Slice/CRN Discussion: Ed Young, Jr. C3 and TD Jakes
Issue: Bishop TD Jakes has been invited to speak at the Creative Church Conference (C3) Feb. 22-23, 2007, along with Ed Young Jr., Ed Young Sr. and Mark Driscoll. Both Youngs are members of the SBC, TD Jakes comes from a Pentecostal background and Driscoll is either emergent (if you ask the TR’s) or is a culturally relevant, but hard-core Calvinist (if you ask the emergents).
Slice/CRN Take: Jakes’ church has a differing view of the Trinity that is heretical. By sharing the same stage with Jakes, the Youngs are ‘unequally yoked’ and, as a result, the SBC is turning a blind eye to heresy, and, therefore becoming apostate. “Reverend” Ken Silva has written to Dr. Frank Page (president of the SBC) and Ed Young, Jr. to plea for them to prevent this. He has also written to Jakes to request clarification of his view of the trinity.
My Take: I see two issues here:
- Speaking on the same stage with a figure who will speak on a topic (church leadership techniques) that has nothing to with the area of controvery (a definition of Trinity) does not give carte blanche endorsement to everything that individual has to say. If he says something out of line with scripture, can we not trust the Holy Spirit to grant discernment to the pastors who will be in attendance? Ken’s increasingly shrill calls will most likely go unanswered – not because the gentlemen he has written are hell-bent on “Satan-inspired ecumenical ‘union’”, but because, as people in such public positions often do, they will see his calls for what they are – Guilt-by-Association (GBA) tactics from a hyper-critical ‘discernment blogger’.
- I believe Bishop Jakes’ view of the Trinity does differ from the traditional doctrine (which, should be noted, was developed long after the last of the Apostles died). Before the Church became overwhelmingly Western and Hellenistic, it still accepted that God was both One (Deut 6:4 – the most important command) and Three (Genesis 1:1-3), but it did not try to reconcile this seeming descrepency. Some tried to insist that He was really One (to try and make Jesus less than God), and others insisted He was Three (Creator, Holy Spirit and Word) AND One. As I read Jakes’ church’s definition (and it would be nice to see more clarification on WHY his church defines this differently), it still insists on both Three and One, but tries to define how the 3 and the 1 operate together. I am still failing to see, though, how this makes the God they worship – who they would say is YHWH – different from the God we worship – who we would also say is YHWH. I am NOT looking for what Ken says interpretively they believe (as I’m sure they would not agree with his straw-man definition as he has currently written it), but what they actually believe. So, until presented with evidence that Jakes’ church believe in a different God (i.e. Vishnu, Allah, etc.) or a different Jesus (a la Mormonism) or a different gospel (a la JW’s), I am hesitant to not consider him a Christian.
Â
I am certain there will folks who disagree with me, with CRN/Slice, or both.
26 Comments(+Add)
Chris,
I don’t think this is a topic that I could adequately comment on without a lot of time and further study.
But a couple of thoughts, in response to your second point: Have you read the article about Oneness Pentecostalism which Ken sited? I looked at it for about 10 minutes; it has some thought-provoking ideas. Some questions I have as a result of really only skimming the surface of that article are: Are Oneness Pentecostalists saying that God can be only one manifestation at one time? If so, to whom was Jesus praying while on earth? Who raised Him from the dead? Is Jesus who is a manifestation of God the same as Jesus who is God?
Also, in response to another part of your second point, “Is TD Jakes teaching another gospel?” I haven’t had enough time to research it to determine if it is possible, but I it’s something I’ve already considered as being true, before Ken Silva brought it up.
Also, if there were no trinity problems, and no “basic gospel” problems, the Word-Faith movement has significant problems that I would certainly not want my own pastor to be influenced by. I will just give two examples from my personal experience: 1) seeing a Word-Faith believer recoil in horror when I told her that I could be really sick and say “I think I might die tomorrow” and that there would be nothing wrong in that. She thought I was calling down a curse on myself.
2) Also a couple of people in my area who have had cancer have had Word Faith people come proclaiming that ithe cancer can only be present because the person with cancer has sin in their life.
As for your first point, I’ve seen many “leadership” conferences advertised, in which speakers that endorse non-Biblical things participate. These leaders worship together, do yoga together, etc. I think that God is granting discernment to some pastors – by showing them that they shouldn’t attend in the first place.
Also, you know I don’t agree with Ken Silva’s approach to things, but perhaps for trying to discuss the essence of what he is saying it would be better to leave such words as “shrill” out.
Amy,
I can’t speak to your question on Oneness Pentecostals – I’ve never met a living, breathing one to talk to, and as I’ve read some of what has been written about and by them, I would say that they seem to believe that God is manifested in these three ways and that He can be manifest in these simultaneously.
I disagree with the Word-Faith interpretation of scripture, wholeheartedly, and I think it dangerously makes God into a holy dispensing machine of sorts. What little of Jakes I’ve been able to read directly online doesn’t seem to be of the extremes of Benny Hinn and others of similar ilk.
On the subject of leadership conferences, I have been to multiple ones (through the corporate world), and have yet to see anything dealing with TM or yoga. As I read the conference agenda and descriptions that have been posted for C3, it doesn’t look anything like what you’ve described.
I seriously considered the word “shrill”, but I couldn’t come up with something that accurately described what I’ve been reading from Ken on the subject and the ultimatums given. All of the letters being posted, the bizarrely sarcastic response to Dr. Page’s reply, and the cresendo that seems to develop on this particular subject all seem, well, shrill.
Chris
Chris,
Have you been to any Christian leadership conferences?
Amy,
I have been to a two or three regional conferences here in Indiana, one a general leadership conference, and a couple specializing in youth. I gave a presentation at one of the conferences on project management and utilizing parents in leading an all-volunteer program (it’s been 4 or 5 years, and I don’t have my exact notes, or I could send you the slide decks).
In none of those (and in none of the corporate ones – including one that had Ken Blanchard speaking on servant leaderhip) was there the kind of things you described (which doesn’t mean that there aren’t conferences like that, as if you’ve seen them, I don’t question you).
At the same one I spoke at, there was a good presentation from a local downtown mission which I would consider (theologically) pentecostal, and I would disagree with some of the teaching at his church. However, that didn’t discount what he had to say on working with missions whose volunteers are mostly short-term volunteers.
I read Ken’s article and it immediately struck a chord with me because of something my friend said to me last year that I thought strange at the time but quickly overlooked. My friend, a man highly involved in Pentecostal circles and who attends a Pentecostal church, got into a strange conversation with me about the Trinity, trying to tell me that the Bible didn’t speak at all about the Trinity. When I showed him the verses about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are many, he sort of agreed but was trying to tell me something about just believing in Jesus or placing the importance on Jesus now because He is all that mattered. I agreed that Jesus was God the Son, but that the other 2 also exist in their own persons, just like the Bible says. He didn’t seem too convinced and I had never heard him say anything like this before. I didn’t really understand where he was coming from or why he even brought it up and I had never heard such things, being somewhat ignorant of errant teachings such as these. After reading Ken’s article, though, it struck me that my friend had possibly been getting some sort of teaching in his church about this very thing, although I’m not sure exactly what he was being told. But I put 2 and 2 together and realized that my friend may have been receiving this Pentecostal/Oneness teaching at his church and it had begun to cause him to doubt the Trinity or something. I don’t really understand it or why anyone would teach it, other than to malign the true character of God. So from first hand experience, it seems that Ken is correct and that these teachings are occurring, and knowing how dangerous this thinking is, I would never allow someone who teaches it to teach in my church, regardless of what the topic of the particular seminar was. It would be foolish to present a congregation with a particular teacher because how many in the congregation could be led astray if they looked further into the teachings of that speaker. This is why even some pastors won’t allow their preaching to be on TBN or certain stations if they have varying doctrine; it is protecting your flock and it’s the smart thing to do to stay associated with only those that are in agreement and unity on doctrinal issues.
Chris,
The conferences I’ve looked at had these kinds of things in them. Some of them I’ve looked at have involved something that I’m personally connected with . . . anyway I have some grave concerns about church and organization leaders getting connected with things that can be spiritually harmful.
I don’t doubt your experiences either.
Regarding the Trinity discussion, my approach to looking at any issue that relates to the nature of God would be to approach it with many questions and I admit, with expectations of the worst. I wouldn’t start by assuming that in the end the viewpoint is going to be one that doesn’t distort the true nature of God. I appreciate your sharing, Andrew.
Andrew and Amy,
Thank you both for sharing here.
On the issue of C3/Conferences in general, I think it is important to note that Young is not “sharing the pulpit” with Jakes, Driscoll or anyone – this is a conference during the week with general sessions and breakout sessions. As such, there will be a number of speakers (one would suspect) who would disagree on different points of theology, and as a conference-goes, I would never consider someone speaking at a conference to be wholesale endorsement from the organizers.
Andrew, you said
So, does this mean that if a conference is organized by an organization that is Calvinist in theology should never invite an Arminian and that Calvinist speakers should turn down any invitations from non-Calvinist events? If you want someone to speak on the subject of managing volunteers for a building project, and the best local expert available is Catholic, would you allow him to speak, or would you exclude him from allowable speakers because he’s the wrong kind of Christian? If you want someone to speak about managing security in youth programs, must the speaker’s theology align 100% with yours? When is a theological difference ‘big enough’ to not invite someone to a non-doctrinal event?
I am not trying to be a smart-alec here, I’m actually asking this question.
Part of the problem, it seems to me, is captured in Rob Bell’s statement from Velvet Elvis:
I agree that when we label something as a ‘Christian’ event/book/album/work, it gives some level of endorsement to that event – both in content and quality. At our church, we have a disclaimer in our bulliten (which is sometimes spoken, as well) that no wholesale endorsement of any artist, individual, media or work should be implied if part of it is used for some purpose by the church.
I think part of it comes down to what an individual’s expertise is, what they are speaking on, and whether or not what they are speaking on pertains to the disagreement in theological view.
On the issue of TD Jakes/Oneness doctrine, specifically:
Andrew, the way you’ve describe what may have been someone interpreting this doctrine I would have a lot of concerns about, as well. I wonder, though, if this person did belong to such a church and whether he understood what was being taught. To pick on Calvinism again, I’ve known a number of self-proclaimed Calvinists who held extreme interpretations of Calvin’s doctrine – arguing that the need for missions was a waste, because God already knows who is going to be saved. I also know a number of Calvinists who would disagree, vehemently, with this interpretation.
Scot McKnight, who aligns himself with the ECM, delivered a speech on the ECM at Westminster Theological Seminary (a Reformed school, mind you). In it, he said
. You can read the entire speech here.
Ideally, I would like to have someone from such a background explain what they believe rather than have a third party put words in their mouths and “beliefs” in their heads. Ken, in particular, has a history with this in his mischaracterizations of the ECM, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and other figures/movements, often creating multiple layers of straw men. This is why I would prefer a primary source, so that they could describe why they make the distinction they do in defining the trinity.
If One vs. Three is primarily a metaphysical disagreement (which is what I see the Calvinism/Arminianism debate really being – I claim neither, BtW), I would still disagree with the Oneness definition, as I prefer the unexplainable mystery of Oneness and Threeness of the Trinity. However, I would not take Ken’s stance that they worship a different god and are damned to outer darkness (I somehow doubt the thief on the cross could have elucidated a proper trinitarian view, since such a view didn’t exist for another 100+ years after his death…)
Grace and peace,
Chris
Chris,
You wrote:
“Speaking on the same stage with a figure who will speak on a topic (church leadership techniques) that has nothing to with the area of controvery (a definition of Trinity) does not give carte blanche endorsement to everything that individual has to say. If he says something out of line with scripture, can we not trust the Holy Spirit to grant discernment to the pastors who will be in attendance? ”
What about 2 John 9-11? (”9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.”)
Another Amy,
How exactly do you see this applying? I do not wish to put an exegesis in your mouth, as it may be incorrect.
In this specific case (TD Jakes and the C3 convention), I’m not sure anyone has made the case that Jakes is “not continuing in the teaching of Christ” – whose teaching was primarily concerned with the Kingdom of God (primarily in his public teaching) and on the nature of his impending sacrifice (primarily in his teaching his the disciples). Where the disagreement seems to lie is in his definition of the Trinity and how the Godhead works as both three and one – which in reality is beyond our comprehension, though I believe the traditional concept of the Trinity is closer to the truth than a “Oneness” manifestation concept. How this denies “the teaching of Christ” is a stretch, at best.
Were I to take this to an extreme, I could argue that no Christian should teach in the same school, college or conference with any non-Christian or any Christian with theological difference.
However, this passage, when you include vs. 7 “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist”, seems to indicate that the “Anyone” in v. 9 would be these same deceivers – Christians who do not acknowledge Christ as coming in the flesh (i.e. Christians who preach Christ’s message, but say that he did not exist in the flesh). Maybe I missed something, but I’ve not heard that Jakes denies this…
Chris, thanks. For me the issue isn’t only his heretical view of The Trinity. – although that’s enough. Jakes has associated himself with Hinn, Copeland, Liardon and others. I simply wanted to pull the argument back from examining the Trinity issue such pinpoint focus to a broader view of whether or not he is biblical (truthful) in his teaching. I read “teaching of Christ” to be not limited to the teaching given by Christ, but to “true teaching about Christ”, as Ryrie puts it. Perhaps I should have instead offered Romans 16:17-18.
Blessings,
Amy
Chris,
You said, “I’m not sure anyone has made the case that Jakes is “not continuing in the teaching of Christ†– whose teaching was primarily concerned with the Kingdom of God (primarily in his public teaching) and on the nature of his impending sacrifice (primarily in his teaching his the disciples).”
But Christ also talked about His own identity, His Father’s identity, and the Holy Spirit. And His Words have great bearing on the concept of “Trinity.”
Amy,
His words do have bearing on our concept of Trinity. However, I would rather think if he felt it of utmost importance that we understand the exact nature of God as Three and God as One, he (or even Paul) would have made a bit of a priority to spell it out somewhere.
Reading Jakes’ statement, I think he affirms the basics of three and one, but I think he has relationship wrong. Making this a basis of disfellowship seems a stuipid and petty thing that has nothing to do with scripture and everything to do with nasty nit-pickyness, and arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
There has to be some amount of room for grace in scriptural interpretation, particularly in systematic interpretations that aren’t clearly spelled out in scripture. Seeing how our concept of Trinity wasn’t defined for more than two centuries after Christ’s death, I would think that, having read Jakes’ interpretation which recognizes Father, Son and Holy Spirit – that all of Ken and Steve’s bluster is little more than modern-day phariseeism. We can disagree without making every disagreement a point of heresy.
To be clear, I believe Jakes’ definition of the metaphysical nature of God is more wrong than our Trinitarian view – which I also believe falls short of understanding God (because we can’t fully comprehend how He works). With that said, I don’t see that it is worth the tempest in a teapot Ken, Steve, Ingrid and company are creating, and I don’t think it’s worth disfellowshipping him and brow-beating anyone who associates with him.
I know nothing of the connections between Hinn and Jakes. I don’t like Hinn’s application, attitude, manner and his health/wealth messages at all. I heard Jakes speak at a PK event probably 7-10 years ago, and I thought he had some good things to say, none of which had anything to do with health/wealth gospel. I don’t follow him at all, and what I’ve seen Ken document to this point seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.
So, if you disagree (and I suspect you do), please explain to me the differences between the traditional Trinitarian definition and the Oneness definition and how (in application) the latter leads us to disobey God by misinterpreting His Torah.
I can look at Mormonism and see how it is outright heresy in the way it defines God. I can look at a number of cults and understand how they believe heresies. I honestly can’t look at the differences between these two definitions of the Godhead and see how one is so far off the reservation that a tin-pot “pastor” in New Hampshire has the justification to be raising hell (literally) about a pastor in Texas (2000+ miles away) for inviting someone who believes the latter defintion to teach for an hour at a conference on a subject that has nothing to do with the Trinity.
Chris,
You said, “our concept of Trinity wasn’t defined for more than two centuries after Christ’s death.” But why did it end up getting defined? I haven’t read the history of that for awhile, but if I’m not mistaken it was primarily because there were many attacks on who Jesus was, especially on whether He was just a man, or God as well as man, man or only spirit, exactly when he became “divine,” etc.
My current understanding of Oneness Pentecostalism has me quite perplexed. Jakes has said that He believes that Jesus is God, correct? Yet I read that Jesus is a “manifestation” of God. I understand that they believe that God the Father could not have been existing at the same time as Jesus and that the Holy Spirit could not exist at the same time as any of the others. So, where I’m at right now in my studies is wondering how this could even come close to how Scripture presents God,Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit.
It’s interesting that Benny Hinn has also had a very unique understanding of Trinity. He has supposedly “changed” his view along the way. Changed, adapted, or hidden, I don’t know. Before I read anything about his beliefs, I heard him speak, at a Baptist church I was attending in Israel. I can still picture him, talking about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus – I didn’t understand what he was trying to say; it just seemed so wrong, so confusing.
(By the way, my family and I left that church after Hinn came. He came apparently because he was related to someone in the church. We couldn’t understand letting someone like him stand in the pastor’s place, and in essence stand as a “beacon” for drawing others, including non-Christians to the church.
I wonder how much your Christian church background affects how you view the importance of concepts such as “Trinity.”I know other people from your Christian church background who look down on “creeds.” Yes, there can be problems with “creeds” but basically, “creeds” and concepts like “Trinity” are intended to be summaries of biblical truths.
“Summaries” in my last line doesn’t mean that I think that creeds and doctrines can ever express fully who God is.
“Making this a basis of disfellowship seems a stuipid and petty thing that has nothing to do with scripture and everything to do with nasty nit-pickyness, and arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
I strongly, strongly disagree. To deny the co-existence of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit from eternity is to deny God of the scriptures. This is not something about which we can politely agree to disagree about – this is doctrine essential to Christianity.
Another Amy,
I’ve not seen anything about denying the co-existence not being possible under “Oneness” pentacostalism. I’ve seen critics characterize it as such, but I knew a girl years ago who was one who commented that Jesus could pray to His Father in Heaven, and that both existed at the same time.
Amy (not another),
You’re probably right about my Christian church background. We have no creeds, and it’s not that we ‘look down’ on them, we just don’t find that they are all that useful anymore in a society that now has printing presses and the internet – where everyone can have their own copy of the Bible and concordance.
Creeds (and traditional concepts taught as Biblical doctrine, like the Trinity) are man-made explanations of God and cannot help but have systematic biases built into them – biases put there to differentiate institutional interpretations of doctrine, or systems of doctrine.
Creeds may be summaries of truth, but they cannot help but contain bias, and cannot, themselves, be considered Biblical truth. They are one of the first steps in how we end up with labels like “Calvinist” (describing an entire systematic interpretation of scripture), and folks like Spurgeon blathering about “Calvinism is the gospel”. No, the gospel is the gospel.
So, you are definitely right that my church background feeds this particular view, because it is an argument over extra-Biblical interpretations of interpretations of doctrine. Not really something to create disunity over.
If you decide to call the Trinity an extra-Biblical interpretation you’re going to have to analyze which part of the teaching of the Trinity is extra-Biblical – otherwise what will keep you from accepting a Mormon or Jehovah’s witness view of God?
You say, “Creeds . . . are one of the first steps in how we end up with labels like “Calvinist.”" Might I add that we end up with labels like “Christian church” when we have a group who believes that their beliefs are from scripture alone, not from any man-made ideas. I find it interesting however that in the approximately 5 different Christian churches I’ve been in for various periods of time (some only visiting a few time, one for 6 months, others off and on) there seems to be some variation/confusion on just what the gospel is, in the churches as a whole and with individuals. And in some cases significant variation.
(My husband grew up in the Christian church. The first time I met him (in his 20’s) was when I was in a discussion with a Lutheran and a Baptist over infant baptism. He ended up sharing a house with these guys and for the first time said (half jokingly, half seriously) that he realized that there were other Christians in the world.
I’m not trying to knock the Christian church. Christian churches are all different just like churches with other labels – such as Baptist are. But I do believe that some Christian churches, individuals can be prideful in how they view their lack of creeds, and can communicate that their beliefs are NOT interpretations.
Chris,
To add to my last sentence ” . . . can communicate that their beliefs are NOT interpretations” . . .
I would define a belief that is not an interpretation, as a belief that we understand as God meant us to understand. With that definitition, different churches, individuals, can have varying degrees of correct beliefs.
A problem arises when we are convinced from scripture that a belief is correct, when it is really only an incorrect interpretation.
Just because something is written in a creed doesn’t mean that isn’t a scriptural belief. Nor does it mean that it is a scriptural belief.
Sorry if my thoughts aren’t particularly organized – it’s late and I’m not thinking as clearly as I need to be.
Chris, Oneness Pentecostalism is the belief in one being who functions as three, and not three coexistent persons. God is a single person who “manifested” himself as God the Father, then at the incarnation, he manifested himself as God the Son. After the ascension of Jesus, the Holy Spirit. The modes are never simultaneous.
Another Amy,
comparison to Thank you for the succinct definition. As asked earlier, I wish we had a Oneness Pentacostal who would read that and say “yes, you’ve defined what I believe correctly”. If so, I would agree that it is easily disproven, perhaps too easily so. After all, Jesus’ prayers – including the one at Gathsemene, would become somthing like Gollum’s schizo arguments with himself in Lord of the Rings.
How is it, though, that this particular extra-Biblical definition of how God works, will lead someone who believes it to disobey God’s Torah (which is to love Him) or to not love their neighbor as themselves?
Amy,
First off, I agree with your assessment of some of the shortcomings of the Christian church. From the late 60’s to early 80’s, there was a big push to define what they were and what they were not, and there was a great deal of snobbery that came out during that time, as well. The most particular issue that was a sticking point was Baptism. The second one was the issue of instrumental music in church (which is what separated the instrumental and A Cappella churches after the Civil War).
However, there has been a great deal of softening (which seems to come from three primary sources – 1) The Bible Colleges; 2) Participation in parachurch organizations; and 3) a push for reconciliation between the Instrumental/A Cappella churches).
We definitely are not the only Christians, but Christians, only.
Why do we need an extra-Biblical definition of how God works to be able to see that Mormons are a cult and not a Christian church? Well, if God reigns over the heavens and the earth, then He can’t be the God of ONLY this earth. If we can have no other Gods before Him, what do we do with Joseph Smith, a huckster who was eventually gunned down with his brother trying to escape from prison (where he sat for burning a printing press that wrote something critical about him)? I can go on and on (my wife grew up in Utah, and we’ve had a number of discussions about Mormonism).
With JW’s and other cults, you can do a similar exercise – with the Bible.
I find that the defintion of the Trinity is helpful as a teaching tool, but I would never use it as a sole test of fellowship. As you noted, it is based on scripture (or a systematic approach to scripture). As such, if we can point to where it is based in scripture and then use those scriptures to weigh disagreements with it, I think we’re much better off.
I doubt that any one church has every belief or interpretation 100% correct. So, at what point does the amount of ‘incorrectness’ become a point of disfellowship? I don’t think it’s a completely cut-and-dried answer (or at least not an easy one).
It has to come down to comparison with scripture, though, and not a comparison to something once- or twice- removed from it.
“I wish we had a Oneness Pentacostal who would read that and say ‘yes, you’ve defined what I believe correctly’. ” Maybe one will stumble in, but all you really have to do is read what they say about their own beliefs.
TD Jakes said, “We have one God, but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.” (“Living by the Word†on KKLA, hosted by John Coleman, Aug. 23, 1998)
As to your question about disobeying the Torah, etc.: Is your premise that this is the definition of heresy?
Chris,
Another Amy says that Oneness Pentecostalism is defined as “God is a single person who “manifested†himself as God the Father, then at the incarnation, he manifested himself as God the Son. After the ascension of Jesus, the Holy Spirit. The modes are never simultaneous. ”
You said, “As you noted, it [the Trinity] is based on scripture (or a systematic approach to scripture). As such, if we can point to where it is based in scripture and then use those scriptures to weigh disagreements with it, I think we’re much better off.”
Exactly. The concept of Trinity is based on Scripture. I’ve always had that in mind. That is why I don’t want to brush it off as extra-Biblical. I think one could easily take the succint definition given by A. Amy for starters (if you can conclude that it is accurate) and point out Scriptures that disagree with it.
I need to get some sleep, but just off the top of my head I would say that I am disturbed that if A. Amy’s understanding is correct (and it represents what I have read as well) then the Holy Spirit is the only manifestation that is available today. I don’t pray to the Holy Spirit; as far as I can understand from Scripture we are not meant to focus on worshipping the Holy Spirit. Should I tell the Holy Spirit thank you for dying for my sins when He was Jesus?
Regarding obeying Torah, how can we separate loving God from accepting His Word? For example I don’t see how I can say “Oh, God, I really love you, but I don’t believe that Jesus was present in creation” while reading I John 1. How can I say, “Oh God I love you, but I don’t believe that Jesus can possibly be interceding for me as Scripture says.” How can I read the NT and see Jesus references to His Father and believe that He is talking about someone who wasn’t currently existing? Should I say, while reading that, “God, I really love you, but shhh! don’t tell Jesus He is a liar.”
How can I say, “God I love you” and DENY that JESUS exists today?
The picture of God created by Oneness Pentecostalism (if I’m understanding it correctly) doesn’t resemble the God of the Bible. What God would I be loving?
Honestly, once I started coming up with these questions, especially, “How can I say, “God I love you” and DENY that JESUS exists today?” I’m wondering if I could possibly be correctly grasping Oneness Pentecostalism. It just sound way TOO HERETICAL for anyone to be playing with, way too heretical to even be having a discussion regarding whether or not it might be okay.
Amy,
I would agree with you that IF Oneness Pentacostalism said that Jesus and God do not exist today, but only the Holy Spirit, that it would be heretical – for the exact reasons you list.
HOWEVER, Jakes’ quote from A. Amy doesn’t seem to indicate this, and I highly doubt a Oneness Pentacostal would agree with this characterization. It would be WAY just too easy to poke holes in. And yes, I believe it would lead to disobeying Torah, because it would seem to nullify the Old Testament law, and it would appear to show that Jesus’ teaching was irrelevant, and what we only need rely on the Spirit to determine right and wrong.
You noted:
Uhm, the CONCEPT is based in scripture, but then, so was David Koresh’s interpretation of modern day prophecy. Whether right or wrong, by definition it is extra-Biblical. The scriptures people would base it on are Biblical, but the system to tie them together are based on man-made logic, and have to be treated as possibly fallible – which scripture is not.
Rather than quote two doctrinal statements defining the Godhead, it just seems that it would be more useful giving a contextual quote from the person in question, followed by the specific scripture it contradicts (in context, as well), and then how it is that this interpreted misinterpretation would be heresy. Extra-Biblical is just that – something, whether true or not, whether BASED ON scripture or not, – which is not directly written in the Bible. By definition, it is fallible. Period.
A. Amy asked:
I would say that is my definition, because it seemed to be (based on its Hebrew context) the same defintion at the time of Jesus. In fact, Jesus tells us that he came to fulfil the Torah (interpret it correctly so that we would not be sinning by following it incorrectly) and not to destroy it (to interpret it in such a way that people would sin by following the interpretation).
Personally, I (and a number of Hebrew scholars) see God as both Three and One in Genesis 1:1-3, where the word for God (Elohim) is plural, and we see God the Creator (Genesis 1:1), God the Spirit (Genesis 1:2) and God the Word (Genesis 1:3) all present.
Once again, though, even with a quick perusal of some websites, I don’t see that Oneness Pentacostals would agree with the definition put forth by A. Amy – or the explanation given by Ken. As I read their interpretation, they see God as one entity who acts in three different manners or manifestations. I think this is far too reductive of the metaphysics of God. I also think the way we’ve defined Trinity allows a lot more room for mystery, because we cannot understand His nature.
” As I read their interpretation, they see God as one entity who acts in three different manners or manifestations.”
So the question is, are these manifestation spresent at the same time as each other. Whether A.Amy’s interpretation is correct or not, I remember coming to the same conclusion from some things I’ve read – that they are not present at the same time. That’s why one of the problems that is presented in the articles I’ve read (cited on CRN) is the problem of Jesus praying to His Father. How could He pray to His Father when His Father wasn’t there?
I’ll try to look at the sources some more.
The primary question we should have about Trinity is whether or not each aspect of the way it is described can be supported by Scripture. I would say yes. I think that I might have my children and I work on studying this for school. From my previous study of this in college I wouldn’t think of comparing the study that has gone into coming up with the concept of Trinity, and the scriptures that it confirms, to David Koresh’s interpretation of modern day prophecy. In fact I wouldn’t dare.
Amy,
Sorry about the comparison – I was just trying to use opposite extreme examples of doctrines/interpretations based on scripture, but not scripture, itself. The purpose was to illustrate methodology, not to suggest the two were of the same quality of interpretation/doctrine.
Chris,
Okay, I understand.