Silva would loose. In an attempt to show that T.D. Jakes really believes in oneness Pentecostalism, he writes this article at CRN/Apprising. Here is the only evidence Silva gives for Jakes’ theology
“I have been in the field of Comparative Religion, apologetics and counter-cult evangelism for 20 years now. The reason I mention this is to tell you that unfortunately it’s not common when someone who teaches false doctrine concerning the Trinity does so ‘clearly.’”
“Jakes says he ‘became Pentecostal 26 years ago at a Greater Emmanuel Apostolic Church, where I was later ordained a Bishop.’ And as I also said in JOT: ‘I was unable to locate a website for this church but from years of personal research and study I can tell you that almost invariably when we see the word Apostolic in the name of a church it is Oneness Pentecostal.’”
“Now here is how the Belief Statement from The Potter’s House where T.D. Jakes is pastor currently and clearly reflects his OP view of God:
God–There is one God, creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”“Jakes himself said ‘I believe in one God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe these three have distinct and separate functions—so separate that each has individual attributes, yet are one. I do not believe in three Gods’”
“This representative for T.D. Jakes goes on to say they have ‘never denied the Trinity, and we are disappointed that anyone would misunderstand or misrepresent us.’”
So let me get this straight…
- You don’t know clearly teaches oneness Pentecostalism
- You don’t know what the church he came from teaches. However, they might teach oneness Pentecostalism and because of that, Jakes is guilty by association (even though you have no idea what that association believes).
- Jakes affirms that there is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and each have “distinct and separate functions”
- Jakes’ own representative has said he affirms the trinity.
Sounds like a small bit of evidence to make such a huge ruckus. I am not affirming Jakes’ theology. I am just saying that this is not enough evidence to condemn people with.
28 Comments(+Add)
I think the argument that because one believes that the three names associated with the Trinity are three manifestations of One Person that makes a person a heretic is absurd. The Trinity is a great mystery, and although I believe in the orthodox view I am not sure. The Oneness people’s view of salvation through baptism with tongues as proof is much more troubling.
Â
The only difference is oneness theology believes in three manifestations as opposed to three persons. The Bible is very weak in teaching on this subject so perhaps God knew our inability to completely surround this mystery.
The Trinity issue is a red herring that is easily caught and gutted for consumption. As long as a person believes Jesus is God there is wiggle room for the rest.
If I were an English teacher, I would point out that it is correct to use “were” when speaking hypothetically, but I’m not so you’re safe.
Phil – I knew you were a closet legalist. I will be watching your writings now for any grammatical inconsistencies, I already have a long database on you!
Rick,
Yes, I know I’m a grammatical hypocrite – the spirit is willing, but the fingers are weak.
You guys crack me up!
ig
I don’t get it.
He says “I believe in One God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
That’s what all Trinitarians believe, isn’t it?
Read the Athanasian Creed. i.e. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, but there is not three gods…etc. etc. etc. etc. = there is one God who is Father, Son, Spirit.
If we’re going to nitpick over the economy of the mystery, etc. etc. beyond the accepted formulations then we’re in deep deep weeds.
is it just me or has the Ken part of the KenIngrid seemed out of it lately? (I mean, churning up this old rant about Jakes)
Not that that’s a bad thing…Maybe the pressures of spending his time constructively with a real job are reigning him in. (That is if he has one…I don’t know? Does anyone here?)
Or maybe, just maybe, he’s actually devoting his time to the ministry of the only church he has any legitimate claim to oversight for–CRBC. I’d commend him for devoting his time there and not with some fake internet “flock”.
I know he reads here still…I might have just jinxed it.
Actually I wrote about this a while back and pointed out that if one needs to attack Jakes, this is not the area to do it… I would stay with the Prosperity Gospel and not try to prove that he is a heretic by saying he denies the Trinity.
I have to say I he is a great preacher… but the whole prosperity gospel thing makes him questionable in that area…
iggy
The United Pentecostal Church is Oneness in its theology. In order for Jakes to hold credentials with them — if indeed he does? — would mean that Jakes would hold to a Oneness understanding which denies the Trinity.
The idea that any church that has “apostolic” in its name is automatically Oneness is dangerous. One denomination in Canada, the Apostolic Churches of Pentecost, was originally Oneness in their theology, and withdrew from the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada at about the same time that the United Pentecostals withdrew from the Assemblies of God, and for the same reason: they reject the Trinity.
HOWEVER, Canada APOC would later completely turn around and embrace a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, although they haven’t taken the word “apostolic” out of the denomination’s name.
That’s why is not a good idea to equate the inclusion of the word “apostolic” in the name of a church or denomination with being Oneness in doctrine.
As for T.D., I think a bit more research would be in order. Is he credentialed with UPC? That would be enough of an answer as to where his doctrine of the Trinity is at.
OK,
For once I may be wrong… LOL!
Here is a very good researched post by Johnathan Moorehead.
http://jmoorhead.blogspot.com/2005/07/t-d-jakes.html
IF CRN and Ingrid took more this approach instead of the “chicken-little-blame-it-on-the-emergents” approach… they would get more KUDOS from me.
iggy
The UPC denies the general understanding of the Trinity, they believe the three persons are three revelations of one God whose name is Jesus, hence the name “Jesus only”. They believe the Father is divine but their salvation is by works, that is much more dangerous.
The more I read on CRN the more I think they don’t believe grace saves, but Calvinism. It seems anyone who believes contrary to them is a heretic. My prays go to them all the more fervently.
I personally “deny the trinity” as it’s commonly taught and think that there is only one God, however he has a trinity of person (singular) about Him. That combined with not being cessationalist makes me a oneness pentecostal of a different kind
heretic today only means “a person with whom I disagree that I want to silence”.
btw,
even IF emergent denied the clarity of scripture (which as a network of relationships we do not, that is still not heresy.
Heresy has never been applied to epistemological positions. (i.e. how we know what we know)
the lable of heresy can’t be applied without being sinfully controlling and deeply misunderstanding the function of scripture.
Hate to probe NC, but…
What is that function of Scripture to you (since you brought it up)?
Is it “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” Rom.10:17 ?
Because that’s what I know. =), I’ll bet you agree.
Love,
Joe
that’s faith, not epistemology
I would say “faith” influences and can shape how you see things, understand things, etc. but it isn’t the whole of epistemological function
the “function of Scripture”…well, I’d say it is pluriform. Here’s some of them:
The first order use of Scripture is for proclamation of God in the context of corporate worship, (the use of the bible for personal bible study is a second order use), Scripture helps lead us into all Truth necessary for salvation, it shows us the good works that God prepared in advance for us to perform,
people can construct a thing called “a biblical worldview” from it, but strangely in North America that “worldview” ends up always looking like the confirmation of conservative, middle class social values that uncritically embraces consumer capitalism. You can also construct a “biblical worldview” that affirms a more “left” perspective on political/economic issues. Thus I don’t think the function of the bible is to give us this thing called “a biblical worldview”.
I think it helps nurture a “kingdom heart” that speaks on different societal issues in such a manner that it couldn’t be consistently identified with one party or the other…
Scripture is the exclusive vehicle to do many things:
Teach us about God
Teach us about history
Teach us morality
and many others.
But the primary assignment of Scripture is redemptive – it brings us to Christ.
I like how N.T. Wright describes the role of Scripture. It is not merely a history or a book of rules. It is a narrative of God interacting with His people, and it is authoritative because it testifies to the Holy Spirit’s continual work through Israel and then the Church.
Wright likens it to a 5-act play with the acts as follows: 1- Creation, 2-Fall, 3-Isreal, 4-Jesus, and the New Testament would be the first scene of act 5, and the Church continues to live out the rest of act 5 based on what happened in the first four acts and through the Spirit’s guidance. Just like the first four acts of a play set parameters for the last act, Scripture does that for the Church. It reveals God’s character, and His heart, and gives the overall thrust of history. The last act draws out the significance of the first four.
Joe,
My view is very simple…
John 5: 39-40
Scripture is the testimony of Jesus. It’s function is not to read IT and get eternal life as so many believe… by holding It’s doctrines… but by coming to Jesus and then learning and being instructed and even being rebuked… as then the bible becomes alive (but it is still only the written word of God not to be confused with Jesus who is the Living Word of God who gives scripture it’s life.)
In sense the bible is the extension of Jesus… as is God’s love, and kindness or miracles… which none of those are to be worshipped, but lead us also to Jesus.
The issue is when one begins to worship the bible as an entity unto itself… and in that have then added a fourth to the trinity… Father, Son, and Holy Ghost… and the bible. Yet, I have also seen it as some see it as Father, Son and the Bible.
These are more heretical to me than someone who states God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and each have “distinct and separate functions†… in fact (though I am not a modalism) that definition is very good on its own… for there is One God and each member of the Trinity does have distinct functions…
Yet, I do not see one not existing as each one does their function. The Father still existed when Jesus walked the earth empowered by the Holy Spirit… so modalism is error.
but, the real issue is that really, how many people have an understanding of all this? My own faith is enriched by the understanding of the Triune God, but I am not actively at every moment addressing God in all His Persons… I am not thinking I now need to pray to the Holy Spirit as I prayed to Jesus yesterday… that is silly.
Be blessed,
iggy
Haha, you guys are great. I was trying to be very simple and kind of give what I thought was the ‘end all’ of Scripture’s purpose: To bring us to Christ. But I guess that was an open can of worms huh? You guys’ answers were very good, and I heartily agree!
NC, I feel we can have a ‘Biblical worldview’ based on the whole of Scripture, and that it won’t be republican, democrat, socialist, facist, communist, or any of man’s systems.
I believe the Bible gives us God’s view, as written by men and their finite minds and perceptions, in a way that is absolutely true and understable by us, while being carried along by the Holy Spirit. And that we adopt this ‘God-view’ (of the universe/existence) as we learn, study, hear, and apply Scripture in our lives more and more, becoming more Christ-like.
Iggy, without Jesus, there wouldn’t be ANYTHING period, duh. LoL. I know what you’re saying though, good stuff guys.
Love,
Joe
Joe,
I took heat for a time for stating the bible is worthless without Jesus…
I could not get some people to understand that if you are going to hell no matter what, as the law reveals we are dead and God is just in His judgement, it really does not matter how one lives.
I am not stating that an athiest cannot gain by living out principles of the bible’s teachings (as some do without acknowledging they are) but they will not gain eternal Life.
I agree with this, but as you talk to many ODM’s you will realize this is a blasphamous statement. In their fiew man had nothing to do with the bible at all. They act like it dropped out of the sky and even when cornered they will admit “Paul wrote it” but it to them was a sort of dictation like channeling or something… it is weird. It is like a Gnostic belief that it is only a “Spiritual” book that has no real physical connection with man… it is diefied.
iggy
The greatest part about the Bible is that God used US to write it, from our various individual pespectives (the different human authors). Ultimately speaking, yes the Bible is of divine origin, so that it cannot lie and so that it can be True, but without being written by men, it would be totally irrelevant and incomprehensible to us. Just like Jesus our Lord had to be fully man, to be our kinsman redeemer for mankind, God in His omiscience, knew that He must use man to get his Message to us. He did this by the Living Word, Jesus (earthly ministry), and the Written Word, uh… also Jesus. LoL. (ie, “In the Beginning…God SAID…[and then stuff happened])
If I were trying to speak to a child from a completely isolated location in Africa (or w/e), who spoke absolutely no English, but only some ultra ‘primitive’ and obscure language. How would I communicate with that person? I’d find one of his own people, teach that person my language, and then use that person to communicate to the child for me. I believe this is a ROUGH metaphor of what God did for us with the Bible. The big difference being, God knowing all things, can speak to man WITHOUT using man, so that begs the question why He chose men to speak to men, and not just Himself…? I’ll leave this here for everyone to be encouraged to study and pray more on it. =)
I don’t think that it was very much like ‘channeling’ or ‘zombie writing’, but that like it says “all scripture is God-breathed” (Theopneustos; greek), like God breathed life in to Adam in Genesis (Nephesh, in Heb). Obviously the personalities of the individual authors come through in their letters and books, even in the OT, and that shows how very human the Scriptures are. But God oversees, and breaths the right truths and statements in to the human authors, and the humans put it in to words other humans understand. And with the oversight of God, it is all true and necessary. This form of condescending communication is such a great and wonderful love from God. Like God becoming a Man, and coming down to ‘our level’ to save us, He has done the same wonderful thing with the Scriptures.
But without Jesus, without the Author, and The Spirit, the Scriptures are fairly worthless for anything Kingdom/Eternity wise. Though an atheist COULD use Scripture to be ‘nice’ and ‘good’, but that’s a WHOLE other conversation.
What do you think Ig?
Joe
Joe,
I’m going to be rude and butt into your conversation, but I think you bring up a lot of good points.
In John, we’re told, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. So we have Jesus presented as the ‘logos’ of God, the expression of who he is. I see a very close parallel between the way God expressed Himself to us in Christ and in the way He expresses Himself through Scripture.
Let me put it this way. Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine. It is a tension Christians have accepted for centuries. Scripture is also 100% human and 100% divine, in my eyes. God worked through mankind to tell us what He wanted us to know.
Where people get into trouble is if they choose one side over the other. Liberals tend to say that Scriptures are really not inspired – they may be about God, but they’re really a human product only. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to focus more on the divine nature. They treat the Bible like a timelss rule book dropped from heaven. This gives them a pass to take almost anything and make a rule out of it. I think for Scripture to really have an effect on us though, we need to see both sides. Yes humans wrote it, but it was through God’s direction.
I agree Phil, thanks for your input brother!
Good point about the two sides there. I feel that it’s a hard line to tread on and remember well enough. If we become too obsessed with cultural context, or the human nature of Scripture, instead of balancing with Biblical context (which transcends cultures, starting in Genesis, where there was NO culture), then we might start explaining away certain Biblical commands, mandates, or ways we’re told we should live as Christians. A few examples that come to mind for me is foul language, women teaching men, dietary requirements, food sacrificed to idols, etc etc you get my point. We have to use ‘context’, or rather the discernment of the Spirit, to determine whether we should interpret a verse based on culural context or historical overall Biblical context (which should be considered always, no matter what).
I hope that makes sense, my lunchbreak is over so I’m writing quickly. Thanks Phil!!
Joe
Joe,
I look at it like this…
In the book of Job, Job finally breaks down as gets all up in God’s cage and demands an answer… God of course set Job straight by stating, “Where were you when I put the stars in the sky?” and Job is humbled…
However, most miss that while God states He owes us not explanation at all… he still gives us one… in the book of Job.
It is in these ways He reveals Himself as compassionate. For we have in Job a God who owes us nothing giving us everything.
blessings
iggy
Regardless of “worldview” I don’t think the bible promotes a particular kind of epistemology. I don’t think you can call someone a heretic for not sharing a particular theory of knowledge.
nc,
but can we still follow the Godly example men like Calvin who burned others at the stake?
I do agree with your statement:
Yet, in the field of the study of knowledge how do we separate eternal truths and theories? (I love asking the hard questions!)
My thought is that there are some things very clear. I hold a more of a holistic view that comes out of Genesis One.
God = Father = Speaker
Holy Spirit = Holy Spirit = breath
The “Let there be…” = Son = Jesus
I see that the Triune God as the Father Speaks and by the power of His Breath (Holy Spirit) The Word (Jesus/Logos) does as it is sent out to do.
Each has a role of course all are the same God as one cannot separate the words or breath from someone speaking… and all words are out of the heart of the Person.
So then I see each Personified… of course the obvious is the incarnation of Jesus and then He points to the Father… and gives all mankind the Holy Spirit. (this is not the indwelling but the pouring over).
Do I hold to the traditional view of One God Three Persons… yes, but then any Oneness person can also.
I see the real issue is that one denies Jesus for Who He is and that being God incarnate. From there the debate has gone on and on.
Now, I also see that Jesus had only One Nature and that was the Nature of God… Yes he was man.. but most miss He is the New Man or Second Adam… so that debate seems to miss the most important point that we are talking a whole new creature… or creation. Jesus is God in Flesh as the New Man.
Regardless to one who thinks he has two nature a human one and a divine one agian misses this is not the same as we are now… a human enclosed in corruptable flesh which has been give an regenerated spirit… we are not as we will be and to approach Jesus in that manner I think misses the real significance of the death burial and most of all the resurrection of Jesus.
i am not saying I am totally right on this but that is what I see from scripture…that Jesus is the second Adam… the New Man… and we are as He already a New Creation.
iggy
(that is not a cut toward Calvinism but a historical reference to Calvin burning Servetus over this sort of discussion)
Iggy,
I think it’s as you put it. Jesus is God and Man. He is the Second Adam, God added human nature to Himself, became flesh and dwelt among us, and we will be like Him when we see Him, at the ressurection. He is what saved and redeemed mankind will become. Not that we’ll be divine, or gods, but we’ll be as Jesus is, a new type of human, the perfected human form. Am I even understanding you correctly? I admit what you’re saying is a bit confusing and unorthodox to me, maybe you could explain it a little more?
Thanks,
Joe
(PS, what did you think about what I said about Scripture?)
Joe,
You got it… and i admit it does seem unorthodox until you read what Paul states about Jesus…
It explains why Paul states one time that Jesus had the “form” of a man… He was and is what we will be in Him.
Now, this cuts across the whole of history that debates it from a fallen human perspective that Jesus has two natures…
Paul speaks of Jesus “from his human nature” a descendant of David, but I do not think that means anything other than he had flesh as Paul later states, “being in very nature God”. I see that to say Jesus is the New Man does not deny either of these but brings them together. To state he has two natures “God-man” to me adds confusion. It sounds more like Zeus or some other hybrid god of paganism.
Man has one nature before salvation and that is the “sinful nature” to state Jesus was “man” in the sense that many do then give us the issue of Jesus having a sinful human nature… and He did not. I see that when one removes the idea that is not there that Jesus was a “man” in the sense we are, we then can see that Jesus being the Second Adam is an all new thing God is doing.
I still see Jesus as fully human, and fully God, but it is the perfected human though untested perfection until Jesus fulfilled the Law and was obedient unto death.
I find it a fascinating loop hole that allowed God to be the Just and the Justifier.
Anyway, again, I admit I may be wrong, but that is what I get when I simply read scripture without all the added “theology”.
I like to just read the bible and take from it what it states, then build from there. Since I do not hold to any particular “school” of theology, it seems more easy for me… but again often I come out agreeing with the great theologians.
blessings,
iggy
Thanks a lot Iggy, I’ll keep studying the Scriptures on it. I appreciate the elaboration and explanation, and I’m glad I understood you.
Joe