Code Orange Coverup?? (aka Steven Furtick and Matt Chandler conference

[David T. McKee]

Look, I will admit I am not a fan of preachers who "shake, rattle and roll", sweat dripping from their face as they pronounce God's name as "Gaw-duh!", but here is my question for you.

First, nobody knows beyond the Bibles revealed truth, what God is like, how He is composed, etc. That being said, I believe that God is one God (first commandment) and is revealed to us as three coexistent entities that are one and yet are three persons. That is about as far as I can get my head around it, and that is a stretch. I guess they are like a family, yet so much closer and interdependent that there is really nothing to compare to this structure anywhere else in human experience ("I and the Father are One", "The Father is in me, and I in Him").

In other words I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - the Trinity. I believe the Trinity exists at the same "time", that is all three persons of it - although "time" does not apply to the Trinity as they exist in all time and all space, and not a single point within all existence is outside of God's sight.

So... I understand that Jakes believes that God is also these three persons, but not at the same time. Is that the extent of his different viewpoint? Is that the entire basis of what makes him a heretic and non-believer? Or am I missing something here?

-DTM

[OnceWasLost]

The triune God

1 in essence 3 individual persons. He is not one god wearing three hats, or Jesus only, as Jakes believes. This is no small matter as we know JW and Mormons cannot be saved by their gods. Your pastor needs to look into those whom he embraces, for the well being of the flock. His stomping and sweating is of no concern to me, his theology is a different matter entirely.

Look, I will admit I am not a fan of preachers who "shake, rattle and roll", sweat dripping from their face as they pronounce God's name as "Gaw-duh!", but here is my question for you.

First, nobody knows beyond the Bibles revealed truth, what God is like, how He is composed, etc. That being said, I believe that God is one God (first commandment) and is revealed to us as three coexistent entities that are one and yet are three persons. That is about as far as I can get my head around it, and that is a stretch. I guess they are like a family, yet so much closer and interdependent that there is really nothing to compare to this structure anywhere else in human experience ("I and the Father are One", "The Father is in me, and I in Him").

In other words I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - the Trinity. I believe the Trinity exists at the same "time", that is all three persons of it - although "time" does not apply to the Trinity as they exist in all time and all space, and not a single point within all existence is outside of God's sight.

So... I understand that Jakes believes that God is also these three persons, but not at the same time. Is that the extent of his different viewpoint? Is that the entire basis of what makes him a heretic and non-believer? Or am I missing something here?

-DTM

[paul&katie]

Trinity-Is-IsNot.jpg



Modalism|What is Modalism? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

[David T. McKee]

I read your link that describes what Modalism is - very informative, thank you! I once got into a rather heated discussion with a guy named Steve Winter who used to run a Bulletin board system (I am dating myself here) called the "PreRapture BBS" and he was a Jesus only pentecostal. Needless to say, that went nowhere.

You say that TD Jakes believes this? He sure did not sound like he did when I listened to him preach, but then the constitution of God was not the subject either. That Winter guy was much more "in your face" about this issue - it was obvious in that case.

By the way, I like the descriptive picture that helps explain the trinity to some extent.

-DTM

[paul&katie]

This is a ER2 Transcript of Jakes: CRBC Pastoral Blog: The Elephant Room II, Session 4 Transcript

This is parts taken out of that with comments: Sola Sisters: T.D. Jakes: Through a Glass Blurrily

My brief comments on this available interview (James MacDonald has posted on his blog that he had decided not to release the full transcript) follow.

Unclear/ambivalent statements by Jakes are bracketed by ==, followed by my comments:

==“But how they describe and explain the Godhead in a traditional oneness sense is very, very different from how Trinitarians describe the gospel.”==

COMMENT: This raises the question: Does this mean that Jakes thinks only the verbal description differs?

==“He is one God who expressed Himself in a plurality of ways.”==

COMMENT: This is a modalist statement.

==“There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit - the moving of the Holy Spirit - and the work of Christ.”===

COMMENT: This is also modalist language. To express a distinction in the "workings" or functions of Jesus and the Holy Spirit indicates a difference in the operations of Jesus and the Spirit, not a distinction in the Persons. He has a similar statement later about God and the "workings" of the Son.

==“I don’t think anything that any of us believes fully describes who God is. And if we would ever humble down to admit that we in our finite minds cannot fully describe an infinite God.”==

COMMENT: Actually, God has revealed himself clearly as a Trinitarian God. Jakes in the past has used this ruse of how nobody can really know God, implying that a discussion of the Trinity is either unimportant or impossible. However, we can describe God according to what God has revealed to us about himself.

==“Three Persons. One God – Three Persons, . ..[ . . .] . . . I am not crazy about the word persons this is…most people who follow me know that that is really. My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except the word…”==

Driscoll: “manifestations”

Jakes: ==“Manifest instead of persons. Which you describe as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline.”==

COMMENT: It looks possibly like Jakes is equating "Persons" with "manifestations." If so, we are back to square zero with Jakes and the Trinity. Also, it is not “Pauline” to say God manifests as three persons. Jakes and other Oneness followers, in an effort to bolster their stance, point to scriptures such as 1 Tim. 2:10 and 3:16, Heb. 9:8, and 1 John 3:5 where the word “manifest” means to “appear” or “disclose.” However, these scriptures and the use of the word “manifest” in them have nothing to do with a belief that God is a being who takes on the role of three beings.

==“I think that it is important that we realize that there are distinctives between the Father and the working of the Son. The Father didn’t bleed, the Father didn’t die, only a different person in Jesus Christ…is coming back for us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is with us, but only indwells us through the person of the Holy Spirit; we are baptized into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think any of that is objectionable to any of the three of us. So that is consistent with my belief system.”==

COMMENT: A modalist could say that the Father didn’t bleed because he (he Father) was in the role of Jesus at the time of the cross, so it was Jesus who bled. So this is no affirmation of the Trinity. Also, saying that one is baptized “into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit” could be said by a modalist. It is unclear what Jakes means by this. Is he referring to water baptism, which Oneness Pentecostals believe is necessary for salvation?

==“I’m with you. I have been with you. I teach/preach that all the time. There are many people within and outside quote unquote denominations labeled Oneness that would describe that the same way. There are some that would not. But when we get to know people by their labels, then comes all the baggage of how we define that label.”==

COMMENT: Jakes says that he's been teaching this all along! Yes, he has been teaching modalism all along. Jakes has never been on record affirming or teaching the Trinity; in fact, he has reacted negatively to questioning on the topic. If anything, this is an admission to Oneness beliefs. He also plainly states that Oneness is not really different from Trinitarian, or at least he wants it to sound that way. He is also back to the “description” remark because for Jakes, it seems to be just a semantics issue. That is what he has said in the past about the difference between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views.

==“I still have fellowship, associations, relationship, and positions within and without Trinitarian and Onenness movements.”==

COMMENT: A Trinitarian can have a friendship, but not fellowship, with Oneness followers and modalists. Fellowship is only within the body of Christ. This statement is very revealing and indicates Jakes still doesn't get it, or is trying to blur the line between modalism and Trinitarianism, something many believe he has been doing for years.

IF…..

If Jakes has truly become Trinitarian, then he needs to relinquish his title of “Bishop,” make a clean break with the HGAAA, clearly affirm and teach the Trinity to his church, and renounce modalism. Jakes has been misleading his flock with false teaching for years (this includes the Word of Faith and prosperity gospel, which is another deeply problematic issue). I certainly allow for a small possibility of Jakes’ conversion to the true God, but until these outward evidences, we cannot declare Jakes a Trinitarian.

This event, judging by some defending the claim that Jakes is now a Trinitarian, has revealed either a crack in the knowledge about the Trinity amongst some Christian leaders, and/or an apathy to the Trinity. But if Christians do not get the nature of God right, we cannot truly preach the gospel. Like sheep, we tend to stray.

A reaffirmation of the Trinity and more teaching on it in churches would be a good result of this rather depressing affair. There is no salvation in modalism; it is false. Therefore, this is of utmost important because this is a salvation issue.

There is a link to the Athanasian Creed at the end of the links below. Please read it if you have never read it before.

Athanasian Creed (500 A.D.) | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

[arapahoepark]

I read your link that describes what Modalism is - very informative, thank you! I once got into a rather heated discussion with a guy named Steve Winter who used to run a Bulletin board system (I am dating myself here) called the "PreRapture BBS" and he was a Jesus only pentecostal. Needless to say, that went nowhere.

You say that TD Jakes believes this? He sure did not sound like he did when I listened to him preach, but then the constitution of God was not the subject either. That Winter guy was much more "in your face" about this issue - it was obvious in that case.

By the way, I like the descriptive picture that helps explain the trinity to some extent.

-DTM

Jakes doesn't confirm or deny the Trinity specifically. He won't come out and say I believe the Father, Son and Spirit exist concurrently. He always evades the question. No non-heretic would do this, they all do whether it is with the Trinity or not, they throw red-herrings.
There's a joke going around about Jakes, because he says I am a Trinitarian so long as I am free to express it in modalist terms. That's sad.
Even if he did believe in the Trinity, he's one of the top word of faith teachers out there. He only tickles the ears of his congregation saying give to me and you'll get a Mercedes!
If fact, i would rank his second behind Joel Osteen.

[David T. McKee]

Very interesting and at the same time, sad.

As I understand things looking at what Scripture says, it is clear that Jesus thought of Himself as God - when, for example, Thomas fell to his knees and worshiped saying "My Lord and My God" (John 20:28) to Jesus - and that is just one example. Of course when Jesus was baptized we have God the Father saying "This is my Son who I am well pleased!" after God the Spirit like a dove descended on Him (Mat 3:16-17) so here we have all three at once! How do Modalists handle that? What, did Jesus run behind some invisible changing screen so he could play all three rolls?

Knowing all of this, I can say for a fact that many people do not understand this - and it is not a condition of salvation. The Scripture never lays out anything called "The Trinitarian Doctrine" but simply states the facts: there are three persons who are one God. This may be a bit hard to explain to a six year old for example, but if that six year old believes on Jesus, truly asks Him in his heart, and has asked for his sins to be forgiven, and repents of those sins - then that six year old is saved. His understanding of the Trinitarian Doctrine is not going to be pulled out at judgment day should he die in his sleep.

Now, on the other hand, if a teacher of the Word, who will be judged more harshly as we know, (James 3:1) is actually teaching against the revealed trinitarian doctrine would - they may be in trouble.

But I never presume to know who God will save, He will save whom He will save.

-DTM

[OnceWasLost]

Now, on the other hand, if a teacher of the Word, who will be judged more harshly as we know, (James 3:1) is actually teaching against the revealed trinitarian doctrine would - they may be in trouble.

But I never presume to know who God will save, He will save whom He will save.

So if Jakes teaches, from what we gather, that we have a three headed god, can that god save? Or is that god more along the lines of what Paul said to the Galatians?

Galatians 1:6-9

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Not to pick a fight here, David, you have been very respectful as we have gone through this thread, but does your Pastor know this about a man so terribly compromised over a make or break theology? If he does know, does he share this view with Jakes? If he does what does that mean to you as a member of that fellowship?

Some may think an erroneous view of the Trinity is no big deal, but I would not be counted among them. The god of mormonism and the JW's also swing and miss as to the Trinity and we rightly identify them as cults.

[ANY MINUTE]

Very interesting and at the same time, sad.

As I understand things looking at what Scripture says, it is clear that Jesus thought of Himself as God - when, for example, Thomas fell to his knees and worshiped saying "My Lord and My God" (John 20:28) to Jesus - and that is just one example. Of course when Jesus was baptized we have God the Father saying "This is my Son who I am well pleased!" after God the Spirit like a dove descended on Him (Mat 3:16-17) so here we have all three at once! How do Modalists handle that? What, did Jesus run behind some invisible changing screen so he could play all three rolls?

Knowing all of this, I can say for a fact that many people do not understand this - and it is not a condition of salvation. The Scripture never lays out anything called "The Trinitarian Doctrine" but simply states the facts: there are three persons who are one God. This may be a bit hard to explain to a six year old for example, but if that six year old believes on Jesus, truly asks Him in his heart, and has asked for his sins to be forgiven, and repents of those sins - then that six year old is saved. His understanding of the Trinitarian Doctrine is not going to be pulled out at judgment day should he die in his sleep.

Now, on the other hand, if a teacher of the Word, who will be judged more harshly as we know, (James 3:1) is actually teaching against the revealed trinitarian doctrine would - they may be in trouble.

But I never presume to know who God will save, He will save whom He will save.

-DTM

Hey brother, I do understand what you are saying about the Trinity, I've had many of the same thoughts. I do disagree to some extent about it not necessary to understand the concept of the Trinity to be saved. Of course no one knows the full depths of Trinity, certainly not in this flesh, but we can't say it doesn't matter to be saved. If you take God out of Jesus, what are you left with? Jesus was also Deity, God in the flesh, 100% God, 100% man and imho it is important for even little one's to be taught properly and grasp as much of it as they can. The scriptures are clear that there is only One God, so Jesus without Deity can not save. He was the perfect, complete, acceptable sacrifice and only God could provide what He Himself required for us to reconciled back to Him.

It may sound extreme and someone will correct me if I'm wrong in this thinking. After spending a few years studying different cults who reject the Deity of Jesus, it has lead me to believe that it is important to know who it is that has the power to save.

I think you probably already know this. I just don't completely agree that even a 6 yr old doesn't need to know who it is that is saving them, God in the Flesh/Jesus, so you can't take the trinity out and still be left with the same Jesus of the bible.

I hope I'm making sense here because I'm pressed for time, grandsons first B-Day today, but this post was nagging at me since I read it this morning.

EDIT: I see our OWL posted while I was writing. SEE what he said above.

[OnceWasLost]

Here is why this is important. Scripture does not allow for a three headed god, and here is a great passage to illustrate.

John 17:1-5

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

I only used the first 5 verses here, but the entire chapter in Jesus in direct conversation with The Father. Either He knew full well there was a Father with whom He could speak, or Jesus was schizophrenic.

I choose the former explanation.