T.D. Jakes, the Trinity, and Truth

Thanks for your well thought out and informative post.

I watched the event and am still processing all the discussion.

One thing that really stuck out to me was the humility of Jakes. I have never listened to any of his material or followed any of the "controversy" before.

I was moved by his willingness to be interrogated (a bit strong of a word but think it fits a little) by Driscoll and remain in a place of submission and sacrifice.

Like I said still processing the conversation, but absolutely moved by his attitude - really saw Jesus in him. I learned from it.

I find it interesting that no one is up in arms about Jack Graham's comment that, "There will only be one throne in Heaven and Jesus will be sitting on that throne. Jesus is the only God we'll ever see." That's about as classical 'Oneness' theology as you will ever see yet no one is labeling him as such.

Thanks for this entry...well articulated.

I understand people wanting to separate from Jakes IF he is non-trinitarian. I have not heard a reasonable argument for why James MacDonald could not host a public dialogue with other pastors/theologians to discuss the matter. It seems like there is 2,000 years of history in which people gathered at councils and such to do so on a variety of theological issues. Why the outcry over this?

It all kind of reminds me of Luke 15:7. I look forward to seeing the videos.

It was helpful that Bishop Jakes clearly stated his beliefs in regards to the Trinity. I do wish Driscoll and company would have questioned him on his propensity to preach the "Prosperity gospel" since it is "another gospel".

I am saddened by the response of some critics.

Along the lines of Darryl's comment: I'd have to side with Graham. I think there's ample evidence to back up that statement.

I must first say that I only know what I do about the Elephant Room from Wax's article and did not watch the even myself. I see the humility and change in Bishop Jakes's answer to the Trinity issue. Let's say that Jakes is Trinitarian. Great. Now, what do we do with his Word of Faith association and prosperity gospel? I almost feel as if Driscoll and MacDonald, who I admire greatly, act like they have never heard him preach. I am a member of a Harvest Bible Chapel and their teaching is the complete opposite from what Bishop Jakes is known for preaching. Is it safe to say that if his Trinity views are being changed then his other doctrine is being transformed as well? If it is, then praise God, but we need to hear from Jakes and see these changes soon. If the other aspects of his doctrine do not change, what are we to do with the relationship between Driscoll, MacDonald, and Jakes?

What do you mean you don't agree with all of anyone else's theology? You always said you agreed with every point of mine! ;-)
Good post!

Oops, I meant event. I did not watch the event. I should have proofread. My apologies.

@Darryl you're mistaken. It's the Mormons who believe they will see 3 gods on three thrones. We Christians worship the "immortal invisible" God the Father. Jesus is the only God we'll see as far as I know. Do you have a NT text to contradict that? Or is 3rd hand theologizing enough for you? Perhaps more people aren't "up in arms" because (hopefully) they're reading their Bibles. ;-)

I think our ability to understand who God is very poor. We sometimes discuss topics such as these, seeming to think we can achieve some perfect understanding.

I don't believe we can.

I choose not to criticize someone based upon a statement on a topic as esoteric as the nature of God's being. Does any of us think we can really understand this?

I hope I'm not so arrogant.

I would also agree that the content from Trevin's notes seems accurate based on my memory of what I saw yesterday. I too was thankful that I heard more on the spectrum toward Trinitarian thinking, but there were two issues that weren't addressed that surprised me:

a) I had also read Jakes reference 1 Timothy 3 as a defense for the word "manifestations." So it surprised me when he did it yesterday that no one spoke up and pointed out that "manifest" is used there to speak of Jesus in the incarnation, not to how the entire Trinity is identified.

b) Jakes mentioned that he refuses to throw stones back at Oneness folks where he sees the spirit of Jesus working in their lives. (not official quote by any means...but thought it was something to that effect). How can the Spirit move in people who get something as central as the Trinity wrong? Does Jakes see them as wrong, or simply see it as an optional perspective...just not one that he holds any longer? Would have loved to have seen this addressed.

But in the end, you're not going to deal with everything in a 30 minute conversation.

I think I agree with you on the Trinity issue. However, the areas where he remains theologically iffy are not small areas. While Word Faith and prosperity theology might not make up the majority of his ministry, they are obviously present, and the fact that he is able to pass as orthodox by some standards makes it all the more dangerous. I fear that MacDonald and Driscoll have aided in the mainstreaming of the prosperity gospel, especially since they failed to address that issue at the ER.

At my church we use the Lifeway "Explore The Bible" study books. Next Sunday, the key verse is Deuteronomy 6:4 which is the Great Shema "Listen, Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD is One"

I don't know anything about the various "heresies". But, in any case, I think it is clear that there is only one god. Idols are not God. Bulls made out of gold are not God.

The trinity is the situation that God operates using three different, but related, "implementations" (I don't want to say "modes" or "manifestations") in parallel. He does not do time-domain-multiplexing between the various "implementations" because He is operating in all of them at once.

I can't see what difference it makes as to how many different thrones there are in heaven which may or may not exist for the father and/or the son and/or the holy spirit. I don't have a schematic of the furniture layout in heaven. God has not asked me to sign off on the interior (maybe it should be exterior) design in heaven.

Various texts in the Bible talk about "thrones" in heaven so there will likely be at least one of them up there.

English language bibles talk about
the Lord's throne {Psalms}, the Throne of God {Revelation}, and the throne of "the Son of Man" {Matthew}. It is possible that only one throne is view -- I don't know.

Jakes has explicitly said he moved away from a non-trinitiarian position to a Trinitarian one as he studied the scriptures.

But what he DIDN'T say is that modalism is heresy and that modalists are not Christians. In fact, in the stuff I read, he said things like "Many modalists would agree with you" and the money quote of "But how they explain the Godhead is how Trinitarians describe the gospel".

So, while his "affirmation" of the Trinity is enough to demonstrate that he might not be a heratic, it's certainly not enough to suggest he's worthy of gospel partnership.

In regards to the connection that Jakes has to the Word of Faith movement, I think that Driscoll and MacDonald played their cards correctly yesterday. Let's get the issues out one at a time. To have brought more accusations up yesterday would have been overkill, and Jakes would have felt bombarded. Whether Jakes teaches a gospel of prosperity can be addressed at a later date. For now, at least the channels of communication with him are open.

In response to David Himes: theologians have spent centuries trying to nail down a Biblical understanding of God's nature. It's not esoteric...it's something that God provided for us in the Bible. In fact, by saying that you don't think we can understand God's nature, you've claimed to know something about God's nature (that it's unknowable), which orthodox theologians and philosophers throughout the centuries disagree with, and which the Bible directly speaks against.

Ed,
Thank you for your article. I haven't seen the enter interview and am relying at this point on yourself and others I trust to give the information from it.

From what I read so far of the interview it appears that T.D.Jakes is still waffling a bit and never repented of his modalist position. I don't think Pastor Mark and James pressed him for an answer either way which would be expected for this type of forum. They also didn't address is prosperity gospel messages that are littered all over the web and TBN (one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aEn8cAZ9K0&feature=player_embedded#! ) that lead many to a false sense of salvific security.

To be honest, they have broadly validated Bishop Jakes as orthodox when he clearly hasn't repented of any error. To allow him to continue in his error without trying to get him to repent would be wrong and unkind to the man himself. Other Christian brethren are not to treat him as an enemy but to admonish him as a brother (II Thessalonians 3:15). Pastor Mark and James are required by scripture to try and get him to repent of error. Do you agree?

Thank you Pastor Ed.

Grace and Peace to you.

Chris

I keep going back and forth. One minute I wanna give him the benefit of the doubt and then I wonder if his language is veiled in order to pass snuff with the orthodox. I was not well pleased with Driscoll's or McDonald's questioning.

Another review worth considering. http://bit.ly/AmVJem

For those interested in a little bit larger context of Jakes' words, this man has taken the courtesy of transcribing the conversation off of a youtube video someone uploaded (link to the video is in the post): http://crbcviews.blogspot.com/2012/01/elephant-room-ii-session-4-transcript.html

Ed, thanks for the article and I do believe it is helpful. I did not watch the conversation, but have some thoughts:

1) If Jakes' answer was clear, the last part of your blog would not be needed. I think that you are subtly accepting that his statement is a little vague, and use the argument "at least trust what other guys say" to back up the statement.

2) Why not a simply "yes or no" question? I mean, read the Nicene Creed or BFM2000 (for us SBCers) and ask, "Do you believe and agree with this, yes or no?" That would tell us right away! ;-)

Ed, I respect you but I don't know that I agree with you. Jakes seemed to be hedging to me. Jakes talked about “persons” but then claimed he didn’t like the word “persons” and went on to defend the term “manifestation,” a term that is both loaded and telling from someone entrenched in modalism. It doesn’t matter whether you like the word "person" or not, that is the accepted term used for centuries to describe the Godhead. No other term is going to necessarily be better because we’re discussing the infinite God. When a Trinitarian says they don’t like the word “person” that’s one thing, but if you’re supposedly moving away from modalism this is not the best way to discuss your move toward orthodox Trinitarianism.

I agree with Jakes that Paul uses the word “manifestation” (I mean, it’s in Scripture, after all) but remember that Paul used the word before the baggage of modalism was loaded onto that word. I’m not saying Paul would have used a different word, but I am saying that you can’t condone a modalist reading of that term simply because it is found in Paul.

Jakes also slyly indicates that none of us can be sure because “Who can understand God?” before calling for humility. This is one of those kinds of statements a person makes when he’s trying to hedge and avoid speaking out clearly on a position.

Jakes also muddies the waters by talking about falling out and hating and throwing names. No one is doing that at all. We are seeking clear precise language to define what the Scriptures teach about the nature of God. Since when is someone hating simply by trying to nail down a definition. Jakes also says that there is “very little difference,” though I wonder if someone like Athanasius would think it’s just a “little difference.”

The line about our books being sold in heaven is gold on its own but in the midst of controversy, it seems like the kind of thing someone says to dismiss their critics without answering them.

If Jakes really has renounced modalism he should just say so. If he is struggling with this view and making a move toward orthodox Trinitarianism, he should just say so. What he shouldn’t do is hem and haw and bandy words about and point the finger back at critics, no matter how ungracious they might have been.

I can believe Jakes when he says that he is on the outs with people in the Oneness tradition and we all know that he is greeted with suspicion by many orthodox evangelicals. But being on the outs with both sides is usually what happens when one sits on the fence. All this may very well mean that Jakes is making the move toward orthodox Trinitarianism, but I don’t see anything in his nebulous statements from TER that lead me to believe he has jumped off the fence onto one side or the other. I hope and pray he does and then makes a clear statement to that effect. UNtil then, I remain unconvinced.

And we haven’t even touched his word-faith teachings. But that’s for another day.

Thanks for the comments.

It's interesting that some of the conversation in the comments has shifted to Jack Graham and his view of Heaven.

Please try and keep the comments on the topic of the post.

Thanks,

Jonathan - Blog Administor

Chris,

I think he was defending the term "manifest" not modalism, though I would rather he did not. I wish his church's doctrinal statement said "persons" and not "manifestations," and then he would not have to have these conversations. But, it is also important to note that he does affirm God in three persons (on more than one occasion, now).

"Persons" is not a perfect word to express all that God is, but it is the right word.

What he defended is not modalism, but the definition of manifestation. But, I can only guess he is doing that because he would rather not burn bridges with his past relationships. But, I don't know.

Paul,

Speaking of Baptists, it was Herschel Hobbs who wrote in his commentary, The Baptist Faith and Message (page 38): "The Triune God is clearly seen at Jesus baptism. Furthermore, in all three manifestations he is seen as active in both creation and redemption."

Michael,

Not offended at all by your gracious dissent and disagreement.

Thanks for the input.

All,

I'd love to see more discussion on theological issues that were not addressed in the Elephant Room conversations, but considering how people responded to this discussion, I wonder if that will ever happen.

God bless,

Ed

I'd love to read that Jakes has denounced the prosperity gospel and embraced the doctrines of grace. That'd be rad.

I agree a step in the right direct but was it enough of a step. I was at the simulcast and have a read a transcript of the event again (http://crbcviews.blogspot.com/2012/01/elephant-room-ii-session-4-transcript.html) and it seems although he used persons he also on many different occasions tries to argue that we're all just saying the same thing. If Oneness theology is wrong, then admitting as much is not throwing stones but throwing a life raft. I'm overjoyed he's willing to affirm three persons but will he also call Modalism error. Would we expect anything else from a Christian who came out of Mormonism, JW, etc. If they said yes I believe the Bible but I think there's some confusion and Mormons believe a lot of the same things, would that be enough or should there be more careful prodding? I guess I would have expected more careful prodding especially since the event was billed as asking the tough questions.

Also, the issue of prosperity gospel is huge. You can be trinitarian all you want but if you're still preaching health and wealth well then...there's not much to say. For me the event was a mixed bag of gratefulness and still more longing.

Um, Jakes is all buddy buddy with Osteen and now like Osteen is getting ready to go on Oprah (a New Ager).

Frankly, I'm starting to think that MacDonald is being pulled into the crowd of Osteen and Furtick (who says he loves Oprah) instead of Jakes becoming more orthodox.

The Bible says in the last days that people will not endure sound doctrine. I believe this is what we are seeing.

As much as I was drawn to following the Elephant Room yesterday due to the Trinitarian controversy, I have to say what struck me the most was the conversation concerning interacting with brothers in Christ across different theological or denominational borders.

I am so guilty of hearing about a guy and his teaching or methodology and making a snap judgement on him. I enjoyed what James MacDonald had to say about reaching out to Driscoll and others who he has heard bad things about. He's willing to get it from the horse's mouth rather than making assumptions.

There are pastors across the country within Evangelicalism that I strongly disagree with on many things, but have never actually listening to them. I don't believe I have to fly someone in to my town to hear them out, but I can at least listen to a number of sermons given in various contexts before even thinking about forming an opinion about them.

Two examples of this are Rick Warren and John MacArthur. I have had negative views about these men in the past and still do to some degree. After my experience reading one of Warren's book and seeing his methodology implemented in my church, I was turned off. However, after listening to his interview with John Piper I have come around a bit. I follow him on twitter and disagree with how he says some things, but I see him as a brother in Christ that wants the same things as I do in ministry. He is willing to cross borders and work with the larger church.

MacArthur on the other hand is someone I've respected and looked to on many issues. However, his tone and the negotiable doctrines and methodologies that he takes a polemical stances on have turned me off to him. He seems unwilling to cross borders and, despite my immense respect for him, this has really turned me off to him.

It's a hard balance to keep straight on this topic, but as long as people keep the Word and Christ central, I think we should put many of these differences aside.

Excellent analysis. I was at the Charlotte venue and felt virtually the same thing as you. It would have been great for him to have been a little more clear, but he had biblical reasons for wanting to maintain the mysterious nature of God - in that we'll never fully understand Him. The good news is that I now know enough about his theology to consider him a brother. I don't have to be in 100% alignment with him for that to happen. Thanks for your commitment to both theology and love for one another. It's a rare combination that I aspire to myself.

I attended the Elephant Room yesterday and I'd like to introduce a thought into the conversation that I don't think has been mentioned. Anyone else who watched the event, feel free to correct me if you disagree.

Jakes spoke a few times about how he feels like one of his roles in ministry is to be a bridge between certain groups of people. Even if he hadn't physically said it, I think anyone with any level of discernment could tell that the man bleeds this role in what he does.

In fact, I think he inferred pretty clearly that one of the reasons he prefers manifestations over persons (beyond divine mystery, the Pauline account, and his background) is that it extends a bridge towards other Oneness Pentecostals that he had once associated with.

I think it's the same reason why you will never hear Jakes say that modalism is a heresy. The moment he does is the moment he burns a bridge between anyone in the Oneness movement. Isn't it enough for him to say "Look, I see Jesus working in the lives of these people, but listen, the Trinitarian view of the Godhead is better"

In a world where some Oneness Pentecostals call him a heretic for a Trinitarian view and the Trinitarians call him a heretic for using one vague word that could be intentional to draw others towards a more orthodox view, I don't envy T.D. Jakes at all.

I was surprised with Jakes at the event. I was expecting him to be a TBN Shill and he ended up showing a non-insignificant amount of humility and a great deal of wisdom. I was surprised by what T.D. Jakes will say when he is out of his context and instead engaging in conversation with fellow pastors.

I have appealed for years, decades, for a Forum Structure that is shaped by exegesis not polemics.

1. The Scripture under consideration is displayed in diagrammatic form.

2. Each participant unfolds the meaning of the text as they believe it should be interpreted in 15 minute segments. There is then a summary statement etc.

3. The Holy Spirit had/has only ONE(1) intended meaning for each passage of Scripture.

4. When we discover and embrace what the Holy Spirit intended in recording Special Revelation we have the correct interpretation. This also requires an inclusion of Systematic Theology as we are not interested in "proof texting".

To date (cf. Bridge Builders conference at Ridge Crest) all such endeavors are polemic and end up being "lets make nice". I certainly agree with gracious and irenic treatment of brothers but "lets make nice" will never resolve substantive and important textual matters.

If we insist on perpetuating status quo rather than adopting such a Forum Structure and systematically addressing the issues that are killing us inch by inch - now mile by mile. Time is short. Integrity in dealing with the text is paramount. Who will join me?

God's best to all who faithfully serve.

With much respect to the men who participated in this debate, I do not find the charge of Bishop Jakes being a "modalist", fair.

FWIW, My roots are in the Oneness Pentecostal movement. I have never heard, been taught, nor do I preach "modalism". I have never believed that God started our as the Father, then stopped being the Father to become the Son, and then changed against into the Holy Spirit. Since it's past time we sit and have open and honest discussions about these subjects I'm being as transparent as I can and say I have NEVER heard that taught.
I have heard it taught that Jesus was the Son of God. "The visible image of the invisible God"not revealed to the world in this manifestation until Bethlehem.

I am no theologian and debated whether to even post on this blog or not but I refute the charge of modalism.

@Dustin... My only reason for mentioning Graham was that his comments were in perfect harmony with what Oneness people believe. JG was incredible all day!

All,

The hang up for me and others is the word 'persons.' Agreeably, I don't like the word manifestations but have trouble with persons in the modern context that we understand. I'm a Father, I'm a Son, I'm a Brother but I'm only one person not three according to my titles.

We have no trouble believing in One devil and yet the Bible says he's the FATHER of lies, SON of perdition and the SPIRIT of this age. He's one and not three.

At the end of the day, I think that Oneness people and Trinitarian people are talking past one another and fighting for their terms and traditions more than what the Bible actually says.

Blessings!

"Persons" is not a perfect word to express all that God is, but it is the right word."

I am among those who were skeptical of Jakes' theology prior to this. While I still hold reservations about other things as expressed, I emphasize with the point Jakes was making when choosing to not use "persons". As the quote of Ed's words above states, "persons" is definitely lacking and illustrates the problem of defining the infinite with the finite.

I am thankful MacDonald brought him in and that Driscoll started the conversation, and that Jakes stepped up to the plate. I think in the long term it opens up more conversations (including but not limited to with Jakes) because they didn't go down a checklist with everything they disagree on. The WOF is a big deal, but I see the wisdom in one step at a time.

So for now, I'm thankful for a far more clear understanding of Jakes' view of the trinity, and I look forward to subsequent conversations that can be built off of yesterday.

As a modalism who also graduated from Western Seminary, this is what I believe.

There is one God who exists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Jesus, the Son of God, is God manifest in the flesh (i.e., in genuine and full human existence).
 
We are non-trinitarian, in that we do not use the word "persons" to describe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  We are not, however, anti-trinitarian.  We do not use the word "persons" because we do not find it in Scripture and because it seems to us to lend itself at least in some cases to a tritheistic view of God.
 
We reject Modalistic Sabellianism, which we understand to be the view that there are successive manifestations of God (i.e., God first manifested Himself as Father, but not as Son or Holy Spirit; God next manifested Himself as Son, but neither Father nor Holy Spirit; God now manifests Himself as Holy Spirit, but not as Father or Son).  God is immutable.  The incarnation did not bring about any change in God's divine nature.

FYI, Jakes has admitted (and I've transcribed) that he was not only Oneness, but in his teens he adamantly defended Oneness doctrine. IOW, he is not unaware of the theological issues, but he is fully aware.

Another blogger mentioned that we should rejoice that Jakes is now a Christian since holding to the Trinity. I have to wonder if this would disqualify Jakes as a "Bishop" (a title given to him by Oneness folks) a al 1 Timothy 3:6 for being a new convert.

Keith- Great post. There is a lot of misinformation on what oneness folk believe. Most do not believe in a successive line of manifestations (Father became Son then became Holy Spirit). Mark Driscoll seems to slap a monolithic description to all oneness people. The truth is that like trinitarians there are myriad variations of oneness conceptions. The "Jesus Only" moniker is not accurate.

The Christian Research Institute has an interesting article that is a bit old, but the age of the article may speak even greater volumes about TD Jakes' present explanation of his beliefs concerning the Trinity.

It seems like Jakes' explanation (and defense of his Oneness friends) has not really changed over the years.

CRI Article found here... http://www.equip.org/articles/t-d-jakes-responds-to-the-journal

First of all, I wonder why the doctrinal statement on the Potter's House website still uses the term "manifestations"? Also,Ed, you seem sort of bothered that some of us "won't accept him at his word." Sorry, but from reading the transcript, right after he says "yes, 3 persons." he then goes on to almost immediately says "I'm not comfortable with the word persons." He then goes on to defend the term manifestations. So for me, I DO take him at his word. I just can't find in his words where he renounced modalism. Also, I was dumbfounded by the way in which Driscoll and MacDonald treated him with velvet gloves, especially in a forum that's touted for being "hard hitting." For a guy (Driscoll) who is so down on women leading anything, it seems strange that Driscoll never bothered to ask about the woman pastor on staff at the Potter's House, or about Jakes's most famous disciple, Paula White. Finally, odd that he wasn't asked one question about prosperity "theology."

@ CsharpAJ, Sadly, I think you are dead on. My prediction is that we see O'Steen at ER3.

What about his "prosperity gospel" preaching? I've listened to him before and have definitely felt like I should be rich because I am a Christian. What are your thoughts? Is that not a big deal? Should we separate ourselves from him? What do we make of the secular world pointing out in a negative way how Jakes seems to be all about money? See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omLJT73j6MQ

Would definitely like to hear everyone's thoughts on this? Thanks guys!

Anthony

Ed,

I just finished reading Wax's article and am thankful for your followup post. I have a lot to think about. Thanks for sharing.

"Regardless, to be fair, you have to at least acknowledge a shift on views of the Trinity-- and that is a move in the right direction."

I'm a fair Christian. I do acknowledge a public move in the right direction by TD Jakes.

I am sure Ed is not wanting to turn this into a Godhead debate. But there are Trinitarians who have a similar view of the Godhead as a Oneness person.

Criswell and A. McGrath are two that come to mind.

I think Pastor Jakes' struggle with the word "person" and its implications is evidence that he is genuinely considering and studying all of the angles as he opens himself to grow in his understanding of God.

As a pastor, if this were someone in the church growing in their understanding of God, I would seek to add input and encouragement, and worry a bit less on the exact terminology that may be difficult to get used to.

Just because he is himself a pastor, I cannot fault Jakes for being uncomfortable with langauge that is readily accepted by others - no matter how long it has been in use - to explain a growing understanding of God.

Mark quoted,
Another blogger mentioned that we should rejoice that Jakes is now a Christian since holding to the Trinity.

Do you think anyone was saved following the ascension of Christ without having a clear and distinct understanding of the Trinity? Say, before the convening of the church councils? Has anyone every in history been saved who did not understand the fullness of the Godhead?

Ed,
I frequently wonder if some people will ever be satisfied. "When will he repent of his association with the prosperity gospel?" "When will he repent of his association with Paula White?" "When we he repent about woman pastors?"

Is the man running for president of the SBC? Is he vying to fill MacDonald's seat at The Gospel Coalition? Going to head the Billy Graham Association?

Honestly, I think some people prefer others to be in error so they will have something to rail against. So their attacks can be justified as "defending the faith." Anyone who cannot authentically rejoice over Jakes declaration has a spiritual problem as great as confusion over the Trinity.

I was at the event and I was impressed with Jakes' humility and the depth of his insight on a number of matters. I thought he acquitted himself quite well in terms of his trinitarian understanding.

I think the real loser of the event Wednesday was the Gospel Coalition (a group I closely identify with doctrinally). That they would basically force out Macdonald for associating with Jakes and to a lesser extent Furtick is really sad for me. It only furthers the stereotype that the reformed crowd is known much more for who and what they oppose than for what they endorse.

Listening to Macdonald discuss the genesis of the Elephant Room was incredibly helpful for me and I found myself quite convicted about locating certain people outside of the Christian faith prematurely. All in all, I felt it was a great event.

I made a mistake on my initial post, I am not a Sabellian Modalist, but I believer in the three in one God or tri-unity with an emphasis on Unity.

But there are those with a long history of SBC that have said and believed a similar view of God as TD Jakes.

Criswell is an example, He was fond of saying that the only God you will see in Heaven is Jesus.

It's sad that people were calling him a raging heretic because he wouldn't define his Trinitarianism...

NOW, he has done so and they find something else like, "He's probably just lying to pass as orthodox."

Really?

I thought I would share some additional information from a SBC perspective that is what most reasonable Oneness proponents believe.

Dr. Frank Stagg, retired professor of New Testament interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. The following quotes are from the first chapter of his book, The Holy Spirit Today. The chapter is titled, “The Holy Spirit and the Oneness of God.”

The New Testament is content to know God as the eternal Father, as the Word made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth, and as the abiding nearness of the Holy Spirit. It does not attempt to work out a formal doctrine of trinity. This is the work of later generations of Christians....

It was first in the second century that the “trinitarian question” was raised as such. The word “trinity” does not appear in the New Testament, and it is to be recognized that there is no formal doctrine of trinity in the New Testament....

The formal doctrine of trinity was rounded out in the fourth century, but its roots are older. Tertullian (A.D. 160?-230?) is credited with coining the word “trinitas,” the Latin for “trinity” ... But what began as insistence upon tri-unity eventually became an emphasis upon the threeness and increasing jeopardy to the belief in oneness.2

To the term trinity were soon added the terms “persons,” “three persons,” “three persons of the Godhead,” and even the ranking of the persons as first, second, and third. Thus trinitarianism was fast on the way to tritheism, a de facto belief in three distinct gods. This the New Testament never anticipated and does not support.3

Dr. Stagg’s “attempted restatement”:

Jesus Christ is God uniquely present in a truly human life, but he is not a second god nor only one third of God. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh (John 1:1). The Word which became flesh was God, not the second person of the trinity. John does not say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Second Person of the trinity” (1:1). He says that “the Word was God.” Jesus Christ is more than “the Second person of the trinity”; He is Immanuel, God with us. Immanuel does not mean “the Second person of the trinity with us.” Immanuel is God with us.4

In reference to the Holy Spirit, Dr. Stagg affirms:

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, not the Spirit of the third person of the trinity. The Holy Spirit is God in his nearness and power, anywhere and anytime, the very divine presence incarnated in Jesus Christ now present in his people. He is not a third God nor one-third of God. He is God himself relating to us in judgment, guidance, strength, redemption, or otherwise.5

Hi To Everyone!

I love this discussion! Some of you made comments about whether there would be one or more thrones in Heaven. I looked up the word "thrones" with my trusty PC Study Bible 5 and noted something very interesting:

Daniel 7:9-14
"I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;

10 A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened.

11 "I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame.

12 As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

13 "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.

14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. NKJV

If I'm not mistaken, vs. 13 speaks of "One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of Heaven ..." I would identify this as Jesus, but note that HE is coming before the throne of the "Ancient of Days" in vss 9 and following. Am I correct in saying that this text reveals two visible appearances of the Trinity in the O.T.?

Does this help any of you in your understanding of the number of thrones or the nature of the Trinity? It seems to strengthen the orthodox teaching of the Trinity from my perspective. What do you think?

Jack

It's much easier to affirm what I affirm than it is to deny what I deny.

Driscoll and MacDonald know that and refuse to go there.

Jakes comments were in the right direction, but also nuanced by his Oneness background and should have been pressed. The interview was ultimately not helpful.

I think most would be thrilled to see him sufficiently affirm the Trinity/orthodoxy. However, as been pointed out, the fact that it is still a question means it was not helpful.

I believe like Wayne Grudem:

- Has one God
- God is three persons
- Each person is fully God

Easy!

Thanks for referencing my July 2010 interview with TD Jakes here Ed (direct link: http://sheridanvoysey.com/the-td-jakes-interview ).

It is worth noting that after my interview with Jakes aired, a number of Oneness Pentecostals called into my show during talkback stating that this had been the clearest inidciation to date that TD Jakes no longer held to their beliefs.

Trinity is NOT mentioned in the Bible. But the Bible does state:

"I and my father are ONE" (John 10:30). "When you have seen me, you have seen the Father" (John 14:9). God's FOCUS on ONE-ness is ALL OVER the BIBLE - Not a trinity.

And JOHN 1:1-18 explains focus on ONE.

1) In the beginning was the WORD.
2) The WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD.
3) And the WORD (which is GOD) became FLESH (JESUS) and dwelt among us (on Earth). And we beheld His glory - the begotten of the Father.

I truly don't understand who the confusion is except only God can reveal it.

Jesus explained that UNDERSTANDING produced fruit unto salvation in the parable of the sower. Understanding is  empowerment with knowledge and wisdom to believe on Jesus as the scriptures have said, obedience to the faith. Understanding what Jesus did and who he came to versus the apostles and who they were sent to is of utmost importance.  First of all the scriptures declare that Jesus came to Israel and ultimately Israel rejected him as their messiah. When they crucified him his blood was shed for all humanity, Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles alike and his resurrection legitimized it. Jesus' earthly ministry as a man officially ended when he ascended to Heaven before the Apostle's eyes. This was not before Jesus commanded them and gave them specific instructions.  A new covenant must be established since the old covenant was fulfilled by Jesus and done away with. Jesus told the Apostles to deliver His New Covenant first in Jerusalem only after they received the Holy Ghost. The ministry of Jesus was aimed at Israel and the Apostles ministry was directed to all nations and peoples.The new covenant delivered for all humanity was established by the Apostles message (The Apostles Doctrine) in the Book of Acts. Salvation for this dispensation is not preached in its complete form anywhere else. The Apostles Doctrine (Acts 2:14-42) is belief that Jesus is our perfect sacrifice for sins, we must repent of those sins, and be baptized in water in Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of those sins. After we obey this we secure a promise from God that He will fill us with the Holy Ghost. This was the undeniable message used by every Apostle througout the Book of Acts. Understanding all of this helps us determine what the  new covenant (plan of salvation) was then and still is since it was preached on the Day of Pentecost. This is recorded for us in the Second Chapter of the Book of Acts and continued throughout The Book of Acts, and continues even until the end of the age. 
UNDERSTAND!- ing renders truth and makes us secure in our faith. The Apostles Doctrine, dare any challenge these folks?
 By Bro. Ed Forman

Sorry, my last comment was a mis placed paste.
As for questioning anyone in the future as Bro. Jakes on the Oneness. Two questions will deliver your answer. Ask what is their mode of baptism and what is their heavenly Father's Name. If they are Oneness they will declare that they baptize in the Name of Jesus and that Jesus is the name of their Heavenly Father. Our savior came in his Father's name which He received by inheritance and commanded His Apostles to preach remission of sins in His name beginning at Jerusalem.