Jakes stated his belief at the second-annual Elephant Room, which features what organizers call "conversations you never thought you'd hear."
AURORA, Ill. (BP) -- Bishop T.D. Jakes says he has moved away from a "Oneness" view of the Godhead to embrace an orthodox definition of the Trinity -- and that some in the Oneness Pentecostal movement now consider him a heretic.
Jakes -- long a controversial figure among evangelicals because of his past unwillingness to affirm the Trinity -- stated his belief Wednesday (Jan. 27) at the second-annual Elephant Room (theelephantroom.com), an event that brings together Christian figures from different backgrounds for what organizers call "conversations you never thought you'd hear." This year's Elephant Room was held at Harvest Bible Chapel in Illinois and was simulcast to other locations nationwide.
Jakes, founder and senior pastor of The Potter's House in Dallas, was the focus of a motion at Southern Baptist Convention annual meetings in 2009 and 2010 by a messenger who wanted LifeWay Christian Stores to stop selling his books. One was ruled out of order by the SBC president, the other referred to LifeWay for study.
Jakes -- who once made the cover of Time magazine, which asked if he might be the next Billy Graham -- said he was saved in a Oneness Pentecostal church. Oneness Pentecostalism denies the Trinity and claims that instead of God being three persons, He is one person. In Oneness Pentecostalism, there is no distinction between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. It is also called "modalism," and it is embraced by the United Pentecostal Church International.
"I began to realize that there are some things that could be said about the Father that could not be said about the Son," Jakes said. "There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and the working of the redemptive work of Christ. I'm very comfortable with that." [See the transcript of Jakes' comments at the end of this story.]
The doctrine of the Trinity -- embraced by all three historical branches of Christianity -- holds that God is three persons, each person is distinct, each person is fully God, and that there is one God.
Several key Bible passages, Jakes said, impacted his transition.
"Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River, for example, coming up out of the water [and] the Holy Spirit descends like a dove, the Father speaks from heaven -- and we see all three of them on one occasion," he said, "or in Genesis [where God said,] 'let us make man in our own likeness' or Elohim -- He is the one God who manifests Himself in a plurality of ways. Or what Jesus says, 'I am with the Father, and the Father is in me.'"
Jakes added: "That began to make me rethink some of my ideas and some of the things that I was taught. I got kind of quiet about it for a while. Because when you are a leader and you are in a position of authority, sometimes you have to back up and ponder for a minute, and really think things through."
James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel of Rolling Meadows, Ill., and Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle interviewed Jakes.
Not everything Jakes said will make Trinitarians happy. He said he considers both sides of the issue to be Christians, and that his church has affiliations with both camps. He also said "we're all saying the same thing." But under questioning from Driscoll, Jakes again affirmed the Trinity:
Driscoll: "Do you believe this is the perfect, inspired, final authority Word of God?" [Driscoll held up a Bible.]
Jakes: "Absolutely."
Driscoll: "So you believe there's one God, three Persons -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit? You believe Jesus was fully God, fully Man?"
Jakes: "Absolutely."
Driscoll: "You believe He died on the cross in our place for our sins?"
Jakes: "Absolutely."
Driscoll: "You believe He bodily rose from death?"
Jakes: "Absolutely."
Driscoll: "You believe that He is the judge of the living and the dead?"
Jakes: "Yes."
Driscoll: "And you believe that apart from Jesus there is no salvation?"
Jakes: "Absolutely."
Jakes said he prefers the term "manifestations" instead of the term "persons" -- a position he has stated before.
He also said that "many of the circles that I came from would never allow me in their pulpit [now] because they consider me a heretic."
Southern Baptist leaders applauded Jakes' transformation while also saying Jakes isn't fully where he should be on that and other issues.
"It is encouraging to see T.D. Jakes moving away from the heresy of modalism," said Malcolm B. Yarnell III, director of the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. "However, we should pray for him and exhort him privately and publicly to move into biblical orthodoxy without equivocation. Much of what Jakes stated about God the Trinity in this interview was correct. For instance he noted the simultaneous but distinct movements of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the baptism of Jesus. This is very true, though I might have described it differently."
Yarnell said Jakes incorrectly interprets 1 Timothy 3:16, which says "He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." Jakes uses that verse to argue for his usage of "manifestations," but Yarnell says the passage is speaking only of Jesus -- not the other members of the Godhead.
"The only 'manifestation' to which 1 Timothy 3:16 refers is the incarnation of God in Christ," Yarnell said. "... Jakes simply does not offer a proper exegetical basis for his unique theological term." [Yarnell's complete statement on Jakes' comments follows this story.]
Russell D. Moore, dean of the school of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said he takes "Bishop Jakes at his word that he holds to Trinitarianism."
"But there's still some elephants left in the room," Moore said. "First of all, Bishop Jakes isn't a new convert being discipled in the basics of the Christian faith. He is a celebrity mega-church pastor. Moreover, Trinitarianism isn't the 'meat' of some advanced doctrine, but the most foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. A Christian pastor affirming least-common-denominator Christian doctrine should hardly be news, much less an elephant in the room. This can only happen in an American evangelicalism that values success, novelty and celebrity more than church accountability."
Moore added, "There still stands the issue of the prosperity gospel Bishop Jakes preaches. Joyce Meyer and Kenneth Copeland are Trinitatians but their health and wealth gospel is different from the message of Jesus and His apostles."
--30--
Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. DVDs of the Elephant Room II can be purchased at TheElephantRoom.com. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).
Following is the transcript of the conversation between T.D. Jakes, Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald on the Trinity, beginning after Jakes was asked about his background:
Jakes: My father was Methodist. My mother was Baptist. My father's family was Methodist as far back as I can remember. I was raised in a Baptist church. But I was raised in church but I really didn't have a real committed experience with Christ until my father died. When my father died, I had a real experience with Christ -- a real conversion in Christ, and I had it in a Oneness church.
Driscoll: By Oneness meaning [what]? -- for those who do not know all the theological terms.
Jakes: Well it would be like, how do I explain it? It was not a UPC [United Pentecostal] church, in spite of the blogs. It was not a UPC church, but somewhat similar.
Driscoll: Jesus only, modalism?
Jakes: "Jesus only -- modalism" which is still a theological term. ... But Christians and Christians [who] believe in Jesus Christ, believe He died and rose from the dead, coming back again -- all the same things that you do. Pentecostal Christians by its virtue. But how they described and explained the Godhead in a traditional oneness sense is very, very different from how traditional Trinitarians describe the Gospel. And I was in that church and raised in that church for a number of years. My problem with it as I began to go on and as God began to develop my ministry, I started preaching from that church and from that pulpit and that sort of thing. But I'm also informed by the infiltration from my Baptist experience and my Methodist experience, so I ended up Metha-Bapti-Costal in a way. So I'm kind of like a mixed breed sitting up here, OK? And what I began to find out [is that] it is easy to throw rocks at people that you don't know, but the more you really get to know them and see Christ work in their lives, regardless of their belief system, you begin to try to be a bridge-builder. ... When you try to build bridges between people who've been fighting for hundreds of years -- hundreds of years before you ever even got into the discussion. There is an old adage that says 'he who stands in the middle of the road gets hit by both sides.' So as I began to progress, I began to understand that some of the dogma that I was taught in the Oneness movement was very dogmatic and very narrow and really not the best description of how I now understand the Godhead. I still did not want to switch teams and start throwing rocks back across the street, because much of what we do today is teach people to take sides. But I believe we are called as the Body of Christ to reconcile wherever possible.
MacDonald: Alright, but before we even get into -- and I think what you're leading us into is wise and helpful and it reflects why we're here -- how we relate to people who differ is on subject. Before we even go to that, I'd love to give you an opportunity to just -- like there were some particular Scriptures that began to inform you, you began to move and develop in what you personally believe. I'd like to just hear you articulate that.
Jakes: My struggle after I was ordained and consecrated in the Oneness church was in several passages, sometimes the doctrine fits; sometimes it doesn't. And when the doctrine becomes the primary thing you force it into many places where it doesn't fit. I really at this point in my life don't want to force my theology to fit within my denomination. I am open to hear whatever God is saying. Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River, for example, coming up out of the water the Holy Spirit descends like a dove, the Father speaks from heaven -- and we see all three of them on one occasion, or in Genesis "let us make man in our own likeness" or Elohim -- He is the one God who manifest Himself in a plurality of ways. Or what Jesus says, "I am with the Father, and the Father is in me" and understanding -- or attempting to understand. And that began to make me rethink some of my ideas and some of the things that I was taught. I got kind of quiet about it for a while. Because when you are a leader and you are in a position of authority, sometimes you have to back up and ponder for a minute, and really think things through. I began to realize that there are some things that could be said about the Father that could not be said about the Son. There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and the working of the redemptive work of Christ. I'm very comfortable with that. You and I have talked; [Jack] Graham and I have talked; there is very little difference in what I believe and what you believe. But here is where I find the problem: 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.
Driscoll: ... We all would agree in the nature of God there is mystery, and it's like a dimmer switch: how much certainty, how much mystery. But within that, Bishop Jakes, for you the issue between Trinitarianism and Modalism at its essence is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God three persons simultaneously existing eternally. ... And I understand, there is some mystery -- for sure. Would you say it's One God manifesting Himself in three ways, or One God in three persons?
Jakes: I believe that neither one of them totally did it for me, but I think the latter one is where I stand today.
Driscoll: One God, three Persons?
Jakes: One God, three Persons. One God, Three Persons, and here is why -- I am not crazy about the word "persons." ... My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except for the ...
Driscoll: The word "manifestation."
Jakes: Manifest instead of persons. Which you describe as modalist, and I describe it as Pauline. Let me show you what I'm saying. When I read 1 Timothy 3:16, I didn't create this. ... "And without controversy," which I think we have been bickering about something that is what Paul describes as a mystery, and I don't think we should do that. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. So God was manifest in the flesh." Now Paul was not a modalist, but he does not think that it is robbery to the divinity of God to say God was manifest in the flesh. And I think maybe it's semantics. But Paul says this before this fight was started. But He also says God "was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached until the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory." Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, 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 -- [that happened] only in the person of Jesus Christ. Coming back for us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has 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.
MacDonald: Not at all.
Jakes: So that is consistent with my belief system. 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 that are 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. ... it's almost like the stereotypical ideologies we have about races. We have little ideas about denominations and movements. The reason I applauded what you said earlier about people who have dual affiliations: We are taught in society that if we disagree with any movement, we leave. We sever. Oh, you said something I disagree with we fall out and then we walk away. I still have fellowship, associations, relationship, and positions within and without Trinitarian and Onenness movements, because I believe that until we bridge the gap between our thinking and humble both sides and say, "We are both attempting to describe a God we love, that we serve, and that we have not seen. And that we are viewing Him through the context of the Scriptures, but that with a glass darkly." Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when all that I know and understand, be it very orthodox, is still through a glass darkly? And then face to face. None of our books about the Godhead or anything else will be on sale in heaven. You know why? Because we're only authorities down here, with our little kingdoms in this world. I think it's so important that we realize that our God is beyond our intellect. And if you can define Him and completely describe Him and say you are the end-all definition of who God is, then He ceases to be God. Because the reason Paul says it is a mystery, is that we deify the fact that God does things that don't fit our formulas.
Driscoll: Let me jump in here. I want to say a couple of things. Thank you for joining us. You don't have to be there. You were on the cover of Time magazine. You have options of where you go.
MacDonald: This isn't your biggest gig ever? [laughter]
Driscoll: It takes a lot of courage and humility to put yourself in an unscripted situation and to be outside of your normal tribe. And the fact that you showed up to dinner last night, I was shocked. I was like, "T.D. Jakes is coming to dinner?" I loved you. I enjoyed you. I really appreciated hearing your story of your family in context and your upbringing. And I walked away going, "I really appreciate getting to meet and know and enjoy that man. So thank-you for being gracious; thank-you for being courageous; and thank-you for being humble. And I think it might be helpful because, You're coming out of a Oneness background and out of a different context than a lot of us are. You've demonstrated humility, saying "I've been studying the Bible and I'm even changing some thinking as I'm studying." A lot of pastors will just defend their first position to death rather than humbly reconsidering it biblically. Maybe to help others understand you, on the flip side, How have you been treated and what has the response been from some who were friends that you don't want to throw rocks at, but because of your transition.
Jakes: That's what's funny about this, that's what's really funny to me.
Driscoll: Are you the heretic to them?
Jakes: Oh, very much so in many circles.
Jakes: ... Many of the circles that I came from would never allow me in their pulpit because they consider me a heretic. I have to read the article to see which heretic I am.
MacDonald: We'd be honored if you'd come be with us and let's all grow together.
Jakes: OK, and that'd be great. But I think the time has come for us to be willing to take the heat to have a conversation. Because if we do not do this, and we continue to divide ourselves by ourselves and compare ourselves with ourselves, we do it at the expense of decreasing numbers of new Christians in our country. We have to mobilize. Just for your consideration: This is the only thing that Jesus prayed that we can answer. He only prayed, "Father, I pray that they may be one even as You and I are also one." And this is the one thing that is within our power to answer, and we do not do it.
Driscoll: Can I ask a couple of quick questions, and then we can do whatever you want. Do you believe this is the perfect, inspired, final authority Word of God? [Driscoll holds up a Bible]
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: So you believe there's one God, Three Persons -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit? You believe Jesus was fully God, fully Man?
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: You believe He died on the cross in our place for our sins?
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: You believe He bodily rose from death?
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: You believe that He is the judge of the living and the dead?
Jakes: Yes.
Driscoll: And you believe that Apart from Jesus there is no salvation?
Jakes: Absolutely.
Driscoll: Thank-you. [applause]
MacDonald: That was crazy! I've just want to say this: I am so weary of people thinking they know -- they don't know I think you honor us and you humble us, a man of your stature and commitment to the Gospel and fruitfulness would come and sit in this room, let you and me ask him what he believes? ... I just want to say this, I think you've honored us, and you've shown immense humility, and I want to be in the world where I believe that Jesus Christ stands. And He's told us again and again He stands with the humble. "Get to those people who love my Son, who believe my Word, who express humility." And I'm honored to hear what you said. I want to just say, further, Mark, if I could contribute to this, that I feel deeply in my heart that God is both three and one. Three and one. I believe the Scripture is very clear when we get to heaven, we are going to see Jesus -- the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declare. Jesus is the only God we will ever see. When I was studying Revelation last year I was struck by the number of times that I saw in the book of Revelation that it almost seems in the text like the Father and the Son are on the same throne, and when I start to think about this, I believe in God eternally existing in three persons. But, the more I think about it, the more I feel like my head is going to explode, and I get a little weary of people who feel that they need to erase mystery and replace it with certainty as a test of orthodoxy. If what we have heard today doesn't satisfy, then the person is insatiable, and I'm ready to move on to a new subject. I believe that very strongly.
Jakes: Let me just make one little comment: One of the things that you said at the end, even as we talked about it before, and I've heard Jack Graham say this, too, that there is going to be one throne and there's going to be one God we can see. And I thought the more I hear everybody arguing about this, we're all saying the same thing. And we like fight about it to the death, and I just think that in the world that we're living in today, if we could just connect, and I know that there will always be distracters and there will always be people who define themselves by their differences rather than their connections, who are more comfortable with being known by what they are against than by what they are for. But when I hear you say that there's going to be one throne and one God on that throne, My soul leaps in celebration, and I hear both of us stumbling trying to explain how God does what He does like He does. I think THAT stumbling is worship. I think THAT stumbling is worship. I think the fact that we would humble ourselves and say, "Your thoughts and ways are beyond human comprehension" is what makes worship fill the room.
*****************
Following is Malcolm Yarnell's full statement:
In response to T.D. Jakes' recent statements on the Trinity, we can affirm seven things, though with some cautionary statements included, especially about proper biblical exegesis:
First, the goal of unity in Christ (John 17:21-23) is both laudable and necessary. Yet such unity must be founded on the "truth" (John 17:17) revealed by God in Jesus Christ and recorded in the Word inspired by the Spirit. True unity requires that we confess the true Christ, the second person of the Trinity revealed in Scripture, and not a Christ of our own fashioning.
Second, the call for civility in Christian discourse is also much appreciated. We ought to restrain ourselves from loosely casting around such terms as "heretic" or "heresy." Before using these terms, we should be absolutely sure what the terms mean and that they actually apply.
Third, Jakes is correct that Scripture should shape our theology and not that we should make Scripture fit into our theology. And though I agree with him on this in theory, he has unfortunately misread Scripture to fit his purpose of "building bridges."
Fourth, Jakes is correct that we must know and speak about what we are for rather than what we are against. This is living with our eyes on the positive nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Fifth, it is encouraging to see T.D. Jakes moving away from the heresy of modalism. However, we should pray for him and exhort him privately and publicly to move into biblical orthodoxy without equivocation. Much of what Jakes stated about God the Trinity in this interview was correct. For instance he noted the simultaneous but distinct movements of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the baptism of Jesus. This is very true, though I might have described it differently.
On the other hand, Jakes also speaks errantly. This derives from the fact that he is effectively trying to hold two positions without seeing that his proffered mediating category is ultimately untenable. Jakes stated he wants to have "dual affiliations" with both Oneness and Trinitarian churches. This is the goal behind his equivocation, and he relies on unique terminology to enable his dual theology. Although stating he is willing to use "persons" to describe the Trinity, he is also clear he would prefer not to do so. (There have been orthodox theologians who also registered difficulty with the term "person," but typically they object to modernist meanings attached to the term, meanings different from the classical Christian understanding. Jakes, however, is rejecting the term not because it has been misunderstood but because it is offensive to Oneness Pentecostals, whom he deems Christian.)
T.D. Jakes wants to have both Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals, who are Unitarian Modalists, classified as brothers in Christ at the same time. But you cannot affirm both are in the realm of truth without removing the Trinity as a fundamental basis of the Christian faith. You cannot have both beliefs at the same time: either God is both three and one (as Trinitarians believe and Unitarians deny) or God is only one (as Unitarians like Oneness Pentecostals believe and Trinitarians deny). There is no bridging this divide without losing the Trinity itself, for He is the God we worship.
Instead of using the term "persons," Jakes has long confessed he believes the "one God" is "eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (see Potter's House Belief Statement at http://www.thepottershouse.org/Local/About-Us/Belief-Statement.aspx). Jakes then proceeds to use "manifestations" in ways he hopes that both Trinitarians and Unitarians might find acceptable. Jakes, moreover, argues that "manifestations" derives from 1 Timothy 3:16. But he misuses the term's meaning in that passage, wrenching it from its Christological context and transferring it to the Trinity. The only "manifestation" to which 1 Timothy 3:16 refers is the incarnation of God in Christ. God was "manifested" in the flesh of Christ; this Christ was "justified" or "vindicated" by the Spirit through the Resurrection; this Christ was "received up into glory." The manifestation of God was Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16, not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. The Father and the Spirit are indeed at work in this passage but not as "manifestations." Instead, the Father and Spirit work through the Son, who is God manifested in flesh so we can see and hear and touch Him. Jakes simply does not offer a proper exegetical basis for his unique theological term.
Sixth, with regard to the same biblical passage, let us recognize that although there is "mystery" in Scripture, this is no reason to paper over real differences in theology. Where God reveals, there is no more hiddenness in the mystery, for the mystery has now been disclosed, for us in Scripture. The point of 1 Timothy 3:16 is not to say that the Trinity is an undisclosed mystery but that the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ is the mystery of God now disclosed. An appeal to a continuing mystery in this passage actually subverts the passage's meaning. Moreover, to claim that Scripture is dark is a repudiation of the Reformation rediscovery of the clarity of Scripture. Scripture is clear and God has sent His Spirit to lead us into all the truth He inspired the apostles and prophets to record therein (John 14:26, 16:12-15).
Seventh and finally, as a fallen human being saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, I concur with Jakes that theology, the human attempt to explain divine revelation, is a "stumbling" matter. I also agree with Jakes' interlocutors that we are all growing in our theology. However, I must disagree with T.D. Jakes when he says, "we're all saying the same thing," because Trinitarians and Unitarians definitely are not saying the same thing. But I hope he keeps reflecting on Scripture, which he has been doing, for it clearly and unequivocally reveals the eternally Triune God, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, into whose entire name orthodox Christians are baptized.
Editor's note: This post has been updated with correct host site.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey on January 27, 2012 8:40PM
Comments
Thanks so much for this...very helpful in trying to understand the context and what all the fuss is about!
Posted by: mez mcconnell at January 28, 2012
This event was held at Harvest Bible Chapel's Aurora campus outside Chicago, not FBC Jacksonville. Where'd you get that it was held in Jacksonville? Need to correct that.
Posted by: Freddy at January 28, 2012
Hey everyone. I am the author of the article, and we corrected the error pretty quick after posting the story on our website Friday:
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37054
Posted by: Michael Foust at January 28, 2012
I should have added that it was held in Illinois, as Freddy says. That is the error that we corrected.
Posted by: Michael Foust at January 28, 2012
I was in attendance at the elephant room and appreciate the correct representation that you have made here. thank you soo much.
Posted by: bryan n. at January 29, 2012
Thank you for posting this article. What an interesting forum and discussion. I have always found this topic to be interesting. I have heard very well thought out discussions from both oneness and trinitarian components and can appreciate anyone trying to arrive at a biblical conclusion. The book "The Oneness of God" by David Bernard was especially interesting/useful to me (Free to download here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bz02hAUAD2X-MjA5Zjg3ZjQtZmNiZC00MGE4LTk1NDgtYTQzZmQ2ZTI3NDA5 ). Please keep posting articles on this topic! Thank you again for this reporting.
Posted by: Rev. Braden Andersen at January 29, 2012
great article!
i'm a Trinitarian, but don't believe it's a necessary doctrine for salvation. no doctrines are. i'm also arguably a heretic as are my Baptist ancestors.
i wanted to point out some points from the preamble to the SBC Faith and Message concerning statements of faith or theological beliefs for Southern Baptists:
(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.
(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.
(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.
(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.
the word Trinity is no where to be found in scriptures. the idea of the Trinity as 'understood' by modern Baptists et al is irrational. to force someone to confess an irrational belief or to be called a heretic is unconscionable for any group, but especially a Baptist one.
in order to please the humanism of the 20th Century, Baptists have fallen prey to Modernism or the rational-materialism of Modern Science. this Modernism has fallen apart due to Postmodernist revelations. the Trinity can not and has not survived the rationalism of Modernism. however, a Postmodern philosophy allows for the non-sense of the Trinity to be possible and acceptable to the current culture. a Postmodern Fundamentalism — that rejects man-centred theology — is the only hope for Baptists' survival.
Baptists, et al, are in this dilemma. they either have to accept Modernism or reject the Trinity. they want Modernism so as to protect their certainty of truth claims — they have the correct doctrine and it's coherent: Systematic Theology. with Modernism they can also force others to agree with them through rational argument. however, Modernism is totally incompatible with mystery. it rejects the Trinity which is entirely non-rational.
Baptists need to return to their roots of Liberty and affirm all believers' freedoms to articulate their own understanding of scripture and to stop judging those who disagree intellectually, but agree in spirit. Postmodernity is not going away. On the contrariety, it is the only way the Church can be unified. It is a gift, for it attacks the rational-izations of the human mind that allow for the self to be exhalted above God.
Posted by: caleb grayson at January 29, 2012
Caleb and anyone else who may be unsure of the Trinity and how the Bible itself states clearly that there is a Trinity, please read the article called "Jewishness and the Trinity" by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. It's an excellent article, and it shows how even The Shema itself Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! reveals the Trinity in its use of the Hebrew word chosen for the word "one". The Jewish word for one is a plural "one", used also for a husband and wife becoming "one." There is a Hebrew word for one, where it is always singular, like "there is one sun in the sky". The Shema does not use the Hebrew word for one where it is singular, but the plural. I can't explain it as well as Arnold does in the article, plus he has many more examples. The English translation doesn't always convey the entire meaning.
The word "incarnate" is not in the Bible, yet Jesus is God "incarnate". Just because a particular word is not found, does not mean that it is not spoken of using different words.
As for "doctrines" there will always be doctrines and they are not evil. To say you have no doctrines and that they aren't important is wrong. Christian doctrines declare that Jesus is God, was born of a virgin, died for our sins, rose again in 3 days, and will return again. It's important to know what your church teaches (their doctrines) or you could end up with the JW's who say that Jesus is the archangel Michael, or the mormons, who say that Jesus is the spirit brother of satan. God does not change, and the important doctrines of the church should not either, some ARE essential for the faith.
Posted by: melanie at January 29, 2012
I hear and see so many excuses for believing in the false doctrine called trinity, and that is all it is, an excuse. An excuse to deny the truths of the word of God. I always knew Jakes was weak and easily influenced. The scriptures being used in this article are so grossly misinterpreted, makes those who support it look intelligent, which that is what they want any way. All the while being grossly decieved!
Posted by: Allen at January 29, 2012
To say that the Shema proves the trinity is just silly. I have studied Hebrew in the Jewish Temple under Jewish instructors and they have and will flatly deny that assertion, as they should. The doctrine of the trinity is a Catholic doctrine and a cursory glance at church history and the various councils will very easily show that. I find it ironic that Driscoll has publicly embraced Catholics as heaven bound Christians with all of their extremely non-biblical doctrines but deny the Christianity of a monotheistic believer. If you believe in the trinity, you may as well pray the Hail Mary, Rosary, and believe in transubstantiation. They are Catholic in origin. Just my two cents...
Posted by: JDP at January 29, 2012
Please read Fruchtenbaum's entire paper, it's easy to find on the Internet. I am not a Hebrew scholar like you, although I probably know more about pharmacology than you, we all have the various fields of knowledge that we've studied, usually according to our interest. It is just one point of his in a published paper. Of course the Jews are going to deny it, it doesn't match their point of view. But maybe you can explain why they used the word echad for "one" instead of yachid, when in all other cases in the Bible, the correct term is used for the word one. I've never read a rebuttal to his paper, perhaps you can be the first published on this.
Posted by: melanie at January 29, 2012
Hey Michael,
In the interest of fair press, I think it'd be great to get input from a leader in the Oneness Pentecostal movement. You've quite unfairly labeled the United Pentecostal Church International as "modalists." No feelings are hurt, because quite a few other people writing on this issue have done the same. The stance mentioned in this article of modalism being "one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways" is theologically incorrect as well as incorrect with our beliefs. Please email me if you'd like to fix it. I will connect you with someone who can speak on behalf of the UPCI.
In the interests of the trinitarian belief, it would be good to correctly state what Oneness Pentecostals believe if you're going to correctly convince people otherwise. It feels as if 1)the trinitarian community has refused to take the time to learn what was originally believed and not just adhere to Catholic orthodoxy or 2) they are purposely creating a theological straw man which they can easily destroy.
Your article seems to be accurate to what happened at the Elephant Room according to another poster. However, it's not accurate in it's assumptions of our beliefs.
Thanks so much for your work on articles like these. I look forward to hearing from you.
Posted by: Ryan at January 29, 2012
The article is interesting.I believe in the trinity is expressed in the the Word of God as seen in the scripture of when Jesus was baptizing.
I have done some research on the Oneness Movement/Apostolic Pentccostal/United Pentecostal. It is my understanding that they reject the trinity, and states that salvation is found in Acts 2:38. If you have not done as Acts 2:38, you are not saved.
Further more they are listed among the Mormons, JW, SDA, roman Catholic, etc as a cult. See google for all sites with respect to this.This is why we need to examine our doctrines and scripture explaineth scripture. God's Word is the final authority. We must study prayerfully, and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us into ALL truth. He does not lie.
Posted by: Dee at January 29, 2012
Good article, bad title. As Dr. Yarnell so clearly wrote in his response there are still problems as long as Jakes says, "We're saying the same thing. I admit that I label Oneness as modalism, but I'd be interested to hear why its not from a UPC person. And finally, Post-modernity is a gift? You mean like, from God? Seriously? I would submit its no more a gift of God that modernity. Both have complicated things from pre-modernity. Which while it was not a gift either, was much more compatible with monotheism and the supernatural.
Posted by: Clark Dunlap at January 29, 2012
If the doctine of the Trinity is orthodox as you say, why do no orthodox Jews ascribe to it. This is the primary reason that they reject modern Christianity becasue of this doctrine. Jakes is absolutley correct in the use of the word manifestations to describe the work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the express image of God, not a seperate person.Read the book of John which is replecte with discussions of the unity or "oneness" of God and Christ, Jesus himself said, If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". Up until the time of Jesus birth God did not have a physical form, but existed in theophanies such as the bush that spoke to Moses. The Holy Spirit was sent as another manifestation of God's presence following Jesus' ascension.
There will be one throne in heaven, and Jesus will sit on it....I compeletely agree with that statement that was made by an avowed trinitarian. If there are three distinct persons then which one will sit on the throne, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
I prefer to believe that there is one God, who was expressed as Father in creation, as Son in redemption, and as Holy Spirit in revelation. This does not require a rocket-science degree to figure out. I am a son, I am also a father, and I am also an uncle, but I am only one person. My attributes are only descriptive in nature, just as those attributed to God.
If the trinitarian doctrine is correct, then should we alos look foa Lion of the Tribe of Judah in heaven, or some other description of God that is a manifestation? No. When I go to heaven I will be looking for the one who gave himself for me, that is Jesus, who was God manifested in the flesh.
I would like to see a contrasting article written by any oneness pstor to balance your coverage of this conversation as well. I am sure there are many who would be glad to explain it better than I can.
Posted by: David at January 29, 2012
David's explanation is by far superior to any of the labored attempts at explaining by the so called theologians heretofore written. Amen
Posted by: John at January 30, 2012
I had never before heard of the Catholic Church being called a cult, but I know that Oneness Pentecostals are called a cult because of their monotheistic beliefs. That is a shame, because the definition of a cult is a group that does not correctly follow scripture; its broad application includes every group that does not believe in the trinity, irregardless of how closely and accurately that group studies, teaches and preaches the Word of God. The word trinity does not appear in the Bible, which states clearly that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily - not the other way around. The doctrine of the trinity was produced by men long after the birth of Christianity. The Jewish people who were the first converts to Christianity understood that God is one. To them, multiple gods meant paganism. It is extremely doubtful that they would have accepted the concept of a triune God. The Bible is full of scriptures that explain the unique oneness of God, but nowhere is there an explanation of the trinity. Great is the mystery of Godliness - but understanding God as ONE LORD does not a cult make.
Posted by: Lyric Eads at January 30, 2012
I just want to know where in the the Book of Acts you will see where the Apostles baptized in the name of the Father, Son , and Holy Ghost. i only see they baptized in JESUS name. Acts 2:38
Posted by: gilbert at January 30, 2012
Going out on a ledge here to be marked but according to Jewish legend, Nimrod was killed by Shem (Moses son) for his heretic ways. The trinity doctrine can be traced to Nimrod and Babylon. Constantine (Pagan until baptism on death bed) and Eusebius wrote 50 copies called the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus. Now I know this gets tricky but were not there 2 versions of the Bible from the approximate time of the Nicene council? So which version did the Nicene council decide to go with? The apostles baptized in the name of Jesus, not his titles which are Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit. So the apostles either totally disobeyed Jesus or they knew EXACTLY what he was talking about in Mathew 28:19
Posted by: Dillard at January 30, 2012
Thank you for printing that wonderful interview, my wife will sit around and discuss this for awhile. I will be bring this article to the attention of my Bible study group this week.
Posted by: Calvin Smith at January 30, 2012
For someone that pastors such a large church,it would seem they would have a firm foundation. Sadly, this is not the case. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord:" Deuteronomy 6:4
Posted by: Paul at January 30, 2012
Protestantism at its best. Some want to be trinitarians without the ecumenical councils that affirmed the trinity in the first place and others reject the trinity based on Scriptures that a group of Catholic bishops put together. When will Protestants embrace orthodoxy to its fullest? Amazing how the major heresies of modern Christianity (JW, Mormons, Unity, and Prosperity Gospel) have done so well in Protestant America. When you throw out the Church everyone becomes their own pope. Have fun with your discussions!
Posted by: Jose Ma. at January 30, 2012
There really wasn't a lot of scripture discussed to determine a real conclusion about who or how many persons God Himself thinks He is. Doesn't God know the truth about Himself? Doesn't He want us to know Him? If He is not the author of confusion, shouldn't we look to His Word to find out who He is instead of looking to opinions about His word? The only thing that was truly established in this interview was the fact that one man has a wavering opinion about who God is. Making a determination about God from the opinions of men is not only unwise, but eternally dangerous. "Trinitarian" and "Oneness" are labels put on men because of the opinions of men; those terms didn't come from the Word of God, so they really don't mean anything. The only thing that matters is conforming what "we think" to what God thinks, because He is the only One that's right (Isaiah 55:8). By the way, the words "I am" are spoken by God Himself quite frequently in the Bible. That might be a good place to start to finding out who He says He is...
Posted by: Lynette at January 30, 2012
I don't think we should be too quick to say Jakes is now a Trinitarian: Dr. James White breaks this down even further.
It's just not as simple as affirming "One God - Three Persons." The fact is Jakes qualifies this multiple times in the session. In addition, they didn't even address his Word of Faith false gospel, which to me is his headline false teaching, though of course not of greater weight than the Trinity. The Word of Faith teaching is simply more well-known by the average person.
Posted by: David Westerfield at January 30, 2012
"In Oneness Pentecostalism, there is no distinction between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit." What a foolish and silly statement. Written by someone who thinks he knows what Oneness Pentecostals believe.
Posted by: Adam at January 30, 2012
For whoever said there is one throne, you are contradicting the Bible. In Mark 16:19 it says "So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God."
Col 3:1 "Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God."
Also Hebrews 10:12,Hebrews 12:2, 1Peter 3:22
For Paul, quoting The Shema "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord:" Deuteronomy 6:4 The word used in Hebrew for "one" is echad not yachid. Echad actually points to the Trinity, as it means "one, from a plural". such as a husband and wife are ONE. Echad is the word for parts that make up one.
If it was one God, and NOT 3 persons, the Hebrew word used would have been yachid. But God purposefully led them to use the Hebrew word echad. Check out the article I posted above by Arnold Fruchtenbaum with a lot more examples. It was written by a scholar for Jews for Jesus.
Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"
Why would Jesus pray to Himelf in the Garden, and all the other times? Why would He talk to the Father on the cross, if He was the Father? When Jesus was baptized, the Father spoke from heaven, and the Spirit descended in the form of a dove. Non-trinitarians are the ones who have to really twist plain Scripture.
Posted by: melanie at January 30, 2012
There is no way Anti-Nicaean and Post-Nicaean believers will EVER agree. But, I think the hardest thing for me is this: those who took the truth into paganistic heresy, accuse those of us who remain faithful to the apostolic doctrines, of heresy??? Who is the real heretic, here? If you believe exactly like the first church and experience what they experienced, you are not a heretic. Your church is not a cult. You are a true believer. Those who changed the original are the cultish heretics.
The apostles preached a simple gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We follow Him by obeying that gospel, just as the early church did. We believe and repent = Death. We are baptized with Christ = Burial. We become a new creature in the Holy Ghost baptism = Resurrection. How hard is that? But Post-Nicaean believers will never see the truth. They must first clean house and throw out all the changes made by the various councils - sweep away paganistic teachings - and seek pure, simple truth...the gospel of Jesus Christ. I doubt that most of them will ever change. They would have killed the apostles. They even would have crucified Christ, had they lived in His time on earth; for they believe in the councils, which began at Nicaea. Constantine did try to kill the true believers who hid underground after the Council of Nicea; but they never stopped believing the truth of the gospel. He is the one who changed baptism from the original formula of Jesus' Name to the titles - Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He is the one who killed the two bishops who refused to change their formula of baptism. He is the one who claimed a mandate from God to change the church. And after his so-called conversion, this evil man boiled his wife, killed his own son and double-crossed his allies, while continuing to worship pagan gods until his death. And now, Post-Nicaean 'Christians' revere him and fight to establish his doctrinal changes.
Anyone may go to the history books, even the Catholic Encyclopedia, and find the changes which were made in the apostles' teachings by various emperors, popes and councils. No one needs to remain ignorant. The truth is written, even in their own Post-Nicaean history books! Unfortunately, these proud men are ever learning, but NEVER coming to the knowledge of the truth. And that is what this is all about - the TRUTH!
I spoke with the leader of the Middle East Council of Churches. He declared to me that NO ONE who is Anti-Nicaean in their beliefs, would EVER be allowed to join any of the Councils of Churches in the world. Bishop Jakes, are you sure you want to appease these men? They will NEVER accept you anyway. Either you will leave the pure, apostolic message entirely and enter their apostate fold, or you will be ostracized like the true believers of old. They have their tentacles into you now and are pulling you into their heretical teachings. Oh, how I wish you would stand with the twelve and declare the pure gospel as they did on the day of Pentecost. This battle is about Truth. This battle is about the Gospel. This battle is about the very Diety of Christ, Himself. It was worth the sacrifice of countless believers, who gave their life's blood at the hands of Post-Nicaean "Christians". It is still worth the price, Bishop Jakes. For the anointing of God is more precious than the acclaim of men and the temptation of money. Take everything - but give me 'Jesus', for I am complete in HIm.
I do understand reaching out to other believers. I know that many of them are close to being born again of water and spirit. We must not kill these babies. We should nurture and love them. But the men you are reaching out to are not sincere seekers of truth. They are the ones who destroy babes in Christ. You will never reach the hungry by feeding killer dogs! You only empower the destroyers.
Jesus did not play these games. He did not enter into useless dialogue with the scribes and Pharisees. He did not try to appease or placate them. He side-stepped them and reached out to the masses of hungry seekers. We must learn to do as He did...side-step those who would destroy His message and reach out to the babes in Christ. May God be with you. You are in our prayers, Bishop Jakes.
Posted by: Yvonne at February 1, 2012
To me this entire discourse seems like a waste of time. In the end who is right and who is wrong?The average Christian will never address this issue to the extent that you have belabored it.Will they be lost? Will it really make a difference in eternity? Will God say "depart from me, I know ye not" because of this.To call Jakes a heretic because of his belief is ludicrous. It sounds like things kids do on the playground. Here we go again: A man goes outside of the establishment and the attempt is to reel him in by virtue of name calling. In my view if God wanted Jakes to think differently he'd tell him. Come on, get real. I believe you could better spend your time for the Kingdom.
Posted by: Charles M. King at February 2, 2012
i like how people pick and choose individual scriptures. Jesus sits at the right hand? Mary was conceived by the spirit therefore the spirit is the father, so i guess theres two fathers? or is the father the spirit, no he cant be according to trinitaritism. father not the spirit father not the son, whatever, if you dont know where these following verses are maybe you shouldnt post a comment. if jesus is not fully the father then worshipping jesus would be idolatry, jesus was worshipped over 10 verses in NT. Isaiah prophesied the son would be called the everlasting father. when paul cast out the spirit he didnt say in the name of the father, when peter healed the lame man he didnt say in the name of the father. rev 22:3 the lamb sits on the throne. who do all knees bow father (isa 45) or jesus (phi 2) you trinitaritans have fun when christ returns as Zechariah (14:9) prophesied of this time there is one lord and his name one. (james 5:7) are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you 'epikaleomai' (entitle or invoke) to designate the latter (soul) as the property of the former (Jesus). i could go on but this should be enough
Posted by: travis at February 2, 2012
why does it matter? yes it will make a difference for salvation, if your not 'sphragizo' marked you are lost. why did he say depart from me in matt 7. they did many wonderful works, its because he did not know them. without the spirit you are none of his. how do you get it, obedience to the gospel. 'what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel' paul declared it death burial and resurrection, we mirror it buried and risen in baptism dead to sin. the one dead is justified from sin.let me make it simple peter was given the keys what doctrine he binds on earth is bound in heaven. which is acts 2:38 those sealed in revelation have jesus name in their foreheads not powerless titles. try reading acts 4:12 there is no other name by where we MUST be saved.
Posted by: travis at February 2, 2012
Caleb Grayson says "I'm a Trinitarian,but don't believe it's a necessary doctrine for salvation. No doctrines are".
No! Caleb you may not be a 'heretic' but when you say that 'no doctrines are' necessary for salvation, that sounds like new-age to me. What you seem to be saying is that we can all call ourselves 'Christian' while believing what ever we want. All you are doing is re-creating Babel.
If the teaching that God is 'three persons in one essence' is not necessary for salvation, then what about the Virgin Birth or the sinlessness of Christ? What about inerrancy, salvation through faith alone or the second coming?
I would agree that we should endeavour to 'maintain the unity for which Christ died', however, truth must trump unity. When two persons have differing beliefs on the same subject there can only be two explanation 1. either one or the other is wrong or 2. both of them are wrong.
There is such a thing as 'sound doctrine'. The task of the true believer in Christ is to 'rightly divide the word of truth.'
Posted by: Steve Skeete at February 3, 2012
Bishop, this reads like you've been allowed to join the "Ol boys club." From the looks of it the club will not be satisfied until you say "persons."If the diciples thought He were three I believe they would have stressed that and God would have inspired those who wrote to believe it. I have one question? Is the Holy Ghost a person? Is the Holy Spirit a person? How can a spirit or ghost be a person? There is one Lord one faith one baptism. The Lord our God is one. He is not three persons.
Posted by: Kimberly Banks at February 4, 2012
With Oneness theology comes the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, or a reasonable facsimile. I heard Jakes talk on Acts 16 and made explicit statements about Lydia's conversion being attributed, at least in part, to her water baptism.So Jakes may be moving into Orthodox Godhead theology, but his soteriology views needs similar attention. This is something that can't be overlooked.
Posted by: gary george at February 6, 2012
jakes never had the revelation. one cannot undo revelaion. if there were three person at jesus baptizm they would have see three. God is a spirit jn 4 24 which we cannot see, and the holy spirit was a spirit too. One literal person Jesus. God is in all the universe, he overshadowed mary and Jesus was born divine and human in one person. Jesus did not exhist till the cells started dividing in the womb. and when Jesus asscended the same spirit came back and live in us by the baptizm of the Holy Ghost. three manifestation of one spirit God.
Posted by: linda sadler at February 6, 2012
IN the name of the father. FATHER IS NOT A NAME. Col 3 17 all you do in word and deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. i believe that those who have the revelationa and have received the Holy Ghost will be in the first ressurection. blessed oare those who are part of the first ressurredtion.
Posted by: linda sader at February 6, 2012
If Jesus didn't pre-exist before the incarnation, what does 1Cor 10 mean when it talks about the Jews crossing the Red Sea in the OT:
"For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." 1Cor 10
Why does Gen 3:22 say this? "Then the LORD God (YHVH Elohim) said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us" Gen 3:22
Posted by: Tammy at February 6, 2012
I Have a question I have witness both teachings to have received the Holy Ghost speaking in other Tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. SO that would would mean they all are believers right ????
According to Scripture you must believe to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.( And repentance is necessary also. )
My point is good to have discussions the apostle Peter says there's know scripture of private interpretation right some interpreted different then others, therefore we bear with fellow delivers I think its wrong to label others when they don't see it your way other then the one plan of salvation Paul says til we all come ito the unity of the faith Ep. 4 read it.
The main thing is to believe in Jesus Christ and however God has it together we will understand it better in the sweet by and by am I right. Amen amen
Posted by: Bishop Geogre Moore at February 6, 2012
In the last days the very elect would be fooled. Jesus is God. There is no trinity and it never existed til 325 a.d. at the council of nicea. Now I say to all Trinitarians: If you believe God is three persons; you have limited God. Finally you have embraced the doctrine of Catholicism because that's where it came from.
Posted by: Twila Davis at February 7, 2012
After a week of sifting through the dialogues it's obvious that Jakes is STILL a Modalist........have to watch his play on words.
Posted by: Forgivensinner at February 7, 2012
After seeing people post incorrect info over and over, I thought I might mention that the Trinity was not first brought up at the Council of Nicea. Tertullian was the first to use the word Trinity in approx the year 200AD. He was not an early Catholic church father, he was an early believer.
If your pastor has been teaching you incorrectly, you might ask him why.
Modalists continue to ignore the verses in Genesis, where God is speaking about Himself and uses the word "us". Gen 3:22 "Then the LORD God (YHVH Elohim) said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us" And this has been posted a couple of times, but nobody had a reply to it. Even The Shema itself Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! REVEALS the Trinity in its use of the Hebrew word chosen for the word "one". It uses the word ECHAD. The Jewish word for one is a plural "one", used also for a husband and wife becoming "one." Try to understand-in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, the word for ONE IS PLURAL. If you have ever taken a foreign language like German, they have a word for you (singular) and a word for you (plural). Well Hebrew has a word for one (singular), like there is ONE SUN, and a word for one (plural), like "a husband and his wife are made ONE". Echad is used in deut, which is for the word one PLURAL. God could have used the word YACHID for one SINGULAR, but He did not. He PURPOSEFULLY chose the word for one PLURAL. And as for the argument that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible, neither is the word "incarnate", yet we believe that Jesus is God incarnate (in the flesh). Talk about being blind to the truth!
Posted by: twila at February 7, 2012
In the latter days, there shall be a GREAT falling away. A falling away from BASIC foundational TRUTHs that can not be refuted. An utter shame and disgrace just for popoularity and fame. There is One Lord, One faith, One spirit and One baptism (Eph 4:5). There is ONLY ONE GOD who maifested himself into three disctint offies to redeem mankind back unto Him. To whit, God was IN Christ redeeming the World back unto Himself. Bro Jakes, you just couldn't hold fast to the Teaching (Doctrine) that you received from the Fathers. I'm sure if they were here today, what a SAD sad time this would be. James, there is nothing NEW under the sun. You got up to soon from prayer. You took you heart and love for the TRUTH off of the tenets of the Word, for just worldy gain...how soon are you deceived...even the mighty men have fallen. Unfolding from our eyes is the great falliung away. Remember: God is not mock and Bro Jakes, REPENT and return unto your first works...it's not about YOU, its about SOULS. Leading SOULS to Christ. Bro Jakes, you shouldn't look for acceptance with every religious group. It's not about popularity. LISTEN to the VOICE of God, that is if your heart is in tuned with HIM...Jesus, the One and Only GOd. There is no other GOd BUT Jesus. Jesus is God Jesus is the Holy Spirit and Jesus is Christ the Savior/Redeemre, the Son of GOD! Bro Jakes, GOd's sheep hear his voice, AND A STRANGER THEY WILL NOT FOLLOW. Who are YOU really representing? It's not the Lord Jesus. Souls are at stake, and YOu will answer for the confusion you are creating. God is the author of peace NOT confusion. Jakes, put on your armour, I think you forgot about the main piece (helmet of Salvation) becuase you thinking is affected. Now strage doctrince muses you. This started as you stated above quite some time ago. How can two walk toghether except they agree. What a pathetic shame. Repent while there is still time Bro Jakes. Luv ya IN JESUS'NAME...YOU CAN"T GET AWAY FROM IT, no MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY!
Posted by: A Brother in ERROR, Be Not Deceived! at February 9, 2012
When we begin to believe the doctrines of men above the Word of God we are headed for a downfall. The Bible never says (Hear O Israel the Lord our God is a Trinity). It reads "Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" (Deuteronomy 6: 4). The Trinity is a man made and man accepted false doctrine. There is no need in trying to reconcile the Trinity with the One God. The Trinity is a strongly held doctrine in Catholicism and was incorporated into the Protestant Churches. The Protestant Churches renounced many other doctrines of the Catholic Church, starting with Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwigli, and Felix Manz in the reformation, but held firm to the Trinity.
Jakes is right that there are different manifestations of One God, but there are not three persons according to the scriptures. The reason Jakes is reconsidering his oneness stance is because there's more money among trinitarians than oneness. He would lose over half his listeners and supporters if he continue to stand for the true oneness of God as the scriptures declare. I am not UPC, but I believe in One God and no Trinity, because it's scripture. The Bible even says "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble" (James 2: 19).It never said the devils believe in a Trinity. No believer in One God should ever recant to believe the false doctrine of the Trinity.
No apostle ever preached or wrote scriptures using the word Trinity, why should preachers do it today?
The preaching of One God manifested as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is not modalism, it's scripture. Using theological terms as modalism does not diminish the truth, it only shows your ignorance of the Holy scriptures.
On the day of Pentecost when the church got started, Peter didn't command the people to accept the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved, but rather he said "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2: 38). Today false prophets are demanding that you believe in the Trinity in order to be saved, this is not a biblical requirement but the doctrine of men.
Until we are willing to accept the Word of God as it is written we will never come into the knowledge of the truth. I likewise came from the background of the Baptist and Methodist Churches. But when I came into the knowledge of One God and the understanding that the Trinity originated from pagan philosophers and was incorporated into the Catholic Church, I took a stand for the Word of God and not the doctrine of men.
If we lack wisdom we should ask God and not believe some professor from a seminary.
In closing, believing in One God who manifested himself as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is not a cult, but a biblical fact which is backed up by the Word of God. When I think of the Trinity doctrine of one God in three distinct persons, I see a God who has six eyes, six feet, six ears, six hands, three noses, three mouths, three heads, thirty fingers, and thirty toes. This sounds like a freak God!
Posted by: D. Hall at February 10, 2012
As a Evangelical Christian I am pained by the, shall I call it dialogue, or as non-Christians would hear it, "in-fighting" by Christians. I am not denying the importance of having the correct understanding of Scripture, nor the debate that is needed between Christians. I am pained that all of this "infighting" has to be done in full view of the public, being headlined by a resignation. I believe it heaps ridicule, on the gospel of Jesus Christ, the mission of the church and Christians everywhere.
Posted by: Les Lanser at February 10, 2012
What a shame and blessing at the same time. The shame in knowing that a Mega-Church Leader didn't know the God The Father, Jesus Christ The Son, and The Holy Ghost. The blessings is that perhaps now his members can see some HEALINGS and correct teachings on the Word of God.
Posted by: Prophet Owen White at February 11, 2012
What we need to hear from any of these so called theologians is what their message would have been if they had been chosen instead of Peter on the Day of Pentecost. If they had been granted the keys to the Kingdom and trusted to deliver the first message for the New Covenant Dispensation. Would the Bible have to be amended after hearing their message to a lost and dying world. Does their message at this present time mirror Peter,s message that day that saved about three thousand? If not they are reducing the Apostles Doctrine message to vain rhetoric. Given the seriousness of man's sinful condition and the judgement of God, who's message should be trusted to deliver a soul. Only a Oneness view would have produced Jesus Name baptism as obedience to Jesus' command in Mt. 28:19. I sincerely hope that Bro. Jakes believes this.
Posted by: Bro. Ed Forman at February 12, 2012
Perhaps if we put love in its proper place (FIRST) before everything else that we so vehemently teach, maybe then, we could sit down and lovingly have this discussion, without calling one another "heretics" and foolish. Even, if there is never agreement, we would respect each other IF love really permeated our hearts.
Still, I can't deny that I am Oneness all of the way--not because I was taught it, not because I was a pew baby, but because God has revealed to me that it is right--even if most of the world rejects it as wrong. I don't have to prove or disprove anything. It is His Word.
This morning, I woke up in prayer and I heard God say, "people will do everything else in My Name, why the struggle to baptize in My Name?" Immediately, my mind went to the verse, "whatever you do in word or in deed, DO ALL, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ". I think that should settle that issue of baptism, and which mode is correct. Why is there so much opposition to the Name that so many pray for healing in, deliverance in, so many ask for prosperity and wealth in, but draw the invisible but very tangible line at the waters of baptism?
I know this, the Word of God is right, with all of the "tampering" and interpreting that has gone on since its words were first given by revelation--God preserved His Word. What He has for us to know, is still there, but we need some things revealed to us before we will grasp them. We have the revelation of the Name, but let us not be so ignorant that we forget that God has revealed things to other sheep (that ye know not of). We (Oneness Pentecostals) DON'T have it ALL, but we DO have the NAME--and we MUST hold fast to that Truth.
Posted by: Lisa at February 13, 2012
St. Ignatius of Antioch, student of the Apostle John - See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Posted by: Jonathan Michael Brouillette at February 14, 2012
All that I hear through the comments that each person has made is everyone trying to prove their belief is correct. I hear a bunch of theological, exegetic jargon that to me has nothing to do with winning souls to Christ. We are to be wise in winning souls not wise in what we interpret the Bible to be. I agree that the word "trinity" is not scripted in the bible. Man came up with this term and now we are using it in Christiandom to seperate others who believe different which causes confusion, dissension, and division. I know doctrine is for the purpose of preventing false belief, religion, doctrine but I also think that if we stay with the foundational truths of the word men will not be lost without Christ. Our purpose in sharing the Gospel with others is to reconcile them back into a relationship with God and escape eternal damnation and live eternally with Him. You all sound like a bunch of publicans, Scribes and pharisees. When you get to heaven you will not receive a theological, exegesis crown but a crown of righteousness and it will not be because you were right in your belief system. If we would stop trying to prove to man what we know about the kingdom and live out the kingdom then we will not have all these wars in the church, body of christ. I do not think I would even be on the panel, not because I would not know what to say but because it seems like another place for people to prove their point of view and debate the Gospel. Sounds like a bunch of Cholerics go to this.
Posted by: Pwaterz at February 14, 2012
There is no question about it. There is a mystery in Godhead. This mystery is enshrined in God's infinity. But to use this mystery to deny what is manifest is not healthy for Christians. God in three persons is so open that I can't understand how some people can just refuse to see it. There are secret things of God (Deut. 29:29) but there are also revealed things. We may not explain every revealed thing but we may need speak it out even if we don't understand fully what it means. Google 'Bita bought a bit of butter' and read how God gave the writer an illustration based on his school experience to explain that not understanding something doesn't disqualify its validity.
Lastly, doctrines are very important. Paul exhorts Timothy: "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16).
Posted by: Daniel Ogweno at February 14, 2012
You are so right Daniel. Although we cannot understand everything, to those whose eyes have been opened by God, we can see that the Trinity is taught from Genesis through Revelation. 1Cor 2:13-16 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ." And the oneness add more to what is required for salvation, and that is one reason they are considered a cult. They add legalism to salvation, they seem to worship the NAME "Jesus" more than the Savior Himself, who is 100% God and 100% man that came to die for our sins. They add baptism as a requirement for salvation. Although we are told to be baptized, if someone becomes a believer and then is hit by a car or something before they can be baptized, there is no question about their salvaion, they are saved, just like the thief on the cross was, and they also add spiritual elitism. Women are saved even if they wear pants, cut their hair, wear makeup, go to the movies, etc. There is a lot more than even the essential belief in the Trinity involved.
Posted by: melanie at February 14, 2012
My heart is sad as another person is returning to Egypt. Why? for power, friends, money,whatever appears to b important in Bishop Jakes life that he wants and can not get it being w Apostolic faith. There is One Lord One Faith One Baptism. Names define our family, you can not be in the family without the benefit of having their name. Therefore when you receive the revelation of the baptism in Jesus name u willl not leave it. Titles are Father, Son, Holy Ghost and matt is right baptize in the NAME of the Father son nd Holy Ghost, which is Jesus. God Bless
Posted by: Carol at February 14, 2012
Jakes has walked out from true Christianity and has embraced a pagan developed doctrine. He is no longer a Gospel preacher, but is merely an inspirational speaker now, walking away from the one true God, the Lord Jesus. It saddens me, but is also a clarion call to stand for the truth in the midst of heresies such as trinitarianism.
Posted by: Bill at February 18, 2012
Post a comment