Missiology
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 49, No. 2 – Spring 2007
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Edward L. Dalcour. Lanham: University Press of America, 2005. 217 pages. Paperback, $37.50.
In this book, Edward Dalcour attempts to present and refute the arguments of those who hold to the view of God he calls “Oneness theology,” the modalistic approach to understanding the divine nature which is characteristic of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI). Put simply, it is the belief that the Father, Son and Spirit are three manifestations, not persons, of the one true God. Dalcour’s approach to the subject is by means of an examination of the biblical text: “Hence, in this book, we will analyze Oneness theology on the basis of biblical truth. [O]ur focus will be on the sole infallible standard that defines true Christianity from a professing one: the Scriptural teaching concerning the Person, nature and finished work of Jesus Christ” (2). He begins with a brief discussion of the tenets of oneness theology and then moves to a more detailed examination and critique of the specific arguments employed by oneness proponents. It is this section which forms the bulk of Dalcour’s work. He concludes with supporting historical and theological arguments for the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
While the book does reflect a significant amount of thought on the issues at hand, it suffers from several weaknesses. Four are particularly noteworthy: first, the book is written in a strongly polemical style; second, the arguments presented are not fully developed; third, the breadth of research is rather limited; and fourth, the editorial work is lacking in attention to detail.
The information presented in the book is both interesting and important for Christian study. Unfortunately, Dalcour’s polemical style detracts from the seriousness of the work by removing any pretext of objectivity from the study. For example, Dalcour correctly notes that a mere claim of allegiance to Jesus does not constitute a faith that is consistent with historic Christian theology, but in doing so, he intimates that adherents to one- ness theology do not base their faith on the Bible, which is patently false. For example, after noting that oneness adherents claim Jesus is Lord, he writes, “it is not the mere name ‘Jesus’ itself that has salvific value, for there were many who were named ‘Jesus’ (that is, Joshua) in the first century, but in contradistinction, it is only the Jesus of biblical revelation who can truly save those who are enslaved to sin. It is this Jesus who alone can forgive sins, and it is this Jesus who alone can grant eternal life!” (2–3). While some one- ness proponents do admittedly place too much emphasis upon the name
“Jesus,” to critique them on the basis of the commonality of the name Joshua is to create a straw man. Clearly oneness proponents mean to refer to the Jesus of the biblical gospels and not just anyone named, “Jesus!” They just understand his nature in a different way from traditional orthodox Christianity. The polemical tone leads to a lack of precision in his analysis of Oneness theology. He argues, “By denying the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit, Oneness believers deny the Holy Spirit all together” (41). This is both unpersuasive and unfair. Similar arguments are made through-out the book. In the chapter on early church history, Dalcour expends valuable space demonstrating that the early apologists relied on the Bible as their rule of faith. His point is unclear, but he seems to be implying that the early monarchians did not use the Bible. This, again, is false at best and misleading at worst.
In many cases Dalcour’s response to oneness arguments amounts to little more than scriptural quotation. He seems to expect his readers to agree automatically with his reading of the passages, as opposed to the oneness interpretation (e.g., his use of Rom 8:3 on page 44). Only brief explanations of his interpretation are given, with little justification or substantiation. Dalcour seems to think the orthodox view of the Trinity is self-evident, as can be seen in his use of rhetorical questions: “If these passages do not teach that the Holy Spirit is a Person, then what would a passage look like that did?” (50); “If Jesus was the Holy Spirit Himself, as to His divine nature, and they are not differentiated, why then, did the biblical authors spend so much ink distinguishing Jesus from the Holy Spirit in the same context (esp. John chaps. 14–16)?” (52). This approach to argumentation is rarely convincing to the skeptic. If Dalcour’s desire is to convince avowed modalists of the error of their ways, it is doubtful that he will have been very successful.
Dalcour relies too heavily upon David K. Bernard’s work as representative of the Oneness position. He therefore spends the majority of time responding to him and does not explore possible avenues a proponent of oneness theology might take, even if not taken by Bernard. The work reads almost like an extended book review of Bernard’s work. Dalcour also tends to rely upon somewhat dated research (e.g., he quotes B.B. Warfield authoritatively on numerous occasions without considering modern dis- cussions of the biblical passages under investigation), and rarely consults discussions of key texts in the journals. The antiquated citations leave the reader wondering if the arguments presented are still generally accepted in the scholarly community.
The book is fraught with typographical and grammatical errors. Several errors were found in each chapter. While this may be as much the fault of the editor and publisher as the author, it still detracts from the merit ofthe study. In addition, there are several points at which the author fails to make the fine distinctions among theological positions one would expect from a scholarly work. For example, there are many places where Dalcour lumps Arianism and Modalism together for purposes of refutation. While there are some similarities in basic philosophy behind the two heresies, they are clearly different and should be treated as such. In the chapter on Modalism and the early church, Dalcour fails to explain the natures of both Gnosticism and Monarchianism, yet refers to both in rather general terms. The reader is left to piece the puzzle together for himself. This lack of sophistication is both frustrating and troublesome.
To some extent, Dalcour’s brevity can be attributed to the scope of his project. He simply tried to do too much in a limited space. Perhaps Dalcour’s effort would have been better served if he had limited himself to an examination and evaluation of the claims of Oneness theology. The chapters which focused on these issues (chapters. 2–4; “Examining the Oneness Claim that Jesus is the Father,” “Examining the Oneness Claim that Jesus is the Spirit,” and “The Preexistence of the Son”) were by far the best and left the reader wanting more. Dalcour engaged in a measure of in-depth study of the Greek text of the New Testament, and made some insightful observations, but the exegetical work was far too brief. It is un- fortunate that he was unable to expand these sections. The information in the other chapters (Oneness objections to the doctrine of the Trinity, UCPI baptismal formula, Modalism in the early church, and the Tri-Unity of God) seemed either redundant or only secondarily relevant.
Despite its shortcomings, the book is not without value. While it cannot stand alone as a definitive refutation of Oneness theology, it can serve as a good starting point for scholarly examination of the issues at hand. It is probably most valuable, though, for the busy pastor who wishes to learn more about Oneness theology and the errors inherent in the system. For those who do not have time to conduct the exegetical work necessary to refute Oneness claims, but who wish to be theologically informed or to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity with theologians in the United Pentecostal tradition, Dalcour has provided a valuable resource.
