

Whatness theology actually calls Jesus God, right? And in fact, they pride themselves on that as if they were the only group asserting that Jesus is

God however as Christians, of course, we must test all things and we must be privy to different meanings

They pour into different terms when they say Jesus is God What they mean is that Jesus is

God as the father? Son of God Jesus is the human flesh.

So this is a qualitative difference than historic Essential Christianity and because of that I had made oneness theology one of my primary interests and I lecture much about it and I deal much about it with with it and also

I received just as you Many emails many responses many comments many argumentations and as we talked about I always get the wheel from yes

Oneness folks. Yeah, we'll discuss what that is a little bit later But you had made mentioned the last time that we discussed this and of course since we talk quite a bit on the phone that one of the things that really

Concerns you was that as you would go into bookstores and try to find information on this issue

There just wasn't anything out there. Nobody wants to address it seemingly And that was very very frustrating because one is theology and I don't know if a lot of people know this

One is theology makes up probably one of the largest anti -trinitarian constructs

Globally, the numbers can reach as high as 17 million some have estimated because it's very difficult to ascertain

Exact numbers because a lot of oneness churches are not called the United Pentecostal International They can have titles like Apostolic Church United Bethany Church, you know all kinds of titles and still maintain one is theology

What I found Simon is that a lot of churches came out of the UPCI oneness international church and They started their own churches dropping the legalism.

However retaining the modalism Mm -hmm, and I go in bookstores all around the country and rarely do

I find anything on one is theology I'll find hundreds of books on Mormonism Joe witnesses Christian science all kinds of stuff, which is great

But nothing on this fast moving fast growing aggressive anti -trinitarian

Anti -distinction non -christian cult. Hmm as I had indicated to you and I kind of jokingly mentioned this to dr.

White Oneness theology seemingly is the Christian cult version of Hinduism that is they're constantly seeking for Nirvana No distinctions all is one and of course, that's what we want to talk about today now last time you had mentioned somewhat of a of a historical background for the position leading up to what contemporary one is now believed you had mentioned things like Dynamic monarchianism modalistic monarchianism so quickly if you could just so that we can again catch up to speed

Provide for us a bit of the background for this position and then we'll get into actually

The oneness advocates today and what they are presenting. I think we can go back to a d1

I need to find one of the first first proponents of modalism being called modalism

Because it describes how God reveals himself in different modes or offices or roles But not person and one of the first proponents that we are familiar with is one named know

What is who said what error am I doing? I'm just glorifying Christ as God Yes, but he also taught that Jesus was not only the father, but he was also the

Son and the Holy Spirit So it does go back to around 190. However in saying that we do have a reference of Justin Martyr Saying that there was some out there teaching a type of modalism but we cannot be sure who in reference he was talking about but to be sure it goes back to know what is of a

Mirna and After know what is we find one of the most more sophisticated? teachers of modalism and it even coined the name

Sibelius and Sibelius had more philosophical arguments and he was more convincing and he gained much followers in His particular construct, but it wasn't until about 1744 with Emanuel Swinburne That modalism reemerged and what it is is a civilian

Regurgitation the only difference is that they reverse now Jesus in early modalism

Was the father? The father was God only but in this system with Emanuel we find that Jesus is the name of the

Unitarian God not just the father. So the the ancient Position was that the father was behind all the masks and today

Jesus behind all the masks. Okay, and that is what modern oneness holds to these days.

Mm -hmm And then we find around the early 19th century there was our ema Callister and others teaching the baptism in Matthew 28 19 in the name of Jesus only and many people got

Revelation that this is Jesus behind the mask then from there We find the

UPCI and other forms of modalistic churches, right? now as you and I have been discussing of course

This isn't anything new and we have dealt with the Jehovah's Witnesses before and and that is that modalism chiefly

Exercises or puts into their argumentation the implicit assertion of Unitarianism we've seen this before with the witnesses they begin with that assumption and of course they use that to demonstrate

That very thing and so defined for me because this came up a lot in a correspondence that I have this week

What Unitarianism is because I think there are some folks that perhaps have not heard that term before or at least they're not

Familiar with it and perhaps are putting into that term Things that really aren't necessarily a part of that, right?

Well, we can we know Unitarianism because of the prefix, you know As opposed to Trinitarianism where only father is

God David Bernard describes I think the Unitarian one flash oneness position best

He says quote there is one God with no essential divisions in himself He is not a plurality of persons

But he does have a plurality of manifestation roles or titles or attributes Jesus Christ is the

Son of God not God the Son. He is the incarnation of fullness of the Father in His deity

Jesus is the Father Holy Spirit. Jesus is the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit So in Unitarianism, it's the father who is

God not the son but the father who is God and so that's why one of theology is branded as Unitarianism because they believe in a unipersonal

Unitarian God and Only the father is God not the son only the father

That's a very important point to bring out because they will say Jesus is God But we have to again define one of theology for what it is when they say

Jesus is God What they mean is Jesus as the father is God not as the son There is no

God the Son. It is only the Son of God the human flesh now It's important also, I think at this point to to make it abundantly clear

That Unitarianism does not preclude one from believing that Jesus is God In fact in the correspondence that I recently had the individual that I was speaking with had no clue that Unitarianism was his position and it was interesting to try to educate him on that but he kept telling me over and over again

Well, I always thought that Unitarianism simply meant that a that a person doesn't believe that Jesus is

God or Jesus Is God come in the flesh and so on and so forth and what I try to point out to him that basically

Unitarianism is is a denial of the Trinity because of its commitment to unipersonality and that all

Unitarian groups obviously believe their Unitarian deity to be

God whether that is Islam and their Unitarian deity of Allah The Watchtower's a deity of the father alone or the oneness is

Jesus So it again doesn't really help them. I think they're making a category error there in confusing

Unitarianism with Arianism and as I've tried to to point out particularly the individual that I was discussing.

This is not an issue Between a monotheism and tritheism. This is an issue between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism Now would you agree with some of those things absolutely

I think Unitarianism is synonymous with a Unipersonal God whatever name you want to call him.

He's unipersonal, right? He's one. He's one person. He's not three he is one person and that is a a

Qualitative difference it is a different God than how God is presented in Scripture now Eddie you

Graciously and I we kind of put this out There's a bit of a tease the last time that we did the program you graciously sent me some

Excerpts from one of the more high -profile individuals who is is definitely putting forth this particular

Doctrine this teaching and so I am on my maiden voyage today in trying to Do what dr.

White does so easily and that is operate these audio things looking at all this Fuzzy stuff on the screen that are called waves

So I will do my best to try not to mess this up and play these things So they make some kind of sense

I actually think you'll enjoy them Because when when we first got the tape and we had an opportunity to sit down and listen to it

I know I listened to it with Warren and he asked me the question because we kept hearing all the various clicks

He says was was Eddie doing his dishes when when he was taping this or you know, we're in all kinds of things so I think

I think you're gonna actually find this really really a good because Rich did a fantastic job of putting this together

And so we're going to try to present some of these segments for our listening audience to hear We've just tried to define what oneness is

But I think who better to define oneness than a one is person himself. And so let's let mr

TD Jake's provide for us a nice definition My first question would be the

Trinity would be defined as one God is enjoyed himself in three distinct Persons each co -equal and co -eternal how important is it for the believing

Christian to have to hold to this belief? I think it's very very significant the way that we first of all study the

Trinity apart from Salvation and the first of all that we embrace Christ and come to him and come to know who he is

Having come to know who he is then we begin to deal with the Trinity which I believe is a very complex issue

The Trinity the term Trinity is not a biblical term to begin with. It's a theological description for something

That is so beyond human comprehension That I'm not sure that we can totally

Hold God to a numerical system the Lord said behold Oh Israel the Lord that God is one and beside him there is no other when

God got ready to make a man that looked Like him he didn't make three he made one man However, that one man had three parts.

He was body soul and spirit We have one God, but he is father in creation son and redemption and Holy Spirit in regeneration

It's very important that we understand that but I think that the first thing that every believer needs to do is to approach

God by Faith and then having approached him by faith then they need to sit up under good teaching so that they can begin to understand

Who the God is that they have believed upon? Well there you have it Eddie A tremendous

Fascinating Definition there by mr. Jakes. Why don't you comment on some of the things that he mentioned the first part?

We have to come the Trinity apart from salvation amazing absolutely incredible and Of course he contradicts himself by saying but we need to embrace

Jesus by faith Yes embrace Christ as if Christ well of course his views

Christ is not part of any kind of 4th -century pagan Trinitarian right right

It's interesting when he quotes And I'll say quote because the statement he makes father in creation son of redemption

Holy Spirit recreation that came from David Bernard David Bernard is a one of the more prolific oneness teachers he is the oneness standard for a lot of oneness churches because he

Has probably written most about it, and he is counted as an authority on the subject that quote came from him

However the first time we hear that quote was not from David Bernard, but from Sibelius himself father in creation he's son in Redemption and Holy Spirit and recreation now one other difference of older modalism or Sibelianism and modern oneness theology is that They held to it

Successive Modalism where first there was the father Then the father role

Vanished and you have the son role for redemption then the son role

Disappeared and you have the Holy Spirit for recreation or regeneration So this was a successive modalism today however most oneness teachers believe and teach a static modalism or simultaneous modalism where all

Three offices mose or manifestations can simultaneously exist, and that's how they normally explain

Jesus's baptism Hey, God is omnipresent. He can exist in three manifestations at once no problem

I don't know if Jake's is aware of successive or static modalism

Because sometimes some of his views don't even represent Oneness theology it represents himself right in the other statement

And who was that group that was or that individual that was interviewing him no this was a apologetic group in Los Angeles Living waters,

I believe was the the group interviewing Jake I'm not sure if it was live or via phone.

I'm not sure If he was that actually a studio or if it was a by telephone right and of course he provided an accurate

Definition of what we as Trinitarians believe it was just quick It was just interesting to note how quickly

TD Jake's wanted to kind of sweep that under the rug and then put forward what obviously is Again the the oneness or Unitarian position absolutely

Jake has made statements Pertaining to his background. He says I come from a oneness and a

Baptist background well Like me saying I come from Mormon background in a Presbyterian background right he may again.

He's one of the The teachers that may or I won't call him teacher he's one of the preachers that maintain the modalistic concept of God, but Removes himself from the legalism of the

PPCI proper Now Eddie what I'd like to do of course we're going to discuss some things

We're going to discuss some of the misrepresentations against the Trinity We're going to get into some of the passages that they the one that spoke most like to use

But since we are right now presently dealing with Oneness defined

I know that their big buzzword is a Manifestation or dimension and all these kinds of things and of course you had indicated in the last program that you'll find these very terms

In TD Jake's is doctrinal state in fact. I think you indicated you had a link to it on your web page Yes, I do on my intro page on my website goes right to his doctoral statement, so people don't believe me

Yes, in case people don't believe you yeah because in fact can you tell me that you received a letter that? Was rather contentious basically saying

TD Jake's doesn't deny the Trinity I Would say letter plural letters

Wow Defending Jake's position in fact when I when I teach on modalism, and I can buy it to a lot of charismatic churches and When I teach on one of theology you cannot mention one of the largest most prolific teachers of this

Largest no pun intended, but I mentioned TD Jake's Direct everybody to his website

How the first line in capital letters says this God exists in three dimensions?

Three dimensions he says then he says he's triune in his manifestations Then he says the father is

God He gives Genesis 1 and he gives John 1 1 now of course

Only if you're unstudied or biblically unstable you won't see a difference

Why would he use John 1 1 to say that the father is God mm -hmm? Well if you're a modelist you believe that the word is the father.

There's no differentiation there, right? So I do get letters and I get people people get very upset because gee they assert

Jake's love Jesus Right that he does he's a fine Christian man throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's a man those kind of things well Let's let mr.. Jake's then clearly put to bed this issue by giving him an opportunity of defining for us

What he means when God is one and yet as he says? manifests himself in a multiplicity of ways

Hello are you there Eddie as I told you that this was my maiden voyage

I guess I pressed the wrong clip, but we're getting that corrected now. I'm pressing the correct clip here we go

Here it comes Eddie are you ready for this here is TD Jake's definition of multiplicity of manifestations

I can become whatever I want to become When God says I am that I am he says

I can become whatever and he showed off from that point on All through the wilderness he just kept turning in the stuff

They said we hungry he's got dropping his load Well there you have it that was very painful it was painful in fact when you sent that to me the first time

I Flew out of my chair. I was absolutely beside myself particularly when we got into the

Seemingly Pocahontas view of God there God became the quail God became the bread

God became the tree Fascinating Description of God and for our listeners who have probably not heard

Jake's get into it that deeply they probably thought that Well again there, maybe it is semantics, but right there

Eddie you have it TD Jake's and self -defining defining what multiplicity of Manifestations actually is this is not this is beyond normal I said

Jesus You know it's interesting. I don't know what material he reads to get his teachings, but David Bernard writes much about That God is not limited to three manifestations

And he talks about he can manifest in more than three and we evil

Trinitarians have it all wrong Three persons where as I say he can't manifest in a or become a fourth person trying to attack the

Trinity That's a that's a just just hearing what he does the nature of God and the assertions that he makes and Knowing in my mind the millions of people that are so enamored by this man's teaching they're so enamored by what he says when he he can get behind a microphone and bastardize

Christ in the way that he does and yet have multitudes of People support him buy his books go to his church go to his conferences and other

Christian leaders that bolster TD Jake's Time magazine he was on the cover of Time magazine he represents

Christianity and Larry King as the Americans pastor Wasn't that right after the 9 -1 -1 incident yes, yes,

I? Painfully watched that yes, I remember the email you sent me in response to that yes

It was him and that other great theologian Robert Schuller. Oh my the full gamut of apostasy

I'm telling you well that was that was an amazing thing I Again, I didn't know that his views went that far

And and I think that if anything that little clip right there At least should stop some emails from getting to you that seemingly want to kind of sweep that under the rug

Well Eddie let's go ahead and go to our first break, and then we come back Let's go ahead and start dealing with some of the common misrepresentations against the

Trinity And we will be right back Well I just love that music

I never get tired of that That intro me. That's kind of cool music. Don't you think Eddie? Yeah, yeah in fact when

I came in this afternoon James was in here doing some some work

And he had the mission impossible Theme song on and given the nature of the discussion this afternoon.

I thought that should become the The theme song for the oneness position given the arguments that we've been looking at they are really pretty weak if you ask me

But one of the issues that do come up quite a bit is the common

Misrepresentations against the Trinity we hear this all the time with well with anyone this group but with the

Jehovah's Witnesses And with the the one that's Pentecostal so what

I'd like to do Borrowing from your own manuscript where you kind of neatly Detail all these things out for us.

I'm going to basically provide the more common Objections or questions that are often raised and then give you an opportunity to respond to some of those

I think this is gonna be very helpful not only for those who are certainly wanting to To get answers to some of these questions

But for some Christian folk perhaps who have been asked these questions and perhaps haven't been able to provide a very good response so the first question is

Rather interesting because this was the very question that was asked of me yesterday received an email and person had listened

To the dividing line webcast that we did a month ago And he says I listened to your your webcast briefly and based upon what

I heard you believe in three separate Gods, so the first objection is the

Trinity is three separate gods. Yeah, that's commonly alleged by Most Unitarian groups and even in Tertullian's Day and Hypocrites, but both of them had to deal with those assertions that Trinitarians believe in three gods

That is a gross misrepresentation of Trinity the Trinity state assembly to there is one being one God however

Nowhere in Scripture does it say this one being is one person or unipersonal

Yet this one being has revealed himself in the persons of the Father Son Holy Spirit three distinct self -aware

Cognizant of their own existence self or egos or persons Not three gods.

They are not separate and that has to be drummed in the minds of oneness folks When we're talking about the

Trinity it is not three separate anything. It is three distinct

Self -aware persons or selves that share the one nature

That share the one being of God So all three are Alpha and Omega all three are

Jehovah all three are Yahweh all three are said to be creator all three assist in the resurrection

All three do many of the synonymous works of God because they are all God in other words wherever God is all of God is

He is unquantifiable He cannot be quantified into parts or sections He's indivisible and he is inseparable

But three persons to be sure not three gods Right person's one God and as we have pointed out numbers of time it times if we had said

There is one and only one true God and within the one true God there exists three distinct gods

That would be a contradiction. However, that is not what we're saying and we more than emphasize that in all of the

Presentations that we give in fact, I I really like dr. White's Simple way of putting it and that is number one.

We believe in one and only one true God number two We believe in three distinct persons and number three.

They are co -equal and co -eternal number two And this is the one that we get quite often.

The Trinity is from pagan origins We get that quite a bit

Eddie. What do you got to say trees from pagan origins? It doesn't seem the The reasons for that assertion are as follows

Pagans first about the Trinity, but I would I would challenge anyone who makes that assertion show me The word

Trinity in any pagan construct that precedes Christianity or that is before Christianity Joe when it's say the

Trinity is not in the Bible and Oneness it makes the same claim to Trinity the word Trinity is on the

Bible However, the word Trinity is not in pagan literature either So their argument really is against them first and foremost

I would say that the Trinity properly defined one God three distinct persons is exclusive to Christianity right pagan constructs

Always held to three separate gods Not three persons where the second person dies

Where he's resurrected he has loving fellowship with the Father and the Holy Spirit They do not hold to three persons one.

God is always three separate gods Mormonism is pagan, right? Right.

Okay. Well, let's let's move on then that that was good Let's see here the absence of the Holy Spirit in so many passages

That that is really an argument for ignorance because there's almost 65 times

You can find all three members of the Trinity in the same context particularly in the baptismal formula

Luke 135 Luke 10 21 is an excellent passage where Jesus actually rejoices in the

Holy Spirit And he prays to the Father So, you know, the question is why are so many verses or why are so many places in Scripture?

Why? Did the authors include all three persons all three members in the same passages?

That's the question that's not the absence, right? All right. That's a good. That's a good point Now you just touched on this a bit, but here's another question.

In fact This we hear all the time from Jehovah's Witnesses and TD Jake's himself in the earlier segment

We played I made the same comment to you touched on it briefly perhaps a little bit more thoroughly now

Trinity is an unbiblical term. We hear that all the time Right.

The word Trinity is nowhere in the scripture. Um They're being unfamiliar with the rules and principles of full scriptura

They would of course make this assertion. However So scripture would say that we can use unbiblical words limited to the teachings of Scripture, I know what

Jehovah Witnesses and oneness they get very confused as to the difference between data and Doctrinal form

Formal words in other words the biblical data is this when the helper comes whom

I will send to you from the father That is the spirit of truth who receives from the father. He will test about about me

God the Father Sends God the Son God the Son Becomes he does not wrap himself in flesh.

He becomes flesh God the Father God the Son sends God the Holy Spirit. That is the biblical data

For the Trinity the specific word Trinity was formulated by Christian theologians and teachers early on To define the biblical data as with the term incarnation and I would just ask my oneness friends show me the term oneness or mode or manifestation or office in scripture

Can't find it. That's not a biblical word either. Right? The Bible is not a biblical word the term the

English term Bible until that is really a Argument from ignorance and it really doesn't follow because we're just using terms to define the biblical revelation where we can read clearly in scripture

All right. Well, here's another one the this one we were talking about last night. We kind of humorously tossed this one about and that is that Rome a

Roman Catholicism seems to get way too much credit for a lot of things every single group seemingly when we got to Mesa, which we'll be doing here in a couple of weeks.

We get this question all the time. Well, not this particular question Well, yeah, actually we do the Trinity Doctrine did not emerge until the 4th century

And of course, they want to attach it to the Council of Nicaea That's where it first began you believe it because the

Roman Catholic Church in 325 they put this thing together and I think in some cases they actually provide these nice little old

Allah -Jesus seminar kind of settings where everybody just got together in a big room and maybe threw some marbles together and and Decided in the end with Constantine holding the final vote that That the

Trinity was going to be accepted as Orthodox Christian belief. Well It's interesting when someone makes a decision

They're they're a historical because the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Trinity had to do with the relationship between Jesus and the

Father In terms of substance nothing. It wasn't a Trinitarian council decided it was

Trinity in or was it out? That is ignorance of the part of the person asserting we can go back for Trinitarian theology we can we can read the

Church Fathers in in the 2nd century like Ignatius Bishop Antioch for instance,

I Believe in his letter to Ephesians He says quote there are there is one physician who possessed both of the flesh and spirit both made not made

God existing in flesh True life and death both Mary and of God first possible than impossible even

Jesus Christ our Lord and Ignatius makes many grammatical arguments

Distinguishing or differentiating the father and son Bernard tries to say that Ignatius uses grandville number one grumble sharp

Greek rule number one to Teach that Jesus and the father same person, but if anyone examines the writings of Ignatius, they will find out

Clearly never once did Ignatius ever use grandville sharp number one to show that Jesus and the father

Were the same person but Trinitarian theology goes back to Ignatius, but we have to keep in mind

Early Church Fathers lacked articulate language to define the

Trinity as we would today, but the question is did they envisage a Tripersonal God or a

Unitarian God and Clearly that we can go through pages and pages and pages and pages of Church Fathers Which demonstrate beyond the prevention of a doubt they clearly envisage a multi personal

God Well that that is fantastic that's good stuff Eddie I'm getting all pumped up here as I hear you getting

I can see you getting Passionate about this so we have to put your seatbelt on there and keep you down But let's move on you you actually provide some other objections not simply from Those that reject the

Trinity the Trinity in general But from David Bernard specific that I kind of want you to comment on the first one he from his book.

I guess the What is it the was it one of the words of God? He writes can there be more than three persons in the

Godhead certainly the Old Testament does not teach three But emphasizes oneness if the New Testament adds to the

Old Testament message and teaches three persons Then what is to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons?

Well, you know that's like the question can God make a rock bigger than he is More powerful he is no he cannot nullify himself there.

There are things that God cannot do he cannot lie He cannot go against his word and the Bible presents

Three Persons it does not prevent room for more persons there's

Father Son and Holy Spirit from Genesis to Revelation and That I think that that question is not a contradiction

But it shows it's more of a what's known as a non thing and logic it really doesn't make sense that kind of question because no, we're in Scripture does is there any hint that God would go against his word and manifest and become more than Three persons as Bernard asserts and of course as he stated there in the question

He's assuming something not proven. That is that somehow the New Testament is adding to the nature of God where any testament is simply a revelation of those things that were

Formally concealed and you get into that a bit in your manuscript now there was an interesting question that surfaced as a result of the of the

Old Testament passages and I mentioned this to you a Couple of days ago as I was dialoguing with an individual and we were discussing

John 1 particularly John 1 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the father

He has explained him and I remember as I was Dealing with this individual we got to this passage

It occurred to me that seemingly the use or the way in which one is folk use

John 14 9 Seems to provide a contradiction to this passage But was but what was more interesting and then even that to me was how would a oneness?

respond to Who were who was it that Abraham? Manoah Isaiah particularly in Isaiah 6

Who was it that they saw since clearly John 1 18 is a reference to the father?

No one has seen the father at any time And of course the oneness would not argue with me on that point since his presupposition must maintain that anyways

Who who did they see and remember I had mentioned to you that I did not receive a response to that question about a week

Then the individual wrote me back and he didn't deal with it. He just didn't discuss it at all So I pressed him again.

I got the most fascinating response Eddie to that question and the and the answer was this

That the the person or the being that those three individuals saw was

Satan Masquerading as Jehovah in the

Old Testament And I I don't know if you've ever heard that response before but I absolutely could not believe

This was the clearest demonstration of the lengths that oneness folk will go to To the to defend their unbiblical

Heresy, I mean there's no way outside of a trinitarian context the John 1 18 can be answered and I knew that But I I thought

I would get something a little better than that But it just it just was amazing again to see the links that folk will go to When it is clear that the

Bible simply does not support that position No, Dave Bernard usually answers it by saying to circumvent the angel

Lord as being Yahweh himself He will say normally it's a it's a normal angel and he makes the New Testament connection

Talk about Alma face. He makes the New Testament connection he'll say as if it was the same character in the

New Testament that Spoke with Mary and so on and so forth the angel of the

Lord As the angel Lord who claimed he was Yahweh may I add in the

New Testament But it does not follow but the verses that are blatantly clear that it was God that it was

Yahweh Bernard usually makes the assertion that that was a some kind of theophany He does not say that it was

Christ in any way shape or form because that would go against one is theology I have a greater problem than explaining that and of course

Isaiah 6 and John 12 the connection there are very difficult for them to deal with. Yes, I think that's that's extraordinarily powerful verse for trinitarian theology because as you mentioned

Outside of trinitarian context. It's it's an it's a no -winner I mean you cannot interpret those passages when you connect them because John quotes from Isaiah He references

Isaiah and he said Isaiah said these things because he saw who he saw him who was him.

It was Christ But I would say this acts 28 Acts 28,

I think it's verse 26 It says the Holy Spirit said and then he quotes what

Yahweh said and Isaiah 6 So really that's a that's a fantastic trinitarian passage. Absolutely members of the

Trinity Hmm. Well, that certainly was a question that did not get answered it.

Well, it did get answered but absurdly and ridiculously But the last thing that I would like to to leave with you to deal with and this is

I guess pretty much one of the big big objections because of their It seems their their hatred against the trinitarian position and the distinctions that we maintain is

Their rejection of the term person and of course, we've discussed this before they are very classic in their equivocation bringing to the table definitions to the person that basically read human categories into The very nature of God the hallmark if you will of blasphemy

But Bernard does present that as one of his objections against the trinitarian position

So deal with that for a moment and if you would well, it's interesting because if you look in some of the oneness tracks

If you look at some of the oneness tracks from their their own Word of flame printing house.

In fact, I have it right in front of me I think what Bernard does is something called special pleading.

He shows one side of the evidence, but not the other Because even Bernard used the term person when he says this

In his book the oneness of God he says quote He the Son is the incarnation of the Father the

Word the Spirit Jehovah not just an incarnation of a person called God the

Son and then in question of 11 question number 11 in the UPC I track a word of flame track printed by the church or by word of flame

Which is their their publisher a track called 60 questions on the Godhead asked this quote

Does the Bible say that the Godhead is revealed in one person? Yes in Jesus Christ and it gives some passages in question number 56 says the same thing can

Trinitarians show that three divine persons were present when Jesus was baptized by John Absolutely, not the one omnipresent God used three simultaneous

Manifestations only one now listen only one divine person was present

Jesus Christ So that is a real fallacy to say that or to say that We use person and they don't or something is in air with the term person because they use it to define their

Unitarian God And of course we're not again in dealing with their equivocation of the term

We are not presenting the the distinctions between the Father Son and Holy Spirit in human categories you mentioned earlier that persons defined historically cognizant self -aware selves the ability to use

You know personal pronouns. I mean myself those are all in fact. I would have to ask you

Given the fact that they deny these kinds of terms, then how is it that they can explain?

That God can love or that God can show mercy since those are attributes of person the reason why we call the church has denoted

God the members of the Trinity as Persons was because simply that they possess personal attributes

Jesus Christ refers to the Father refers to the Holy Spirit using personal pronouns

Now you made an interesting point, and I and I bring this out in my manuscript loving fellowship between the persons by way of definition

You can't have love if you're a Non -personal thing because non -personal things do not love the father really does love the son

The son really does love the father and the Holy Spirit Loves the believer and always glorifies

Christ in other words in John 335 the father loves the son and has given him all things

Into his hand I like John 524 the father loves the son and shows him all things that he himself is doing

And the father will show him greater works than these so that you will be marveled so we find clear references of Love in fact in Roman 1530 we find a reference where the

Holy Spirit Gives love quote now I urge you brethren by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the spirit to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me now you have the whole

Trinity in that passage But it denotes the loving fellowship that we have and that the members have between themselves

There's many many verses that Demonstrate not only love between the members, but loving intercourse between the father and the word who became flesh

Just clearly demonstrates before time clearly demonstrates that they have a cognizant

Relationship and only persons can have mmm This is true fellowship true fellowship and truly definition of what we as Trinitarians believe you know

I do what I like to do because we still have some Some excerpts that we want to play and I want to get into at least a few passages

That they most frequently like to use and to do that. I want the full bulk of the last portion of our segment

So let's go ahead and take another break, and then we come back We'll get into some of the passages they use and a few more excerpts from mr.

Jake's And Welcome back to the dividing line

This is Simon Escobedo joining me for this Saturday afternoon is Eddie Delcour calling where you in California Eddie Yes, what what part of California you can call me from the best part the best part

Yes, Oh, Los Angeles. Yes, Los Angeles It's interesting when we were on the break not this time at the time before there was an earthquake really yes

Oh, you're kidding me. Yeah, what happened the glass fall off to the desk there or what no No, it wasn't really big, but uh, but you felt it.

Yes is it now. I'm sure Giving you travels. You've probably have felt earthquakes before Actually the strongest earthquakes

I have felt was of course out here where I live Wow wow so this is what second third time you've experienced this oh

Gosh, I've been living here for quite a number of years. Oh my Yes, well

I know that I remember when years ago when we were trying to make a trip out there for Disneyland The entire family you know, but well, you know what if there's an earthquake out there.

You know there's all these common stereotypes that we attach to the state and That certainly is one of them

But I'm glad that you didn't get rocked and that you're back with us And we can go ahead and continue with our discussion now

We're going to change gears in a couple of weeks aren't we Eddie you said that you might be able to come out here

Phoenix way and and join us for our extension out to the Mormon pageant

At the picnic pageant yes, and you had indicated to me that I guess you were you were thinking that perhaps they were gonna have the the fence up this year and if necessary you were going to bring out some of your monster bodybuilding outfits for some of us in the ministry to wear to kind of give us an

Equal footing with some of those centurions out there I don't know how I don't know how Warren and I would look in those outfits

But I bet you and and James would look most impressive Yeah, James is behind me says amen and of course

James has put on quite the size as a monster these days and Yeah, there's a

James right there. Can you hear him? Yes, we've nicknamed him the son of Jorrell Eddie So yeah son of Jorrell.

He is Superman for for those of us who know him affectionately and So I'm sure that he's at least curious as to what this

Weightlifting suit or how did you describe that again? The power team outfit the power team outfit.

Yeah, he's excited now, and he wants to go break some Wood and bend some bars and of course after this we're gonna

We're gonna do a big squat workout and so he's already motivated and pumped and so on so forth But we have a program to get back to and enough of the pleasantries now

Okay here we go now James you got to tell Eddie that at least I'm tapping your bumper when it comes to squats

This is very true, there's no question about that you're you're in the rearview mirror I'm gonna try to get you a little bit smaller in the rearview mirror

You know Eddie the only reason I I didn't get to you know sit in today is I've been spending the past I don't know how long working on this book on Harold camping and I guess

I can announce that finished it It's it's done. So I'm actually sitting over on the network working on the

CRI article also on Harold camping which Was actually do this past week, so we're working hard But I'm enjoying listening to you guys and of course listening to those

TD Jake's clips is Almost well, I'll have to admit. It's considerably more stimulating than listening to Harold camping

For many hours on end. I've got it. I gotta admit you got to give me credit I've survived listening to Harold camping and you know listening to Jake's is is sort of like listening to Fingernails being drawn across a blackboard, but he at least doesn't put you to sleep, right?

Right, right Eddie. You still there? Did we lose Eddie? Okay There's Eddie.

Okay, I think I think maybe we're putting him to sleep. I don't know what Eddie wants to get his opportunity to come and come in and share some more things right

Eddie. Yeah, now We were talking about the what were we talking about one is today

Eddie? I Want to get into some of the passages, but these guys over here on the other side of the wall

I've been saying we've got more Jake stuff to do and I don't know why they want Our listeners to be tortured as James just said with TD Jake's and that whole thing

But we do need to play a few more things to to get a feel For what they are presenting and so some of the passages that we're going to look at briefly one of them is 149 of course, this is one of their favorite passages like John 1030 it seemingly is

One of the two top verses that they'll use like the witnesses with John 1428, but let's hear

What TD Jake's has to say about John 149? Is it playing there my friends?

You thought about what is you going And how can

I know the way come on Check it out. I am the way

I am the way the truth the truth and the life and the life

No, man, come to the father. No, man, come upon the fall. Look at it. No, no, man. Come upon to the father

But by me, but by me You gotta come to this

I'm gonna wreck your head. I'm gonna scramble your eggs He's a

Thomas if you have no me You should have known my father also

And from now on you know, you can tell everybody, you know him

I'm the father.

Come on Come on You better wait a minute,

I don't know where did we see the father I don't see nobody standing here But you we've been running around with you.

We've been put up with all this mess for you. We almost got killed for you We were waiting to see the father I ain't seen the father yet.

I ain't seen. I don't see nobody standing here, but God, Jr He said but if you show me your daddy,

I'll be satisfied Cuz I hear you praying to him. I hear you talking about him I've heard him spoke from speak from heaven and if you just show us your daddy

So we get ready people I Am the fight, of course, you notice that I played that twice so that make making sure that those who are in the chat

Channel, perhaps getting into some interesting dialogue did not miss that Change the path.

He changed the words of Christ. He's a biblical terrorist Absolutely amazing changed what

Christ said and they all clapped when he said I am the father they all clapped at his church

Incredible they applauded monalism Absolutely incredible and of course, there's no question given the fact that the

His his what would you call her her his reader? What's that his reader his reader?

Yeah They were in cahoots on that because it it was just too obvious there. Yeah, the unlike Jehovah's Witnesses to my knowledge

There's no oneness Committee who has made a Bible yet. So she had to be prompted to read that passage that way amazing, of course, he paused for the effect and then made it appear as if what she just read finally hit home with him and That is just an amazing thing.

I don't know how anyone who listening to that can question for a moment The the deliberateness if you will of what he particularly is doing with this whole issue

Absolutely. I am the father he read Absolutely amazing and as Warren pointed out when we were listening to it a few days ago

The very fact that she then went on to read the text correctly Right prove that that was obviously intentional wasn't a slip -up on her part.

No, it was crafty. Absolutely Well now let's get into John 14 9 that is one of their favorite passages

We just heard Jake's do his best. I guess if you will I trying to discuss that now

What would your response be for that common? We have to keep in mind that that chapters 14 through 16 present clear distinction clearly and Starting in the context we find first of all in verse 6

Jesus. I'm the way the truth in a life No one comes to the father Except through me now, it's a very significant point grammatically

We'll get back to it and then in verse 7 He says that by knowing him the disciples can actually know the father so the context is parent a very apparent by seeing

Jesus and Knowing Jesus they can really know the father

They couldn't because it's Jesus who explains or who exegetes the father John 1 18 and Jesus is the perfect He's the exact representation of the father

So the context is Clear unless you read into it a modalistic interpretation if you allow the passage

Passages to read for itself. You will not get a modalistic idea from that and also there is another issue the father spirit even as one is

Theology would admit that the father is an invisible spirit However, when

Jesus says when you see me when he said when you see me you see the father what

Were the disciples seen? If the father is spirit, what were the disciples seen because all they were seeing was

Jesus's physical body And the father doesn't have a physical body. So Obviously, he's not talking about the literal father because he says when you see me all they saw was his flesh

He said you see the father Obviously, he's not talking literally. They were seeing the father. He spoke figured to literally figuratively as the context predicts, right?

And two more points Notice if you notice all throughout chapters 14 and 6 through 16

Jesus clearly Differentiate differentiates himself by using first to third person references.

In other words, he uses first -person References to himself pronoun references to himself and third person pronouns to the father in John 14 16,

I Will ask the father and he Will give you another helper that he may be with you forever

And then again in chapter 16 when the helper comes the Holy Spirit when the father will send in my name

He will teach you all things and bring you into remembrance Things that I've said now we see that clearly throughout chapters 14 through 16 and also though Dealing with the immediate passages in the context there in John 14 6

We find different prepositions that the author uses when Jesus says No one comes to no one comes prosts the father but DIA me but through me and because of different prepositions clearly this indicates a

Differentiation between the father that Jesus who was speaking and the father right because of different Prep prepositions.

Hmm. Well, let's look at a couple of more passages briefly and then I want to play one last Jake's excerpt excerpt

John 10 30 That's a that's a frequently used one Explain that one for us a bit

John 10 30. That is a favor just as firstborn and The father is greater than I as a favor for Jehovah's Witnesses.

This is the favorite for Oneness people

I and the father are one see Jesus is saying that he is the father is the assertion, however

It doesn't take much to unravel The oneness position here when

Jesus says I and the father are One or literally one we are he uses the plural S men.

He doesn't use a singular there He doesn't say I and the father is one as If they were the same person

But he uses the plural S men I and the father are one and also the term one there as you know

Simon is the neuter hen not the masculine heath and this is you are a sad strange little man

This is a facet in Greek that we don't have that's not carried over in English In Greek the neuter hen indicates a a unity of essence

Not a identity or not the same person and even Hippolytus and Tertullian comment on the

Usage by the modelist of John 10 30 So they're clearly again to grammatical issues to deal with the first -person plural of I'm e s men there and then of course the the neuter hen and not ice

Which would then denote a modalist interpretation? Procludes without without doubt question.

Yeah, and of course is referring to the larger context that the father and the son are one in purpose for the purpose of gathering in the sheep and The context is clearly redemption and so on and there's there's really no problem with that when

Isaiah 9 6 by the way before we get Into it. I have no idea what just happened here one of the wave files apparently it came on without me knowing it and so Let's see, so basically

John 10 30 even by itself Distinguishes, I don't know exactly what the right in the chat channel is asking at that point

But Isaiah 9 6 where Jesus is called eternal father or the the promised one the

Messiah. He will be called Eternal father everlasting father deal with that one a bit

Eddie. There's another favorite and normally One is people that are not familiar with languages and semantic context as they will use this argument to teach that Jesus is

The father there because it's a prophecy of Messiah and he's called in most of our translations eternal

Father, however to be sure this is a fallacy of equivocation. They assert that the father only has one entire meaning

We have to understand that the name or Shem in Hebrew name in a Semitic context

Not a 20th century American context, but it's in a Semitic context Really meant authority or character of and that clearly demonstrated in in all the

Old Testament the word father here frequently has a meaning of possessor of or founder of or as Calvin saw it the name of the father is put for author there and we find examples like second

Samuel 23 31 Where a beast on I believe that's how it's pronounced means father of strength or strong one

We also find Exodus 624 a man's name a bias if which meant father of gathering so here we have the

Messiah and His character as to his character. He is eternal father meaning as Creator or as a character one who lives or possesses

Eternity and what is interesting in the Targums the Aramaic paraphrase of the Old Testament? They translate

Isaiah 9 6 as following for us a child is born to us The Sun is given and his name will be called a wonderful counselor mighty

God existing forever or He who lives forever Messiah in whose days peace shall increase upon the

Peace will increase upon us. So they translate the Targums with first century

Jews use they translate it as Existing forever. Oh he who lives forever being consistent with the

Semitic concept of Father hmm. Well, that's very that's very key I think and also there's never been a

Jewish commentary or rabbi who's ever interpreted Isaiah 9 6 like one is do never

Well that leaves just one text that I want to deal with before we play the last excerpt from titty

Jake's and that is a Malachi 2 10 because I Think this is one of the texts that they would like to use to try to support in some way

Their Unitarian beliefs. So if you could comment on that one briefly One of their pillars of one of theology is that there's one

God and only the Father is God quoting there from from a Malachi 2 10 do we not have one father?

Has not one God created us but again when dealing with the term father It's interesting when father if you go look in the old testament when you find the term father

Count how many times? That father is applied to God very few times.

I believe less less than less than I think seven or eight times and Virtually every single one of those times

Virtually every single one of those times it denotes his role as a creator Right that father was a term which denoted

God as creator and it was well established in the Old Testament Deuteronomy 32 6

Is not he your father who has brought you he has made you and established you

Isaiah 64 8 But now O Lord you are a father We are the clay and you are our

Potter and all of us are the work of your hand So it's carried through to Malachi 2 10 a predominant meaning of father to the know

God there meant creator of just in Psalms 103 13 as well and Of course it really

Begs the question that only the father is God Unitarianism, right when you make that assertion from Malachi 2 10

But also we find that the Son Is called God the Son is called God in the

New Testament. We find the Son is called God Hebrews 1 8 and Also, the biblical authors call the

Son God as well Hmm now the before we get to the the excerpt I did we talked about this last night the acts 238 passage

That came up a lot and I know that that particular passage would require a little more time than we have to develop one thing

I indicated to you last night is That even if a one is wants to put forward the acts 238 passage and the whole

Jesus only formula for baptism The only thing that can be proven from that text if we were to actually for the sake of argument

I grant the use of it in this discussion is the issues regarding baptism It still begs the question because it does not prove one

Yoda The oneness position because they're using it when they have yet to demonstrate that their

God is biblically presented Unipersonally we commented on that last night.

What were your thoughts on that Eddie? Yeah, it does not prove their their point Even if the first century church baptized exclusively in the name of Jesus It just doesn't prove their point that Jesus is the father in fact with two separate issues, right?

However dealing with Matthew 20 and 19 the argument is well, it's it's it says name.

It doesn't say names Well, I would say thank God. It doesn't say names. It said names then we would

Have to applaud the Mormons. We know the theology would be correct and Dealing with the name up there in Matthew 28 19 it was the name of Jehovah that the

Jews were united to in the Old Testament, but in Jesus's great declaration He explains that this former name

That is the authority the Christians now are united to and foot is the full revelation of Jehovah father

The Son the Holy Spirit and as many have pointed out It does not say names as if there were three beans

Three gods right but name and also there's some grammatical points I wish you had more time to explain the repetition of the article the notes distinction due to ground rule sharp number six with 2nd

Corinthians 1314 do you have on your web page a discussion of x238?

I'm I might on my International Church of Christ Section mm -hmm,

I think I have a whole thing on Baptist regeneration where I deal with x238 and the name issue

I I think also it's a gratuitous assertion to say that In Jesus's name was the verbal formula

I do not agree to that right it was the type of baptism it was there were there were

Unified or identified With Christ in the name of Jesus in 1st

Corinthians 10 to the Israelites were baptized in the what? Into Moses now that wasn't a verbal formula right, but they were identified

With Moses and Paul brings us out baptism with Unification or identification

Romans and Galatians and other passages and I I would assert This is the kind of baptism, and I think they would have

Obeyed the Commission, and they would have baptized in the Trinitarian formula right and as we have again discussed there is a major distinction simply in hermeneutics between Looking at the book of Acts as narrative and looking at Matthew 28 in didactic setting right that is a hermeneutical flaw because acts was a narrative written to some men and Theophilus and many

Many circles not just one misbelievers, but many circles confused narrative with didactic

It is not telling us what we should do or what we have to do or must do is just describing

What happened in the first century church the narrative right right and you also pointed out?

I think that the the baptismal formula and again That's what we're specifically focusing on not all the other elements that can be discussed with x 238

There are at least two or three different Prepositions used in the book of Acts, and so if you're going to make that argument, then you got a serious issue

Okay, then which Jesus only formula if we're going to use that argument are we going to adopt and it's interesting because different chooses you

Different churches one of churches uses different formulas There are three of them on the name of Jesus Christ x 238

Into ice the name of Jesus Christ x 8 16 19 5 or is it in hen?

in the name of Jesus Christ x 1048 well, which one if we have to be perfect as one is churches

Tell us in terms of this Baptismal formula well which formula and also there's another problem.

Was it the name of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus right which one right? You know they didn't know

They didn't put not that no one put an emphasis on exact formulations in the acts nobody did because it was always different Well Eddie we only have a few minutes left, and I do want to play this last excerpt that we have a whole chunk of In fact we were joking last night of TD.

Jake's is exegesis and I say that tongue -in -cheek of John chapter 1 Which is absolutely out of this world if you can imagine that but what

I like to do is in closing And then we'll give you a few minutes to wrap it up his

Illustration as he calls it of the Trinity, and let's play that real quick should be going

In order to redeem you Well of course the the coat

Illustration we didn't even get into the very lengthy illustration that he uses the water ice and steam thing that basically puts the entire audience in a

Frenzy it seems as they applaud that but there you have it your comments on TD Jake's and the father putting the coat on basically and His view that of the incarnation

What would you like to add in closing Eddie as we have to tolerate that last segment of TD Jake's?

I wish we wish we had more time to get in some of the more other doctrinal aspects of the one assertions

How are I just say this? Jesus says if I alone testify about myself my testimony is not true there is another

Allah's he said there is another who testifies of me, and I know that the testimony which he gives about me is true

Jesus makes clear a clear differentiation between him of him and his father and I would just point out that modalism in it of itself attacks

Christ they say they glorify him, but how can they? When modalism teaches that Jesus Christ is not eternal as the son his life started in Bethlehem That's not glorification of God They say they glorify him

But the Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses say the same thing and I think modalism rips the heart out of Christianity because it denies

Christ By shamelessly misrepresenting him they misrepresent and denied the true incarnation because the modalistic

God he does not become flesh It's the father that wraps himself in a flesh body, but you never know this

God because he pretends to be a Manifestation of the son he pretends to be a mode of the Holy Spirit He pretends to be a mode of the father these roles

And it's a very important point these roles are not as to his essential nature, so in other words.

We'll never know This God will never know as to his original nature because he pretends

He's different modes, and I think by promoting the son as a temporary mode or as a role of a

Unitarian deity whose life started in Bethlehem denies the essence of the son as well as the father The unipersonal

God of one of theology he he he's in a play he pretends now you see him now

You don't and I think this is akin to the docetic deity that merely appears as something other than his true being and I think we must reach out to one as believers in love and biblical truth as Jude said snatching them out of the fire but only the true

God of Scripture can justify the sinners and Give them salvation Amen, brother.

Well, that's good stuff there and of course to I guess a fitting touch to the end of our program Would be to cite those words from our

Savior himself Distinct from the father he said in John 8 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins

For unless you believe that I am he You will die in your sins, and there is no question that the object of our faith

Must be consistent with what Scripture has revealed about him And if there's one thing that I labor to do in dealing with oneness folks is to demonstrate that we do in fact believe in different gods

Well, thanks Eddie for being on the program I'm sure that all of us look forward to seeing you in a couple of weeks when you're able to make it out to Arizona And I know

Given our affection for you. This is not the last time we will hear from you We will have you on the program again our thanks to our listeners, and I especially thank dr

White for giving me the opportunity of sitting in with Eddie and dealing with this issue with you So on behalf of Rich Pierce and Warren Smith, this is

Simon Escobedo. Have a great afternoon The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 0 3 1 8 or write us at P.

O. Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks