Deception Champions the Cause of Hillsong Conference 2010

The Hillsong website reads: Faith, Hope, Love. If they were honest with themselves, it should read: Money, Power, Deception. Seems like a strong statement to make. But on their website, in regards to their conference they say:

Hillsong Conference is designed to champion the cause of the local church everywhere.”

If they are ‘championing the cause of the local church everywhere’, why are they inviting some evidently CORRUPT ministers to preach at their upcoming Hillsong Conference 2010? Obviously they do not care about their reputation, their vision, or who their God is by the way they have rolled out the carpet to two incredibly foul, corrupt, sooth-saying speakers. This issue MUST be addressed. Hillsong is spreading the contagious corrosive teachings and celebrity wolves to smaller local churches. Hillsong is SICK and are now their spreading sickness further.

These celebrity wolves are speakers TD Jakes and Ed Young.

Under the heading of ‘An Unshakeable Kingdom’ Hillsong has a bit to say on the two. I think we can all remember how shaken Hillsong was when Guglimucci was exposed. This is even worse than Guglimucci because these speakers will not be exposed but get away with their heresies and teachings that are a pure offense to the gospel.

Hillsong says of TD Jakes:

Second Time at Hillsong Conference

Bishop T.D. Jakes IS A QUINTESSENTIAL LEADER. Known for his service to the church and the global community, his heartfelt efforts have made worldwide impact. He is a man at the forefront of philanthropy, a best-selling author, and most of all a premier contemporary spiritual voice.

Bishop Jakes has global reach through missions around the world, record-breaking events, and weekly, with his diverse congregation at The Potter’s House, where he shares his message of hope, inspiration and God’s love with over 30 thousand members there in Dallas, Texas. The Dallas-Fort Worth community is also home to Clay Academy, the college preparatory school for leaders of the next generation; the Metroplex Economic Development Corporation, a resource for aspiring entrepreneurs; and Capella Park, a charming single-family housing development.

http://www.hillsongconference.com/2010guests/tdjakes

Hillsong says of Ed Young:

Ed Young

Second Time at Hillsong Conference

How could we ever forget the imprint that Pastor Ed Young left on our hearts at Hillsong Conference in 2007. He communicated such Godly wisdom at “a whole nutha level”…

We are so excited to announce that Ed Young will be back with us again in 2010…

Ed Young is a straightforward communicator who uniquely connects God’s unchanging truth with a diverse culture through compelling and creative teaching methods. He is the founding and Senior Pastor of Fellowship Church. The church has its main campus just north of the DFW Airport and operates five satellite campuses in the greater Dallas/Fort Worth area and one campus in Miami, Florida. Ed’s books include The Marriage Mirror, Outrageous, Contagious Joy, In the Zone and The Creative Leader.

Ed is also known for his candor when talking about leadership and the inner workings of a growing church, and he provides resources for church leaders through CreativePastors.com and the Creative Church Conferences (C3).

He and his wife Lisa have been married for twenty-six years and have four children. More information about Ed and his various ministries can be found online at EdYoung.com.

http://www.hillsongconference.com/2010guests/edyoung

About TD Jakes

TD Jake’ s is from the Oneness Pentecostal Cult. It is NOT a Christian move of God. He is also a liar – In  Nov. 17, 2009 on the “Larry King Live” show, he said that he does not believe or preach a ‘prosperity gospel’.

Unfortunately, TD Jakes is a well-known prosperity pimp.

As for his Oneness Pentecostal roots, his belief statement says:

God -There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

http://www.thepottershouse.org/v2/content/view/18/32/

ApologeticIndex exposes TD Jakes well:

Bottom-line: In its initial article, the Christian Research Journal writes:
Even well-discipled and discerning Christians find it challenging to differentiate between the truth and error found in Jakes’s teachings — let alone the watching secular world. The New York Times published an article on 1 January 1999 regarding how America has always had a national evangelist. ”Ever since the colonial era, America has had a pre-eminent preacher who played an unofficial role as national evangelist, preaching a simple message of repentance and salvation and drawing vast crowds in the process. For the last 50 years that role has been filled by the Rev. Billy Graham. But at the turn of the century with Mr. Graham now 80, the question arises, Who if anyone can take his place.”63 It is sobering that of the five possible successors to Billy Graham listed, one of them is T. D. Jakes.There is no denying that T. D. Jakes has many fine leadership qualities, and the social outreaches of his Potter’s House church appear quite commendable. But, while sound doctrine is not the only criterion for leadership among Christians (1 Tim. 3:1–13), it is certainly a necessary criterion (Tit. 1:9–11). Do we really want a non-Trinitarian to be the spiritual leader of our country? If the answer to this question is anything but an unequivocal no, the future looks dark indeed for the American church. 

The Man, His Ministry, And His Movement: Concerns About The Teachings Of T.D. JakesOff-site Link by by Jerry L. Buckner, writing in the Christian Research Journal

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j11.html

I encourage you to read the full article.

About Ed Young (Exposed!)

As Lance blogged this last week. Read the articles he pulled together here:

http://groupsects.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/ed-young-and-the-mystery-jet/

While Ed Young think he may have resolved the problem and is now ‘moving on’, he actually created more of a problem for himself as ‘A Little Leaven’ has pointed out:

“… So, Ed Young’s admissions rather than making his case have instead proven what the News 8 reporter set out to demonstrate, namely that Ed Young’s luxury spending is out of control and not in keeping with a pastor’s salary.”

http://www.alittleleaven.com/2010/02/ed-youngs-admissions-are-more-damning-than-the-original-news-story.html

“A reminder that the apparently “worldly” Chris Rosebrough will be putting even more perspective to this troubling tale on his FftF program today, which airs at 6pm EST.”

http://apprising.org/2010/02/09/luxury-and-ed-young-jr/

Christian Pirate Radio is worth listening too as well on this subject here. He observes that Ed Young possibly likes to be influenced by TD Jakes. I really encourage you to listen to this (I know it’s long), 8o minute expose on Ed Young. If there is a script from this radio expose written, I will post it up. Here is where you can hear the Pirate Christian Radio’s expose on the issue:

http://apprising.org/2010/02/11/radio-expose-on-ed-young-jr-and-luxury/

Hillsong are cursing the local church by allowing speakers to preach different gospels and teachings for filthy luchre’s sake. They need to be accountable to who they have speak at their conferences. This  indeed will be a sad moment when Hillsong allows these deceivers to speak into the lives of the thousands that flock to their conferences.

S&P


107 thoughts on “Deception Champions the Cause of Hillsong Conference 2010

  1. I was sincerely hoping they would not get TD Jakes back. I am incredibly grieved that they have sunk so low.

  2. Let the man speak for himself:

    ‘My Views on the Godhead’
    Bishop T. D. Jakes

    ‘I was raised Baptist and became Pentecostal 26 years ago at a Greater Emmanuel Apostolic Church, where I was later ordained a Bishop. I resigned from that denomination 11 years ago, and have continued to fellowship with Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies. This small fellowship of churches is not a denomination, and differs in many ways from traditional Apostolic churches.

    ‘Both chapters of my early spiritual journey contributed volumes to my faith and walk with God, helping to hone my character. I was shaped by and appreciate both denominations, but am controlled by neither. My association with Oneness people does not constitute assimilation into their ranks any more than my association with the homeless in our city makes me one of them.

    ‘Day-to-day, my affiliation is with the Pater Alliance, an interdenominational network of some 250 churches, which I founded three years ago and serve as CEO, senior minister, and mentor, providing leadership for pastors from Presbyterian, to Baptist, to Pentecostal. My own 23,000-member church, The Potter’s House in Dallas, is non-denominational and growing exponentially. There, I serve widely different people whose common desire is to know God, and to grow in the knowledge of, and fellowship with, Jesus Christ.

    ‘While I mix with Christians from a broad range of theological perspectives, I speak only for my personal faith and convictions. I am not a theologian, and I avoid quoting even theologians who agree with me. To defend my beliefs, I go directly to the Bible.

    ‘My views on the Godhead are from 1 John 5:7-8, “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” (NKJV)

    ‘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.
    Many things can be said about the Son that cannot be said about the Father. The Son was born of a virgin; the Father created the virgin from whom He was born. The Son slept (Luke 8:23), but the Father never sleeps (Psalm 121:3-5). The Son took on the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), but God is a spirit (John 4:24). Likewise, several characteristics are distinctive to the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit alone empowers (Acts 1:8), indwells (2 Timothy 1:15), and guides the believer (John 16:14).

    ‘In spite of all the distinctives, God is one in His essence. Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H²O. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness.

    ‘In 1 Timothy 3:16, the Apostle Paul says, “Without controversy, great is the mystery of Godliness.” Without controversy, it is a mystery, not always to be figured out, but to be entered into.

    ‘The language in the doctrinal statement of our ministry that refers to the Trinity of the Godhead as “manifestations” does not derive from modalism. The Apostle Paul himself used this term referring to the Godhead in 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 12:7, and 1 John 3:5-8. Peter also used the term in 1 Peter 1:20. Can this word now be heresy when it is a direct quote from the Pauline epistles and used elsewhere in the New Testament?

    ‘I believe Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. I believe He was born of a virgin, crucified on a cross, arose from the dead, and is coming again for His church. I believe He sent the Holy Spirit to lead and guide the Church. And I believe in justification by faith. I also believe that baptism is a commandment to be observed in obedience to God’s Word. The rites of baptism are celebrated in our church by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ. I have always, without exception, baptized as the early church did in Acts 2:38, 10:44 and 9:1-4. That is my conviction, based on Scripture.

    ‘Nevertheless, many of my respected colleagues quote Matthew 28:19 when they baptize, while others use both, saying, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we do all things in Jesus’ name.” Our love for the same Lord has enabled us to walk together in love without dissension and in spite of variance in procedures.
    I deeply appreciate the chance to respond to any misunderstandings that may have resulted in part from my silence on these subjects. Little if any attention is given to any of them in my books or sermons. My silence has not been some veiled attempt to disguise my faith, which is demonstrated daily in the works I have been called to do. My voice may have seemed muted on these subjects, but I have made a distinct sound regarding the matters that I have been assigned to discuss with my generation. I have spoken boldly against domestic violence—and against physical, sexual and emotional abuse of women in this nation. I have thundered as an advocate of reconciliation between races and denominations, and for restoration of hurting souls to the healing properties of Christ’s love.

    ‘I confess that I have remained aloof from the theological controversies. And I confess I have been universal in my associations, purposely ignoring opportunities to be divisive. But it was not lack of conviction, or absence of proper Christian ideals, that had taken my attention—I love the great principles and tenets of our faith, and I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet it is not the oneness of God for which I cry, it is for the oneness of His people.

    ‘When I think of the Trinity, I consider how Jesus prayed under the unction of the Holy Spirit that we would be one even as He and the Father are one. To that end, I preach, write and work. No truth exemplified by the Trinity is greater than Christian unity. As we seek to dissect the divine, articulate the abstract, and defend what I agree are precious truths, I hope we do not miss the greater message taught by the concept of the Trinity. And that is that three—though distinct—are still one!’

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/februaryweb-only/13.0b.html?start=1

    This was a response to the following article, also published in Christianity Today:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/february7/5.58.html

  3. Let the man speak for himself:

    ‘My Views on the Godhead’
    Bishop T. D. Jakes

    ‘I was raised Baptist and became Pentecostal 26 years ago at a Greater Emmanuel Apostolic Church, where I was later ordained a Bishop. I resigned from that denomination 11 years ago, and have continued to fellowship with Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies. This small fellowship of churches is not a denomination, and differs in many ways from traditional Apostolic churches.

    ‘Both chapters of my early spiritual journey contributed volumes to my faith and walk with God, helping to hone my character. I was shaped by and appreciate both denominations, but am controlled by neither. My association with Oneness people does not constitute assimilation into their ranks any more than my association with the homeless in our city makes me one of them.

    ‘Day-to-day, my affiliation is with the Pater Alliance, an interdenominational network of some 250 churches, which I founded three years ago and serve as CEO, senior minister, and mentor, providing leadership for pastors from Presbyterian, to Baptist, to Pentecostal. My own 23,000-member church, The Potter’s House in Dallas, is non-denominational and growing exponentially. There, I serve widely different people whose common desire is to know God, and to grow in the knowledge of, and fellowship with, Jesus Christ.

    ‘While I mix with Christians from a broad range of theological perspectives, I speak only for my personal faith and convictions. I am not a theologian, and I avoid quoting even theologians who agree with me. To defend my beliefs, I go directly to the Bible.

    ‘My views on the Godhead are from 1 John 5:7-8, “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” (NKJV)

    ‘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.
    Many things can be said about the Son that cannot be said about the Father. The Son was born of a virgin; the Father created the virgin from whom He was born. The Son slept (Luke 8:23), but the Father never sleeps (Psalm 121:3-5). The Son took on the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), but God is a spirit (John 4:24). Likewise, several characteristics are distinctive to the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit alone empowers (Acts 1:8), indwells (2 Timothy 1:15), and guides the believer (John 16:14).

    ‘In spite of all the distinctives, God is one in His essence. Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H²O. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness.

    ‘In 1 Timothy 3:16, the Apostle Paul says, “Without controversy, great is the mystery of Godliness.” Without controversy, it is a mystery, not always to be figured out, but to be entered into.

    ‘The language in the doctrinal statement of our ministry that refers to the Trinity of the Godhead as “manifestations” does not derive from modalism. The Apostle Paul himself used this term referring to the Godhead in 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 12:7, and 1 John 3:5-8. Peter also used the term in 1 Peter 1:20. Can this word now be heresy when it is a direct quote from the Pauline epistles and used elsewhere in the New Testament?

    ‘I believe Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. I believe He was born of a virgin, crucified on a cross, arose from the dead, and is coming again for His church. I believe He sent the Holy Spirit to lead and guide the Church. And I believe in justification by faith. I also believe that baptism is a commandment to be observed in obedience to God’s Word. The rites of baptism are celebrated in our church by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ. I have always, without exception, baptized as the early church did in Acts 2:38, 10:44 and 9:1-4. That is my conviction, based on Scripture.

    ‘Nevertheless, many of my respected colleagues quote Matthew 28:19 when they baptize, while others use both, saying, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we do all things in Jesus’ name.” Our love for the same Lord has enabled us to walk together in love without dissension and in spite of variance in procedures.
    I deeply appreciate the chance to respond to any misunderstandings that may have resulted in part from my silence on these subjects. Little if any attention is given to any of them in my books or sermons. My silence has not been some veiled attempt to disguise my faith, which is demonstrated daily in the works I have been called to do. My voice may have seemed muted on these subjects, but I have made a distinct sound regarding the matters that I have been assigned to discuss with my generation. I have spoken boldly against domestic violence—and against physical, sexual and emotional abuse of women in this nation. I have thundered as an advocate of reconciliation between races and denominations, and for restoration of hurting souls to the healing properties of Christ’s love.

    ‘I confess that I have remained aloof from the theological controversies. And I confess I have been universal in my associations, purposely ignoring opportunities to be divisive. But it was not lack of conviction, or absence of proper Christian ideals, that had taken my attention—I love the great principles and tenets of our faith, and I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet it is not the oneness of God for which I cry, it is for the oneness of His people.

    ‘When I think of the Trinity, I consider how Jesus prayed under the unction of the Holy Spirit that we would be one even as He and the Father are one. To that end, I preach, write and work. No truth exemplified by the Trinity is greater than Christian unity. As we seek to dissect the divine, articulate the abstract, and defend what I agree are precious truths, I hope we do not miss the greater message taught by the concept of the Trinity. And that is that three—though distinct—are still one!’

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/februaryweb-only/13.0b.html?start=1

  4. When up at Campsie’s OP Mother-church ‘Grace Tabernacle’, it took me AGES to finally understand the difference between the OP understanding of a trinity that works for them verses the pentecostal trinity. The OP for a long time have tried to move away from mainline Christianity – now they are attempting to come together as a ‘uniting – reconciling’ bunch. It cannot be done unless they repent of their heresies! Tommy Tenney is another OP. He will not repent of his OP background and teachings but does his best to promote ‘unity’ among the church. They want to remove divisions – but at the same time bring OP doctrine IN. Tenney is proof of that.

    Below is an understanding of the trinity I finally drew out for a Campsie OP pastor to see. I asked if this is the difference between OP and other Christian doctrine on the trinity. He said ‘yes’. This answered all my questions, including why they wanted me to be baptised in the name of Jesus to be saved and not the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In their eyes, I was not saved because I was not baptised in the name of Jesus.

    First diagram: OP Belief
    Second diagram: Christian Belief
    OP Diagram

    Some in the OP believe Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Spirit. I’ve continually found this to be the case with the OP I talk too.

    Now let’s look at this alongside TD Jakes comments:
    ‘In spite of all the distinctives, God is one in His essence. Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H²O. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness.

    They use this analogy a LOT. But it works in the OP’s favour too: Jesus is the ice, Jesus is the water, Jesus is the steam.

    “The language in the doctrinal statement of our ministry that refers to the Trinity of the Godhead as “manifestations” does not derive from modalism. The Apostle Paul himself used this term referring to the Godhead in 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 12:7, and 1 John 3:5-8. Peter also used the term in 1 Peter 1:20. Can this word now be heresy when it is a direct quote from the Pauline epistles and used elsewhere in the New Testament?”

    ‘Manifestations’ hides modalism well though. In his previous belief statement, the Godhead was three ‘substance’. In these statements he can’t say ‘persons’ because of his beliefs in OP. If he said that the trinity was made up of three persons, than that solves his stance completely. Instead he’s defending his use for the word ‘manifestation’ rather then change the word to ‘person’. His argument for the use of the word ‘manifestation’ in 1Tim 3:16 (not 15), 1Cor 12:7, 1Joh 3:5,8 and 1Pet 1:20 are cherry-picked scriptures that justify his use for the word.

    “The rites of baptism are celebrated in our church by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ. I have always, without exception, baptized as the early church did in Acts 2:38, 10:44 and 9:1-4. That is my conviction, based on Scripture.”

    This is KEY! To be TRULY saved in the OP cult, you need to be baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38 is their scripture to justify that this is the TRUE WAY of salvation.

    ‘Nevertheless, many of my respected colleagues quote Matthew 28:19 when they baptize, while others use both, saying, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we do all things in Jesus’ name.”

    Now this is the deceit! Allot of people would look at this statement and go, ‘Look! He can’t be OP because he allows people to baptise in the name of the F,S,HS’. But it’s not that at all! Their concept of the Godhead is twisted. The normal baptism statement is, ‘Be baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. But TD Jakes adds to that! What? Their emphasis on what one must be to be part of the true faith – being properly baptised in ‘Jesus name’.

    “I have thundered as an advocate of reconciliation between races and denominations, and for restoration of hurting souls to the healing properties of Christ’s love.”

    This article shoots himself in the foot. Did you not see the above footage FaceLift? He was telling people who had no money to give to God. He twisted the word of God to rob from the poor and give to the rich. The above statement is a plain out lie.

    “I confess that I have remained aloof from the theological controversies. And I confess I have been universal in my associations, purposely ignoring opportunities to be divisive. But it was not lack of conviction, or absence of proper Christian ideals, that had taken my attention—I love the great principles and tenets of our faith, and I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet it is not the oneness of God for which I cry, it is for the oneness of His people.”

    And this confession of his now makes him accountable? Because of his lack of theology, he operates in deception and in unbelief.

  5. “The rites of baptism are celebrated in our church by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ. I have always, without exception, baptized as the early church did in Acts 2:38, 10:44 and 9:1-4. That is my conviction, based on Scripture.”

    I would argue that those scriptures use the wording to distinct the baptism in the name of Christ from the baptism (and the meaning behind them) through the ministry of St. John the Baptist, but do not try to introduce a distinct ceremonial formula.
    This distinction was important in the early days.

    The trinitarian formula achieves also a point of distinction from other types of baptism formulae used by later heretic movements.

    The modern dilemma is that institutional churches have put such a heavy weight on the “correct” formula as a prerequisite for acknowledging baptisms performed in other denominations than their own, if the prerequisite is not met they would recognize a person as unbaptized.

    Personally I’m unsure if the use of a specific formula (as long as it is not contradicting the person or work of Christ) is essential.

  6. “Personally I’m unsure if the use of a specific formula (as long as it is not contradicting the person or work of Christ) is essential.”

    Because of the OP’s focus on the correct formula for salvation, they are very legalistic churches.

    Our conversion experience is when we are baptised into salvation. I do not believe a man-made ritual saves us.

  7. In spite of him being OP he is completely EXPLOITING the POOR and VULNERBALE. That beside his above statement reveals him to be a liar and deceiver:

  8. How many souls have you saved lately? When Jesus comes back, do you really think He is coming to discuss any of this on this website? How many souls have you led to the Lord? If you have not gotten it together at His return, it is too late, Jack. Try using this forum or your money, time, space, thoughts on winning your unsaved loved ones to the Lord. Didn’t think I knew that, did you. Yes, you have unsaved loved ones waiting on you to say something to them. You’ve already lost some of them with your incessant need to kill TD Jakes. God will judge you, cause we ain’t listening. God is the one who goes to the innermost part of our heart and saves us, not TD Jakes. You are wasting your time. His church will always be filled because the true and living God always shows up there. Trust me, I know. Introduce the Savior to people now while you have a chance. By the way, have you received Jesus into your heart? Is your all on the alter of sacrafice laid? Your heart, does the Spirit control? You can only be blessed and have peace and sweet rest till you yield Him your body and soul. Do it quickly. Say, Jesus, please forgive me for hatred of your people that you created and called for your purpose. Then come into my heart and save me. Help me to see only you. Give me true revelation knowledge of you, and help me to live only for you. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins (if you really do), and rose from the dead, and is alive today. I believe that I am made righteous only because of your blood shed on Calvary. Thank you for saving me.
    Don’t disect it, just believe it.

  9. Jakes,
    ‘In 1 Timothy 3:16, the Apostle Paul says, “Without controversy, great is the mystery of Godliness.” Without controversy, it is a mystery, not always to be figured out, but to be entered into.’

    I’ll be looking forward to your dissection of the Anglicans’ 39 articles, and the Westminster Confession, s&p!

    When any of us can articulate the mystery of the Godhead, we will truly be able to say we have made it, that is, just before we stumble over our pride! How difficult it must have been for the early Church to make such an attempt! And still it is almost unfathomable, despite all the great theological minds of history, such is the mystery of godliness, so far beyond is the grasp of God’s Person.

    I think Jakes has given an honest assessment of his position for the world to see. By maintaining the assault on his credibility in reference to his understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, critics miss the value of his ministry to people who have had their lives impacted by the gospel through the God-given grace on his life.

    As far as I can make out, Jakes’ business is kept separate from the church he oversees, and his business affairs have been found to be exemplary by people who investigate these things.

    My main interest is in your pursuit of his doctrinal stance on the Godhead. He has denied Oneness affiliation. He has been open about his understanding. I do not see that God is either denied or dishonoured by his understanding. People are and will be saved under this ministry. Baptising them in the name of Jesus is Biblically acceptable, since Jesus is at One with the Godhead.

    By the way, we baptise people in the name of the Father, and the Son and of the Holy Spirit!

  10. “He has denied Oneness affiliation.”

    Where? If that was it, he didn’t deny it at all.
    If he did, then why are so many OP’s following him? Check out an OP church in your area and see if they still hold up TD Jakes highly. They almost worship the guy.

  11. FaceLift: “People are and will be saved under this ministry.”

    I don’t believe it. This is a cult like Mormonism or JW’s. I know some will be saved believing that Jesus Christ is Lord. But others wont because of the damaging teaching’s that keep throwing the gospel out the door.

    FaceLift: “I do not see that God is either denied or dishonoured by his understanding.”
    If you look at the above diagram, TD Jake’s god would be a deceiver and a liar before the crucifixion. Jesus prays to himself and therefore his atonement would have been for nothing. Why? Well he fell short in perfection because of his lies.

    The other reason why the atonement would fall short is because he died for nobody. If trinity is three separate persons, Christ must die to take on the wrath of God so that man may be saved. If trinity is three manifestations of Jesus, then Jesus died for Himself and not on behalf of the world, nor for the sake of God’s wrath. Their doctrines are INCREDIBLY confusing, which is why TD Jakes probably doesn’t want to go learning them.

    He can’t even preach the gospel without having some basic understanding of the trinity.

  12. “Unless the believer is willing to lose his life for Christ’s sake, he cannot ever attain everlasting life. If the Master must suffer to the point of death, so likewise must the servant.” – TD Jakes

    “Scripture teaches that receiving Christ as your personal Savior does not necessarily make you a son of God, but if you choose to do so, the power (authority) and right to do so is present. … Just being saved does not make you a son of God, …only those who are willing to be led by the Spirit actually realize and manifest the sonship of God.” – TD Jakes

    From his book ‘The Harvest’.

    “…One God, but manifest in three different ways, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration.” – TD Jakes (“Spirit Raiser,” Time Magazine, September 17, 2001)

    “I think it’s very, very significant that we first of all study the Trinity apart from salvation, and first of all that we embrace Christ and come to Him and come to know Who He is. Having come to know Who He is, then we begin to deal with the Trinity, which I believe is a very complex issue. The Trinity, the term Trinity, is not a biblical term, to begin with. It’s a theological description for something that is so beyond human comprehension that I’m not sure that we can totally hold God to a numerical system. The Lord said, “Behold, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one, and beside Him there is no other.” When God got ready to make a man that looked like Him, He didn’t make three. He made one man. However, that one man had three parts. He was body, soul and spirit. We have one God, but He is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration. It’s very important that we understand that, but I think that the first thing that every believer needs to do is to approach God by faith, and then having approached Him by faith, then they need to sit up under good teaching so that they can begin to understand who the God is that they have believed upon.” – TD Jakes (“Living by the Word” on KKLA, hosted by John Coleman, Aug. 23, 1998)

    “Don’t argue with people about foolishness. Don’t argue about the Godhead–the Bible says it’s a mystery. If it’s a mystery that means it’s a supernatural thing and everybody who thinks they understand it–really don’t. It’s impossible to explain how one God can be three persons and three persons be one God. And you’re gonna blow your computer and short circuit your p.c. trying to explain something that you don’t even understand. You can’t even explain how a brown cow eats green grass and produces white milk. So you know you can’t explain God. So just shut up arguing about it and say it’s a mystery. All we know is that He’s Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Ghost in regeneration and it’s all good.” -TD Jakes (“Bible Answer Man Show,” Hank Hanegraaff, Audio-Clip, June 3, 2005)

    “I think that Jesus is the product,” – TD Jakes (MSNBC News, “Do God and money mix?” March 31, 2005)

  13. I find it troubling for someone who claims to be a pastor, a bishop even, to claim they are not a theologian. How will he guard, teach and watch over his sheep?

    You can see very clear statements of Modalism from Randy Phillips of Phillips, Craig and Dean. I’ve documented it in an older post. Phillip’s father’s church put out a book called the Enquirer’s Handbook which basically says Constantine brought the doctrine of the Trinity into the church. I digress.

    Check out the similarities in language in what Jakes says. He denies the modalistic use of the word manifestations due to it being in the Bible. It’s not even used in the same manner. It’s the worst kind of proof-texting.

    Notice Jakes does not give a clear opinion on whether Oneness is heretical or not. Why is he quoting Scripture if he is not a theologian? How can he be knowledgeable enough to even mention if a word is or is not used in the same way a modalist would?

    I have a suspicion Jakes knows exactly what he’s saying and why he says it the way he does.

  14. Regarding T D Jakes and his speaking at Ed Young’s conference

    To Whom it may Concern:

    A message from the heart of the 2nd Vice President of the SBC,Dr. Wiley Drake

    “As many of you know I was elected as 2nd Vice President of The Southern Baptist Convention in June 2006.

    I believe this was a move of God and I take my job very serious. While I am serving I will do all that I can to work towards what I call New Testament Unity. First of all let me say that this is in no way ecumenical, as we all know that as a negative term.

    In our diversity we must remain on the constant alert not only to be orthodox, but to be careful in our orthopraxy.

    Let me give you an example of what I mean. I told my friend and brother Clayton Trotter, who is the Chief counsel of The Justice Foundation, the following statement as an example. Using him and me in this example is in no way to honor either of us. Hear is what I said……………

    “I do not know of anyone who is more Southern Baptist than I am, the good, the bad, and the ugly. On the other hand I do not know of any Charismatic who is more charismatic than Clayton Trotter.”

    With this in mind I know that Jesus knows, that despite our little differences, for more than 4 years Clayton Trotter and Wiley Drake have worked together with this type of New Testament Unity. We have loved each other, worked together, and prayed together with probably more Southern Baptist and Charismatics than any one else in the world.

    I am simply asking God, “if Clayton and Wiley can do it, why not more in His Kingdom?”

    Remember there has never been a more diverse group than the early Church, but they had a reputation of “my how they love one another”. They were also great soul winners while they discussed circumcision, baptisms, Church polity, and worship practices.

    Remember though they were all orthodox in their basic theology. We too should remember that today as we attempt to work together.

    With this orthodoxy and orthopraxy in mind let me speak to the issue of a pastor who does not believe in the orthodox teaching of the Holy Trinity.

    It is my understanding that TD Jakes does not believe as we believe in The Holy Trinity. It is also my understanding that a Southern Baptist pastor, Ed Young Jr., has invited Mr. Jakes to the pulpit of the Church he is the shepherd of.

    As 2nd Vice President of the SBC, I can not tell a pastor or Local Church what to do.

    On the other hand I would not be doing my job before the SBC that elected me, and more important before my Lord, if I did not say to the pastor and the Church,

    “what you are doing in this matter violates the Word of God.”

    I will pray for the local church and her pastor, and the leadership conference. To all of those who are invited to the conference I would simply ask you to follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

    We need more pastors, and churches that are about Holy Spirit purpose and following the Biblical example of leadership.

    Leadership, no matter how famous, or how attractive, without orthodoxy and orthopraxy leads to hell”

    Dr. Wiley Drake

  15. You totally read my mind Mark! You said it much better than me! Not being a theologian… bad proof-texting of manifestation… OP wrong or not…

    Good point you made here:
    “Why is he quoting Scripture if he is not a theologian? How can he be knowledgeable enough to even mention if a word is or is not used in the same way a modalist would?” – Mark

    “I have a suspicion Jakes knows exactly what he’s saying and why he says it the way he does.” – Mark

    And I totally agree with you. The bigger his audience, the more money for his pocket. He’s openly lied before.

  16. Interesting post at http://www.philcooke.com/ed_young_report#comments:

    “By Bob Jamison (not verified) on February 13, 2010 – 7:46pm

    ED YOUNG AND HIS HALF TRUTH:

    That aircraft is owned by Medill Corporation. It traces back to Ed Young as the principal through several other entities. The church is making the lease purchase payment on the aircraft. He only uses the lease word on stage and not purchase(evasive and deceitful). Ed paid $11.4 Million via a lease with a $1.00 Residual Buy Out for the aircraft at the end of the lease. He then wrapped the transaction in a “shell game” lease company that he owns set up as a Delaware Trust based in Texas. At the end of the lease, the congregation just bought Ed a jet. The only problem is N188FJ is a 1988 Model Falcon 50 that is now worth no more than 4.5 Million(Not the $8.4 Million the news reported. The news reported it as a 2002 Model and that is incorrect. Medill Corporation makes the payment to GE Capital each month. Is this the best use of the Lord’s money? The pilots that work for Brad Harris at Dallas Jet International(The management company for the jet based at Alliance Airport) that crew the aircraft have always known the aircraft is a secret. Alliance is highly secure and private compared to the other airports in this part of North Texas. Just call Brad Harris to confirm. He will give you the same half truth as Ed did on stage on who owns the aircraft. It is no secret that it is a secret and always has been. Here is the registration straight from the FAA Records:

    Record 1 of 1 found

    AIRCRAFT IDENTIFICATION / STATUS

    Make: FALCON Year of Delivery: 1989 Airport: AFW – KAFW – Ft. Worth Alliance Airport Ft. Worth – TX – United States Model: 50 Year of Manufacture: 1988 Serial Number: 50-188 Alt Ser#: Registration Number: N188FJ Prev Reg#: XA-ALA Status: Not for Sale Purchase Date: 4/4/2001 Life Cycle: In Operation Previously Owned: Yes Ownership Type: Wholly Owned Currently On Lease Last Change: 2/3/2009

    COMPANY/CONTACT Company Contact Owner/Lessor – General Electric Capital Corporation DBA GE Corporate Aircraft Finance 10 Riverview Drive Danbury, CT 06810 United States http://www.gecorporateaircraft.com Office: 203-749-6000 Mr. Scott F. Forsberg Manager, Aircraft Remarketing scott.forsberg@ge.com Office: 203-749-6640

    Lessee – Medill Company/ Ed Young TX United States Ms. Ann R. Duckart Vice President Tracy M Lamb Vice President

    Aircraft Management Company – Dallas Jet International, LP 5605 N. MacArthur Blvd. Suite 640 Irving, TX 75038 United States info@dallasjet.com http://www.dallasjet.com Office: 972-812-7525 Fax: 972-812-7527 Mr. Brad Harris President & CEO bharris@dallasjet.com Office: 972-812-7525 Fax: 817-853-5188

    Registered as Owner – CEF 2002 Aircraft, LLC United States Hutson T. W President Hangar: 503-329-5901

    This aircraft will be owned by ED YOUNG’S “SHELL” company, Medill for $1.00 at the end of the lease. ALL COMPLIMENTS OF THE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH. The aircraft costs the church over $1,000,000.00 per year currently with insurance, pilots, hangar, and repairs. Hmmm, now that’s not exactly as Ed put it on stage. There is no transparency at Fellowship because Ed owns the church and he won’t allow it. That is specifically against the way the New Testament insists that a church should be structured. It should not be owned by the Pastor. A church is owned by the membership but NOT AT ED YOUNG’S CHURCH…”

  17. I don’t think Peter, John, James or Andrew were theologians, were they? I think they had the same accusation levelled then, being unlearned fishermen. Yet Jesus sued them to pioneer the first Christian church.

    Theology is useful, but not essential to pastoral work. Study is essential. A good grounding in the Word is important, but you’ll find that most theologians are so because they spend the majority of their time engrossed in books rather than people.

    s&p, you have now labelled several ministries, mostly large works, as cults. I’m beginning to think you’re aiming at the more obvious targets.

  18. Everyone is theologian FL. Theology is “Knowledge of God”.

    End of story.

    Not everyone is a “professional theologian” … but by definition, if your ‘job’ is Pastoring a church, you are a professional … you are clergy … you are therefore a Professional Theologian.

    FL, you are in leadership … you are therefore a professional theologian, even if you don’t have your nose in expository books all the time. Your flock would look up to your leadership team for teaching and guidance … no?

  19. “I don’t think Peter, John, James or Andrew were theologians, were they?”

    They were after Jesus was finished with them.

    You are in denial FaceLift. The OP has been openly exposed as a cult decades ago. What is your definition of a cult FaceLift?

  20. specksandplanks, thanks for the kind words.

    FaithLift, so we may understand better what you mean, would you please give the definition of a theologian?

    Also, what did Jakes answer theological questions with if not theology?

  21. FL, stop brother. There are logical flaws in the Jakes defense.

    S&P, we’ve reached the end of the argument. I am sure FL will take all this and weigh and judge it for himself. He will look into the problem … he has to for the sake of his flock, or answer to God. Then he will have to take a stand … no matter what the cost.

    But he has to make the effort. I didn’t post on here to win an argument. I want to help FL protect his flock. If I am wrong then, God will deal with me. But if I am right then I have helped FL in his ministry.

    So, FL needs to do his research with an open mind. If he’s right, he can send me stuff. If I am right, he tell me so, privately if he wishes.

    Either way, If FL can persuade me I am wrong, I will speak publicly and apologise on here.

    Can’t be fairer than that … now can I?

  22. Mark, I noticed “Pirate Christian Radio” on your blog side bar. Brilliant show, I have at least 38 downloads on my ipod. Just hanging out now for his latest uploads. 🙂

  23. Bull,
    I didn’t realise I was on trial here! 🙂 Relax! I am not a Oneness Pentecostal! My beef with some of them is that they tend to tell people they are not saved if they have not been baptised in the name of Jesus, even though they have already been baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost! I have strongly disputed this with their pastors when in Missions. I am tigerish when aroused!

    But Jakes has said he is not a Oneness Pentecostal. He has produced his understanding of the Godhead. It is not strictly heresy. The only argument against it here has been by association, and the websites you have directed us to as ‘proof’ of his unorthodoxy have used the same arguments of association, and not actually shown his doctrine to be error. You’ll have to do better than that.
    •••••••••••••••••

    s&p,
    The little illustration you produced was your own. You spoke to one pastor who identified with it, but here is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Jakes agrees with your assessment. You have based your assessment of Jakes on your own views, not on his.

    It is Jakes who is in the spotlight here, and that is my focus, along with the doctrine of the Godhead. It may be that Oneness ministries which have come under his leadership are actually being influenced away from extreme beliefs. That must be seen as a possibility. Nothing changes without influence from some quarter.
    ••••••••••••••••

    Mark,
    Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief, including religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed. Theological accreditation isn’t in and of itself evidence of a person’s ability to lead, tend and nurture God’s flock in the name of Christ.

    Many theologians disagree with one another over not just orthodox doctrine, but religion in general. In fact, theologians have been responsible for the creation of major cults. Arius was a theologian.

    Charles Taze Russell was a theologian! William Miller was a theologian! Cardinal Newman was a theologian! Every pope has been a theologian!

    What sets a man apart for pastoral work is the call and grace of God.

    Theology, according to you, is merely the study of the Bible. If that is the case then we are all theologians, and in a way that is true, but I don’t think that people who consider themselves to be theologians, who have Masters and Doctorates in theology, would agree with you. Generally a theologian would be considered someone who has many years of tertiary expertise, and has authored at least one major work.
    •••••••••••••••••

    Finally, here is a selection of Trinitarian beliefs for you, generally accepted by millions of Christians, and upheld as outstanding.

    Part 1 of the 39 Articles:

    ‘There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.’

    Westminster Confession on the Trinity

    I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgements, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

    II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

    III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’

    I’d like someone to explain the phrase, ‘without body, parts, or passions’ to me.

    I though Jesus Christ was the Word [God] made flesh, the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. I understood that the Holy Spirit could be grieved, that Christ was a man of sorrows, the Father is a Jealous God, full of Zeal. I had the impression He is referred to as having the Hand of God, the Finger of God, the Eyes of God, the Heart, the Head, the Feet, the Palms, and that, moreover, we are made in his image.

    Am I missing something?

    Nicene Creed:

    ‘I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

    Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

    And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

    And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.’

    Ah, that’s better!

  24. Faithlift, you said this to me Theology, according to you, is merely the study of the Bible.

    Can you give me the source quote on that?

  25. Apologies, Mark, that was indeed Bull who made that claim!

    I take it then that you agree that theology is more than a person reading his or her Bible?

    In which case you’ll agree that theologians temselves don;t always agree on the basics of theology, and that some theologians have actually been responsible for causing schisms in he Church over time.

    And would you agree that, whilst study and a sound knowledge of the Bible and of God is highly important, theological qualifications, in and of themselves, are not a guarantee that a person will be effective in pastoral work?

    I have strong relationships with at least 30 excellent pastors in our community, none of whom would consider themselves theologians. They, as it seems Jakes has in his statement, would defer to those who have higher qualifications as far as being known as theologians is concerned. However they would, like Jakes, I’m sure, all be diligent in study and application of the Word of God.

  26. T.D. Jakes Responds to the Journal
    DJ902
    Elliot Miller

    This article first appeared in the From the Editor column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 22, number 3 (2001). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

    Although he has not directly corresponded with the Journal, T. D. Jakes has publicly responded to last issue’s cover article, “The Man, His Ministry, and His Movement: Concerns about the Teachings of T. D. Jakes” by Jerry L. Buckner. He did so in an “op-ed” piece written for Christianity Today, which saw three somewhat different incarnations.1 While we are unable to reproduce his reply in full, the following points warrant consideration:

    “Both [Baptist and Oneness Pentecostal] chapters of my early spiritual journey contributed volumes to my faith and walk with God, helping to hone my character. I was shaped by and appreciate both denominations, but am controlled by neither. My association with Oneness people does not constitute assimilation into their ranks any more than my association with the homeless in our city makes me one of them….

    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 each has individual attributes, yet are one. I do not believe in three Gods.

    Many things can be said about the Son that cannot be said about the Father. The Son was born of a virgin; the Father created the virgin from whom He was born. The Son slept (Luke 8:23), but the Father never sleeps (Psalm 121:3—5). The Son took on the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), but God is a spirit (John 4:24). Likewise, several characteristics are distinctive to the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit alone empowers (Acts 1:8), indwells (2 Timothy 1:15), and guides the believer (John 16:14).

    In spite of all the distinctives, God is one in His essence. Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H20. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness….

    The language in the doctrinal statement of our ministry that refers to the Trinity of the Godhead as “manifestations” does not derive from modalism. The Apostle Paul himself used this term referring to the Godhead in 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 12:7, and 1 John 3:5—8. Peter also used the term in 1 Peter 1:20. Can this word now be heresy when it is a direct quote from the Pauline epistles and used elsewhere in the New Testament?…2

    Christians will never agree on every theological issue any more than the colors of our skin will all suddenly match. Finite minds cannot wrap around an infinite God, or the limitless revelation of his wisdom and beauty. But we can all agree on Whom we worship: He is the Great I AM.

    I look forward to the day when Christians do not judge one another by the diversity of our associates, nor the distinctives of seman­tics. Rather by the love of Christ we reflect, the integrity of our personal convictions, and the sweet fruit of both in our lives.

    There are a few things I would die for; a few more I would argue strongly; after that I am too busy trying to preach the Gospel to split hairs. People in my generation are lost, hungry, in prison, wounded, and alone…. Many of our generation are dying without knowing God — not dying for the lack of theology, but for lack of love.3

    The rationale Jakes uses in his defense no doubt strikes a chord with many evangeli­cals who are weary of division among Christians. Indeed, if the Pentecostals he were referring to were Trinitarian Pentecostals, his language might well be appropriate. But when he protests that Christians will never agree on every theological issue and should not judge one another by the diversity of their associ­ates, he begs the following question: Is Oneness theology (historically known as modalism) a permissible doctrine for genuine Christians to hold?

    To put the question in clearer perspec­tive, imagine if Jakes’s background had been with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Would Christ­ians be sympathetic were he to say, “My association with Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses contributed volumes to my faith and walk with God, helping to hone my character. I was shaped by and appreciate both Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but am controlled by neither. My association with the Watchtower does not constitute assimilat­ion into their ranks”? No, virtually all evangel­icals recognize that Jehovah’s Witnesses (and Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc.) lie outside the pale of biblical Christianity.

    Why should it be different with Oneness believers? In the third century, orthodox Christians rejected modalism (also known as Sabellianism, after Sabellius, its most influen­tial teacher) — the teaching that the Son and Holy Spirit are the same Person as the Father — as a denial of the faith.4 Early in the twentieth century when Oneness Pentecostalism reared its head, the Assemblies of God rejected it as heresy. Yet, in our own day of nebulous, experience-driven theology, many charismatic Christian leaders are strongly inclined to accept Oneness Pentecostals as brothers and sisters in Christ simply because they speak in tongues, engage in rousing Pentecostal-style worship, and write ardent hymns. Since these “Trinitarians” themselves do not have a firm commitment to credal Christianity, they are willing to compromise even on doctrines as historically sacrosanct as the Trinity for the sake of “unity in the Spirit.’’5

    Oneness believers have historically labeled the Trinity a pagan doctrine and counted Trinitarian believers as lost. In recent years, however, a new Oneness approach to orthodoxy has emerged — paralleling a recent movement in Mormonism — that seeks to downplay the differences and sell Oneness as an acceptable Christian alternative. Charisma magazine quotes Pentecostal historian Vinson Synan as observing, “Many people consider this a matter of semantics…. And there is a sincere desire — especially on the part of Oneness Pentecostals —to bridge the gap on this issue.”

    As we have seen, one of these “many people” is Jakes himself. If the differences between Oneness and Trinitarian believers were “a matter of semantics,” it would mean that they use different language but believe the same thing. But Oneness Pentecostals have articulately expounded their belief that there is only one person in the Godhead: For Trinitarians, a defining feature of the biblical God is a subject-object love relationship eternally existing within His own Being. For Unitarians (of all stripes, not just the sect by that name), until He created the angels and the world, God was one solitary Subject — absolutely alone. Such radically different conceptions of God cannot be harmonized. Whether it is the Arian god of Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Sabellian god of Oneness Pentecostals, a Unitarian god is not the biblical God (e.g., John 17:5; 24). Since the attributes of God include both love (1 John 4:16) and self-sufficiency (e.g., John 5:26), it follows that His loving nature must be fulfilled within His own Being. The biblical revelation of the Trinity explains how this is so.

    Some Christians assume that because Oneness believers confess that Jesus is God, their error is less lethal than that of Jehovah’s Witnesses or other pseudo-Christian cults that deny His deity. The opposite can be true! Modalism is no less false than Arianism but not so obviously false, and therefore it is potentially more lethal. Just as a godhead that is not defined by the selflessly loving relation­ship of three eternal Persons is not the Godhead of the Bible, so a Jesus whose very existence is not defined by a subject-object relationship with His Father bears no resemb­lance to the Jesus of the Bible (e.g., Matt. 26:39; John 4:34; 6:38). And there is no biblical basis for believing that those who trust in a “different Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:3—4,13—14) can be saved (especially when one adds the “different gospel” that typically accompanies him — as with the common Oneness teaching that one must both be baptized in Jesus’ name alone and speak in tongues in order to be saved).

    No doubt some Oneness Pentecostals are saved, due to earlier biblical influences in their lives. With his Baptist upbringing, this is easy to imagine in the case of Jakes. But this would be despite and not because of Oneness teaching.

    The only remaining question should then be: Does T. D. Jakes believe in a Oneness or Trinitarian view of God? Theologically untrained readers of Jakes’s response to our article may have had their minds set at ease. In reality, Jakes said nothing to relieve their concerns.

    Christians should understand that there are two ways heretics can deny the Trinity. The first is to outright deny it, as do Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, and classic Oneness Pentecostals. The second is to claim that one believes in the Trinity while redefining it to mean something entirely different than what the church has historically believed, as do Mormons, Christian Scientists, and the new breed of Oneness Pentecostals that Jakes apparently represents.

    It also needs to be pointed out that nothing Jakes said contradicts modalism or commits him to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Theologians recognize two distinct conceptions of the Trinity: the ontological Trinity, which refers to the existence of three distinct Persons within the Godhead apart from any relationship to the creation, and the economic Trinity, which refers to the distinct roles the three Persons assume in relation to creation. Modalism essentially teaches that the economic Trinity is the only Trinity there is. Their God, who ontologically is not Triune, assumes three distinct modes or roles in relation to creation. They are convinced that to confess God is three Persons is to confess the existence of three Gods — even though that’s not what the doctrine of the Trinity states (this is their main stumbling block in approaching orthodoxy).

    In his rebuttal Jakes never affirms an ontological Trinity but only an economic one. He speaks of different functions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit perform, but then he clarifies that he does not believe in three Gods, by which it is fairly clear he means Persons. Even the illustration of H20 taking the forms of ice, water, and steam says nothing about three persons, only three manifestations, and is in fact a common illustration used by modalists to explain their view.

    The key tip-off that Jakes is a dyed-in-the-wool modalist is his unwavering insistence — both before our article was published and even in response to our article — on using the word manifestations rather than persons in regard to the Trinity. Sabellius consistently avoided the use of the term “persons” (Greek: hypostasis) in favor of the term “manifest­ations.”8 Louis Berkhof explains that “he distinguished between the unity of the divine essence and the plurality of its manifestations….According to him the names Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are simply designations of three different phases under which the one divine essence manifests itself. God reveals Himself as Father in creation and in the giving of the law, as Son in the incarnation, and as Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification.”9 By contrast “Oneness Pentecostalism is a form of simultaneous modalism that, unlike Sabellianism, regards all three manifestations as present at the same time, not in successive revelatory periods.”10 Hence Jakes is able to affirm the coexistence of Father, Son, and Spirit without in any way betraying his Oneness allegiances.

    When Jakes cites 1 Timothy 3:16 (he mistakenly cited 3:15) to justify his use of the term manifestations, he simply falls back on the classic prooftext Oneness Pentecostals have always used to argue for their view, as the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements explains: “The threefold divine reality is defined as ‘three manifestations’ of the one Spirit in the person of Jesus. Taken from the Christological hymn in 1 Timothy 3:16, the term ‘manifestation’ bars the threeness from God’s nature and restricts it to his self-revelation. As a form of modalism, it preserves the radical monarchy of God and affirms the triune revelation.”11

    Actually, all of the passages Jakes cites that use the term “manifestation” refer to the Incarnation of Christ (the “manifestation” of the Second Person of the Trinity in human form), except 1 Corinthians 12:7, which speaks of the “manifestation” of the Spirit; that is, the charismatic gifts. None of them are concerned with the doctrine of the Trinity per se, and therefore they do not use the word “manifestations” in the way that Jakes and Oneness teachers use it.

    In light of all this, it is hard to believe Jakes when he says that the language in his ministry’s doctrinal statement does not derive from modalism. If in fact he believes in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, then he can clear this controversy up and satisfy all Trinitarians by simply affirming in his doctrinal statement and in all of his ministry’s teachings that not only does he believe in the Trinity, but he also believes the Trinity comprises three eternally distinct Persons, who together are the one and only Almighty God. If he cannot bring himself to do that and yet still insists that he holds to the Trinity, then evangelicals should understand that it is he, and not his critics, who uses clever semantics to obfuscate the truth. Indeed, if he is so intent on holding to modalism because he believes it is the truth, to be consistently truthful he should openly identify himself as a modalist. Then, as the price of his convictions, he should willingly relinquish any claim to leadership in the contemporary evangelical church, where belief in the Trinity (properly defined) is not, and should never be, considered optional.

    Jakes’s sentiment that “there are a few things I would die for; a few more I would argue strongly; after that I am too busy trying to preach the Gospel to split hairs” would be admirable if only he correctly identified the things for which it is worth dying. The cour­ageous church father Athanasius would have certainly advised him that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those things, since he fought against seemingly the entire world to establish it permanently in the church. Thanks in no small part to his efforts the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) has been preserved for the past 16 centuries so that untold billions of souls could believe unto salvation. In our own generation, contrary to Jakes, many “are dying without knowing God” not only for “lack of love,” but also for “lack of theology” — the essential doctrines of the Christian faith that are inseparable from the gospel of salvation.”

    — Elliot Miller

  27. Bishop T D Jakes – we often hear him referred to as “bishop”, a title given to him under Oneness Pentecostalism. If he is longer an OP, why does he still use the title “bishop”? You only have to look at his website to see how much that’s promoted.

  28. Say hello to the OP WinterBand. Worth a giggle at!

    http://www.winterband.com/video.html

    One song they wrote is called Trinity Schminity:

    Trinity Schminity
    by Pastor Steve Winter

    “You say you have a trinity of gods to be esteemed
    That they hold power equally and live eternally
    You say there are three persons in this holy trinity
    And God don’t really care what you and I believe”

    “Trinity Schminity don’t believe the lie. (2x)
    Cause if you do your soul is gonna die.
    you can’t just make up Gods as you go along”

    To the OP the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one person.

    And FaceLift. Stop trying to discredit me. I even went down to a OP Conference in Woolongong. The pastors and teachers there were saying the same thing. I met some more OP’s two years ago at a New Years Eve party. The family said exactly the same about the trinity diagram I drew. I actually put a lot of pressure on them to see their error of this teaching. They finally buckled and said to me that they had to believe that Jesus was praying to himself in the garden. Their logic baffled me.

    It is really easy to show them the errors of this doctrine, which is why in these churches, just like the JW’s, you are taught:

    (1) to use certain scriptures to knock back the common argument against trinitarians.

    (2) say things that sound right but don’t make sense so that your opponent has to agree with you when you bring them out of the truth with OP doctrine.

    They did this to me for years until I eventually identitified the issues and kept bringing them back to answering my questions. The point is – they must be right and you must be wrong.

    A lady from an OP church was ex-communicated and went to a pentecostal denomination. She did not believe they were saved (but did not tell them this) and was starting to baptise ocngregation members. The leadership didn’t know about this and when they did, they were confused.

    When I drew out the above diagram and explained the OP’s tactic to win an argument – they agreed that is what she was doing. She was causing confusion, division and then revealing her solution by having them saved by hving them baptised in the name of Jesus.

    Originally the OP movement stood alone, proud to be the way, truth and life. Now they want back in to the rest of mainstream Christianity. They are much more reserved and careful now in what they express to other Christians. TD Jakes is no exception.

  29. I must confess a personal angst angst re the whole T D Jakes issue. Without going into too much detail we (and others)were approached by senior people at our former church to help fund a T D Jakes “outreach” at Homebush a few years ago.

    There was an expectation by the TD Jakes ministry that either 1st class airfares for Jakes and his team or the fuel for a private jet be paid for. The overall cost for the event was at least ………mind blowing! (I can’t bring myself to say the amount)

    To our great regret (now), we gave a huge, and I mean huge, amount of money to help cover these expenses. Knowing what we know now, I would have had a tremendous respect for the church had they said to the Jakes team, “sorry, we have to cancel, as this is far too much to be paying for personal expenditure,i.e. hotels, planes etc.” Seriously, “freely have we received, freely give” the gospel?

    After this experience, the issue of Jakes “oneness pentecostalism” came up and we approached ministry people with questions. Doing their own research, they agreed this was the case and were quite shocked at the time. This was a few months after the visit.

    We take full responsiblity for our lack of wisdom and we are very sorry for the situation the church found themselves in and their own lack of wisdom.

  30. Wow! So C3, after inviting TD Jakes in 2006 to speak, will not be allowing TD Jakes to speak again at C3? That is great news.

    I was there when he preached. At the start of that year I was at the UPCI (United Pentecostal Church International) Woolongong conference, which was the OP conference. I think there were rumours down there that the TD Jakes was speaking at a C3 event.

    I didn’t know who he was, so they payed me to go see him. Allot of OP came to see him. From what I remember, three OP churches. Maybe even five – there were quite a few OP denominations in Blacktown.

    And Teddy, for someone who was soooo expensive… His message was CRAP.
    “COME TO PAW-PAW!!!”

  31. I was commenting about “there’s no guarantee that Jakes won’t turn up again at C3, unless once bitten, twice shy applies. Steve Munsey got the “guensey” twice!(And once at the C3 2009 Conference in Hawaii)

  32. Teddy, s&p,
    So far your only accusation against Jakes’ doctrine of the Godhead is based on association. That he was associated with Baptists as well as Oneness Pentecostals is equally true, but not proof of wrong doctrine.

    Imagine this is a court (which it is, of sorts) and Jakes’ doctrine of the Godhead is being tried, you cannot convict by association. You may suspect wrongdoing, but you cannot use association as evidence. ‘Yeah, well he must be guilty because he once went to the same club!” “He knows them and they go round to his house sometimes!” No, that will not do. He must have been at the scene of the crime with them, doing what they did. You must demonstrate complicity.

    There must be no reasonable doubt.

    A person is innocent until proven guilty.

    The only clear evidence you have is his own statement. In that statement he has said he is not controlled by either the Baptists or Oneness Pentecostals, but had roots in both. This in itself is not evidence of current wrongdoing.

    He has given his understanding of The Godhead. This is what you have to demonstrate any error. So far, no one has, including all the discernment crew you’ve put up here, because, in essence, what he says is cannot be shown to be heresy. So they’ve all gone to phase two, which is guilt by association.

    What you have attempted to say is that he is still a Oneness Pentecostal and they are wrong, so therefore he is. If you could prove this you would have a case. Yet he has said he is not Oneness Pentecostal, nor is he controlled by them. His statement denies your claims.

    The only piece of evidence you have is his use of the term ‘manifestation’ rather than ‘person’ to describe the distinctive functions of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In a court case, this piece of evidence alone could take centuries to try!
    •••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    As an exercise in testing these doctrines of the Godhead, I put up the doctrine of the Trinity as seen by the Anglicans’ 39 articles, and the Westminster Confession. Both say that God is ‘everlasting, without body, parts, or passions’. Can someone explain this to me? Is Christ not the Godhead in bodily form? Is God truly without passions?

    39 Articles, part 1

    ‘There is but one living and true God, everlasting, WITHOUT BODY, ARTS, OR PASSIONS; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.’

  33. “The Trinity is the primary truth of New Testament theology. In his book Oneness Pentecostals and The Trinity, former Oneness teacher Gregory A. Boyd convincingly argues that “the denial that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct ‘persons’ in the Godhead indirectly undermines the Christian view of God’s character, God’s revelation, and God’s salvation by grace.” – full article below

    “The Man, His Ministry, and His Movement – Concerns About The Teaching Of T D Jakes” Jerry L Buckner.

    http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID236518_CHID438620_CIID1016140,00.html

  34. Again, Teddy, you are approaching this from the perspective of demonstrating the error of Oneness Pentecostal doctrine of the Trinity. This is erroneous to the case. We all agree that there is a conflict of doctrine in some Oneness circles.

    But Jakes has publicly declared he is not under the control of Oneness Pentecostals. He resigned his bishopric with them, and began his own work, an independent non-denominational church, which has grown to 30,000 members.

    His statement of belief in the Godhead is what is at stake here.

  35. Teddy,
    The link you gave to Gerry Buckner is exactly the same as the one on Hank Hanegraaf’s page, by the same author. His arguments are totally based on guilt by association, nothing on doctrine at all, really. You also reproduced the Christianity Today article I put us where Jakes defends his position and makes his statement. All the clues are in his own words.

    Stick to the doctrine.

    Discuss his statement of belief in the Godhead.

    ‘My views on the Godhead are from 1 John 5:7-8, “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” (NKJV)

    ‘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.
    Many things can be said about the Son that cannot be said about the Father. The Son was born of a virgin; the Father created the virgin from whom He was born. The Son slept (Luke 8:23), but the Father never sleeps (Psalm 121:3-5). The Son took on the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), but God is a spirit (John 4:24). Likewise, several characteristics are distinctive to the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit alone empowers (Acts 1:8), indwells (2 Timothy 1:15), and guides the believer (John 16:14).

    ‘In spite of all the distinctives, God is one in His essence. Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H²O. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness.

    ‘In 1 Timothy 3:16, the Apostle Paul says, “Without controversy, great is the mystery of Godliness.” Without controversy, it is a mystery, not always to be figured out, but to be entered into.’

  36. In a previous post Teddy quoted an article that states:

    “Sabellius consistently avoided the use of the term “persons” (Greek: hypostasis)”

    well, hypostasis does not originally mean “person” the greek word that normally goes for person is “prosopon”, pl. “prosopa”, which literally means “face”.
    Interesting maybe the fact that this word can be used for “the self manifestation of an individual”. Here we would have a pretty straight road to modalism if “prosopa” had been used to describe the trinity, as “multiple self manifestations of one divine essence”.
    Probably that’s one reason why it hadn’t been used.

    As I argued before, the terminology the church fathers used in forming the doctrine of trinity avoids language that is too closely connected with describing humans (or any known earthly being).

    There can be no doubt that when we speak about humans the hypostasis, meaning “objective reality” or literally “that which stands beneath”, of a human is what makes up the personality or “inner self” of that human, and so the use of “persons” is still legitimate.

  37. Hupostasis is generally translated ‘substance’. Granted there is a difference between a manifestation and a substance.

    Vines:
    &lt4,,5287,hupostasis>
    for which see CONFIDENCE, A No. 2, is translated “substance” (a) in Heb. 1:3, of Christ as “the very image” of God’s “substance;” here the word has the meaning of the real nature of that to which reference is made in contrast to the outward manifestation (see the preceding clause); it speaks of the Divine essence of God existent and expressed in the revelation of His Son. The AV, “person” is an anachronism; the word was not so rendered till the 4th cent. Most of the earlier Eng. versions have “substance;” (b) in Heb. 11:1 it has the meaning of “confidence, assurance” (RV), marg., “the giving substance to,” AV, “substance,” something that could not equally be expressed by elpis, “hope.”

    Whereas ‘manifest’ is the Greek word, phaneroo, “to make visible, clear, manifest”.

    I Timothy 3:16
    And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

    This really says that God was seen, or was visible, in the flesh, in bodily form, in Christ. Therefore there is a sense in which God is manifest in Christ. What theologians have concluded is that he is also of the same substance.

    ‘Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.’

    And, if he is manifest, or seen in Christ, then he must also be of the same substance. Christ is begotten of the Father, but he is also the Word made flesh, being, as the Word, also the promised Seed. ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’

    ••••••••••••••••••

    I find it an interesting aside that this seems to contradict the Anglican 39 Articles, and Westminster Confession which both state that God is ‘without body, parts, or passions’.

    Here, in 1 Timothy 3:16, Paul declares that God was manifest, or made visible, in the flesh, that is, in bodily form.

    Then in Colossians 2:9-10: ‘For in Him [Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.’

    Which leads us to 1 John 4:1-3: ‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.’

  38. I was interested in what Vines says of the word ‘person’:

    ‘The AV, “person” is an anachronism; the word was not so rendered till the 4th cent. Most of the earlier Eng. versions have “substance”.’

    So I checked the etymology of the word:

    person
    early 13c., from O.Fr. persone “human being” (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona “human being,” originally “character in a drama, mask,” possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu “mask.” This may be related to Gk. Persephone. The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). Personify first recorded 1727. Personable “pleasing in one’s person” is first attested early 15c. In person “by bodily presence” is from 1560s. Person-to-person first recorded 1919, originally of telephone calls.

    Anachronism: ‘a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists; an act of attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong’.

    The early fathers had the word homoousios, as ‘one substance’, and said of Christ that he was homoousios with the Father, as God, and homoousios with us, as man [Council of Ephesus 431].

    Homousios – same essence, or being. In fact this is the word used in the Nicene creed, rather than hupostasis.

    Jakes declares in his statement: ‘God is one in His essence’. Is he meaning the same thing?

  39. Can’t believe I’ve just read through all this. Too hard for me. Very interesting Teddy re the cost of a Jakes visit – I really think that kind of demand speaks for itself, regardless of theological stance on the Trinity. Also, the counter article you put up re Jakes’ comments on the Trinity was interesting and worth reading.

    As someone for whom the Trinity is a concept which I suspect I grasp poorly, I think our understanding of the Trinity isn’t what determines whether we are Christian or not. It is if we follow Jesus or not that matters, whether our understanding of Him is perfect or otherwise. And I think my understanding of Him is still growing, and could be vastly improved. However, Teddy’s article said some things which I think are vital:

    For Trinitarians, a defining feature of the biblical God is a subject-object love relationship eternally existing within His own Being. For Unitarians (of all stripes, not just the sect by that name), until He created the angels and the world, God was one solitary Subject — absolutely alone. Such radically different conceptions of God cannot be harmonized. Whether it is the Arian god of Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Sabellian god of Oneness Pentecostals, a Unitarian god is not the biblical God (e.g., John 17:5; 24). Since the attributes of God include both love (1 John 4:16) and self-sufficiency (e.g., John 5:26), it follows that His loving nature must be fulfilled within His own Being. The biblical revelation of the Trinity explains how this is so.

    And…

    Just as a godhead that is not defined by the selflessly loving relation­ship of three eternal Persons is not the Godhead of the Bible, so a Jesus whose very existence is not defined by a subject-object relationship with His Father bears no resemb­lance to the Jesus of the Bible (e.g., Matt. 26:39; John 4:34; 6:38). And there is no biblical basis for believing that those who trust in a “different Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:3—4,13—14) can be saved.

    So perhaps it would be interesting to know what Jakes teaches about Jesus Himself when he is invited to speak at other churches.

    Teddy, that would make me feel a bit ill too, if I found I’d donated hugely towards an event that I later found to be unsupportable. There are a couple of events that I look back upon and wish I could undo from my more zealously Pente days, and I’ve found myself praying that God would make good out of any harm I’ve done, though at the time, my intentions were to do good.

  40. this is going nowhere … 😦

    not trying to put FL on trial either. 😦

    let’s say Jakes is OK … his statements are then clearly designed to not put off the OP’s that follow him. Which means he is not rebuking them for their wrong understanding of God that can rob them of Salvation.

    Or, are all OP’s saved in “their understanding”?

    Do they have a form of Godliness but deny it’s power?

    If they aren’t operating under the power of the Holy Spirit, then where do the “tongues” come from?

    These are all very important questions. However, we have to make it crystal clear. Manifestations do not authenticate doctrine or belief or practice. Rather, practice, behaviour, doctrine and understanding authenticate the signs and wonders.

    If a person’s character and doctrine does not measure up to the signs presented … it casts doubt on the origin of the signs themselves.

    This is why Todd Bentley is so completely retarded to think he can and should make a comeback. That guy is a great contender for the False-Prophet.

    Material blessing is not a sign of godliness … otherwise Bill Gates would be the holiest man alive. He’d be levitating on his own holiness.

    No. Doctrine and biblical orthodoxy, to the extent that there is no association with wrong doctrine (the kind that can rob one of Salvation) and there is a public rebuke of such bad teaching. OP’s, JW’s and Mormons for example.

    The trouble is, most Americans don’t know their Bible … so they look to super-hero-preachers to teach them. But they don’t know it either.

    Joel Osteen, America’s biggest Pastor (43,500 weekend attendance) is very happy to put his people under the Law of Moses (Kosher Food Laws) and reckons Mormons are Christians.

    He’s rich too. God has really blessed him with the money. But he can’t take it with him, and if he could it would burn.

    Shalom

  41. You’re right about the main focus of our life being on Jesus, RP, since he said the only way to the Father is through him, and we we know the Father when we know him. He is

    In his criticism of Jakes, Jerry L Buckner states that ‘The Trinity is the primary truth of New Testament theology’. Is it?

    Isn’t the primary truth Christ, and Him crucified’? Isn’t the central truth that of the cross and resurrection of Christ?

    Where, in scripture, is the Trinity said to be the primary doctrine? What does scripture say about knowing God? That we can only know the Father through faith in the Son. That the Father is glorified in the Son.

    ‘This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.’

    ‘No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.’
    •••••••••••••••••••

    Interestingly, having checked out a few things on homoousios, ‘same substance, or being’, I discover that the word was first coined by the Gnostics! Go figure!

    The early fathers were influenced by Gnostic thought! Sounds like the accusation levelled at WoF preachers! 🙂

  42. RP,

    loved your comment. You are right … our understanding is growing all the time. We also do support things with finances which perhaps are questionable. (we usually find out things much later 😦 )

    Shalom

  43. The trouble with OP teaching is fundamentally the questions about Jesus Himself.

    1) Was Jesus fully Human in the incarnation? Or did he merely appear “in the likeness of Sinful flesh”?

    2) If Jesus was Fully Human as well as being fully divine in the incarnation … how long was He human for?

    Jesus will return to reign over the earth for the Millenium. Then, Jesus will judge the Human Race. Then Jesus will hand over all creation to Father so that He may be all in all.

    Answers on a postcard please …

  44. “As someone for whom the Trinity is a concept which I suspect I grasp poorly, I think our understanding of the Trinity isn’t what determines whether we are Christian or not.”

    “Where, in scripture, is the Trinity said to be the primary doctrine?”

    For one to be saved, people need to know who’s wrath they are saved from (the Father), by someone’s perfect, love-life offering (the Son) and receive the power and presence of God as a seal of approval to know they are saved (the Spirit).

    So essentially, in coming to know the Lord, we hear of the trinity doctrine.

    Now let’s take the OP approach to salvation:

    For one to be saved, people need to know who’s wrath they are saved from (Jesus the Father), by someone’s perfect, love-life offering (Jesus the Son) and receive the power and presence of God as a seal of approval to know they are saved (Jesus the Spirit).

    But if Jesus came from the Father and His only witness is Himself, then there’s trouble. In fact he would have misled people if He prayed, because He’d only be praying to Himself. Scriptures would be in contradiction as to who Jesus sent after Him, why He even came to earth, why He said some things about the ‘Jesus the Father’. There is huge fault with the OP Jesus – the OP Jesus’ death is in vain.

    Is Jesus now interceding to Jesus on our behalf in Heaven? This change to the doctrine of the trinity is incredibly harmful and damning to those who say they are Christian but know not what they believe. If they honestly know God, they would not error like this. As a result, many OP I have talked to on the issue of Salvation do not believe they are saved if they suddenly get killed. Even though they might preach grace, it’s there works that save them %100. I am yet to meet one that fully accepts the grace of God.

  45. FaceLift: “But Jakes has said he is not a Oneness Pentecostal.”

    Where exactly did TD Jakes say “I no longer am Oneness Pentecostal?” That’s what I’d like to see him say.

    FaceLift: “However they would, like Jakes, I’m sure, all be diligent in study and application of the Word of God.”

    FaceLift. Did not TD Jakes make your spirit sick by the way he lacked any understanding what he was preaching in the above youtube video? How long has ha been in ministry to know the bible better, but still cough up such bullshit? In contrast with that to some of his statements, he’s already proven himself a liar.

    And in evasion of answering the question simply, he covers all roads and makes sure that everyone’s still guessing on his faith. He’s evading to answer!

    Take him to court! Ask him the question – yes or no. “Are you OP?”

    Chances are he’ll speak the way he did in the above interviews at you. You don’t think that no one in the room would think it odd that someone didn’t answer a yes/no question?

    Bull: “let’s say Jakes is OK … his statements are then clearly designed to not put off the OP’s that follow him. Which means he is not rebuking them for their wrong understanding of God that can rob them of Salvation.”

    BIG FAT YEP! He aint answering that question! Lot of OP looove his material! The above videos indicate that he loooves the mint that rolls into his pocket.

    “Or, are all OP’s saved in “their understanding”?”
    No. And they even admit that.

    “Do they have a form of Godliness but deny it’s power?” I would say very few are saved. Just like the JW’s or Mormons, a very select few hungry for truth find Him and are saved. I know some who are definitely saved in an OP church. One is a pastor, but he can’t wait to hand in the towel, get out and look after his family properly.

    To those who I believe are saved, they are so bound, it breaks my heart.

    Teddy:
    “The key tip-off that Jakes is a dyed-in-the-wool modalist is his unwavering insistence — both before our article was published and even in response to our article — on using the word manifestations rather than persons in regard to the Trinity. Sabellius consistently avoided the use of the term “persons” (Greek: hypostasis) in favor of the term “manifest­ations.”8 Louis Berkhof explains that “he distinguished between the unity of the divine essence and the plurality of its manifestations….According to him the names Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are simply designations of three different phases under which the one divine essence manifests itself. God reveals Himself as Father in creation and in the giving of the law, as Son in the incarnation, and as Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification.”9 By contrast “Oneness Pentecostalism is a form of simultaneous modalism that, unlike Sabellianism, regards all three manifestations as present at the same time, not in successive revelatory periods.” Hence Jakes is able to affirm the coexistence of Father, Son, and Spirit without in any way betraying his Oneness allegiances.”

    Good find Teddy! This is true. When you talk to anyone in the OP, they run circles around your questions. TD Jakes does the same.

  46. “As someone for whom the Trinity is a concept which I suspect I grasp poorly”

    I think that goes for all humans (if we are honest), and maybe most for those who think they’ve got it right.

    This one is for all who (like me!) may be sometimes in danger of loving lofty thinking too much:

    “What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? […]. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.”
    Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ

  47. “My God, my God why have you forsaken me!”

    Bull: “we have to make it crystal clear. Manifestations do not authenticate doctrine or belief or practice. Rather, practice, behaviour, doctrine and understanding authenticate the signs and wonders.”

    On the right track man.

    S&P’s comments about works and grace.

    Counterfeits – the best kind – will always lead to works – refer back to Bull’s comment.

    Ask the right questions.

    I don’t think these have been asked yet if you want to pin the man down.

    And refusing to answer is effectively giving away the game as Jesus did to the Sanhedrin.

    Good comment Gandalf.

    And lastly S&P for mine I would see it as an important thing that you are doing wresting with these issues, and even moreso caring for the people you put yourself in the way of.

  48. s&p,
    ‘Where exactly did TD Jakes say “I no longer am Oneness Pentecostal?” That’s what I’d like to see him say.’

    Jakes,
    ‘I was shaped by and appreciate both denominations, but am controlled by neither. My association with Oneness people does not constitute assimilation into their ranks any more than my association with the homeless in our city makes me one of them.’

    s&p,
    ‘Take him to court! Ask him the question – yes or no. “Are you OP?”’

    The burden of proof is on the prosecution – you!

    He has given his evidence. It is clear. He has said he is not controlled by or assimilated into the ranks of Oneness Pentecostals or Baptists.

    s&p,
    ‘Bull: “let’s say Jakes is OK … his statements are then clearly designed to not put off the OP’s that follow him. Which means he is not rebuking them for their wrong understanding of God that can rob them of Salvation.”’

    Irrelevant. Unsubstantiated. Here-say. The fact is that you don’t know what he might be doing behind the scenes. You don’t know what influence he is bringing to bear on his former colleagues. You are attempting guilt by association, which is not admissible evidence.

    s&p,
    ‘Teddy:
    “The key tip-off that Jakes is a dyed-in-the-wool modalist is his unwavering insistence — both before our article was published and even in response to our article — on using the word manifestations rather than persons in regard to the Trinity.’

    Well, no it isn’t, and I’ve already demonstrated this. Modalism isn’t demonstrated by using the word ‘manifestations’, any more that it’s disproved by using the word ‘substance’, or ‘persons’. The argument is over the use or none use of the word ‘persons’, which, as I have shown, W. E. Vines considers to be a relatively modern word, not used by early translations. Hupostasis is never translated ‘persons’ anywhere but in the AV Bible. Everywhere else it is translated ‘substance’.

    The fathers used either hupostatsis or homouios, meaning ‘substance’, of the ‘same essence or being’. I showed that Jakes considered the Godhead to be of the same ‘essence’. His word.

    Note the Nicene Creed. It doesn’t once use the word ‘persons’, but is acknowledged by most orthodox Christians.

    ‘I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

    Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

    And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.’

    I personally have no problem with word ‘persons’ to describe the Godhead, but I rarely use the word ‘Trinity’, since it is not used Biblically, and is a concept of theologians, not scripture, even though I agree with the idea of three Persons in One, and it is implied in scripture. The word ‘Godhead’ is used, however, so it is convenient to use it. Theotes: ‘the state of being God’!

    Even ‘substance’ isn’t really it! But it is the closest we can come to understanding the mystery of Godliness. The word homousios was first coined by Gnostics. Hupostasis is really, in literal terms, an under-girding, or substance in reference to upholding, or support system, which doesn’t really fit, either.

    Godhead – Vines

    &lt1,,2305,theiotes>
    “divinity,” the RV rendering in Rom. 1:20 (AV, “Godhead”), is derived from theios (see DIVINE, A), and is to be distinguished from theotes, in Col. 2:9, “Godhead.” In Rom. 1:20 the Apostle “is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature, from those vestiges of Himself which men may everywhere trace in the world around them. Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these aids; He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in His Son; … But in the second passage (Col. 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son” (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the “Divine” essence of Godhood, the personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His “Divine” nature and properties.

    &ltA-1,Adjective,2304,theios>
    “Divine” (from theos, “God”), is used of the power of God, 2 Pet. 1:3, and of His nature, ver. 4, in each place, as that which proceeds from Himself. In Acts 17:29 it is used as a noun with the definite article, to denote “the Godhead,” the Deity (i.e., the one true God). This word, instead of theos, was purposely used by the Apostle in speaking to Greeks on Mars Hill, as in accordance with Greek usage. Cp. DIVINITY. In the Sept., Exod. 31:3; 35:31; Job 27:3; 33:4; Prov. 2:17.

  49. Greg,
    Thanks for that. So now, we know that the Father is invisible, and is a Spirit. No problems. Te Spirit is invisible. No problems. But the Son is the Word made flesh, and has a body.

    How does this work out? Is the Son, or the Word, not God in Anglican Trinity doctrine?

    The word ‘bishop’ means ‘overseer’.

    &lt1,,1985,episkopos>
    lit., “an overseer” (epi, “over,” skopeo, “to look or watch”), whence Eng. “bishop,” which has precisely the same meaning, is found in Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 2:25.

    Jakes runs a church of 30,000 members, and mentors hundreds of pastors. I guess he has full licence to be known as an overseer, and use the title Bishop. What else would you call him, in context to the query! 🙂
    •••••••••••••••

    s&p, on his thought on the OP idea of salvation:

    ‘For one to be saved, people need to know who’s wrath they are saved from (Jesus the Father), by someone’s perfect, love-life offering (Jesus the Son) and receive the power and presence of God as a seal of approval to know they are saved (Jesus the Spirit).

    But if Jesus came from the Father and His only witness is Himself, then there’s trouble. In fact he would have misled people if He prayed, because He’d only be praying to Himself. Scriptures would be in contradiction as to who Jesus sent after Him, why He even came to earth, why He said some things about the ‘Jesus the Father’. There is huge fault with the OP Jesus – the OP Jesus’ death is in vain.’

    This, of course, is one of the dilemmas of attempting to explain a doctrine which is beyond our comprehension. We get all tangled up in some amazing loops and leaps which confound even the wise!

    Straight scripture:

    Isaiah 9:6: (Speaking of Jesus)…unto us a son is born, unto us a child is given…and his name will be called…Everlasting Father…’

    Hebrew ‘Ad Ab’ – ‘Perpetual Father’.

    Romans 8:9… ‘ But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.’

    John 1:1: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’

    The Son is the Father, the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, the Son [Word] was God with God! Please explain! Yeah, well, that’s what we’ve been trying to do for centuries!

  50. It must in part at least mean that its darned obvious that Jesus is God in Anglican doctrine, and that Anglicans believe in the Trinity.

    It is not entirely clear what Jakes believes, since the wording of his statements leaves room for uncertainty.

    I would like to hear what he actually says about Jesus.

    To me, the relationship within the Trinity is of great importance, and this was highlighted well in Teddy’s quote.

    If someone sees Jesus as just a ‘manifestation’ of God, rather than a separate person yet part of One, then they miss the relational part of our faith.

    The relationship within the Trinity is mysterious, but nonetheless informs our own walks. We too are invited to abide in Christ, and He abides in the Father. How can we abide if He does not abide – and how can He abide if He is really just a manifestation of God, rather than a separate person? Further, the marriage relationship that we have, a man and a woman, and God – that is another unity of three, informed by the Trinity.

    “A cord of three strands is not easily broken” – more than just a poetic device in Ecclesiastes. One cord, yet 3 cords.

    Anyway, the relational working of this is something that we too are drawn to express in our lives. So a model of God which denies this is cutting a big chunk of His revelation to us away. Nonetheless, a person doesn’t have to know this theology to express this in their life, when they are truly living in the Spirit. It will be expressed in them regardless. However, for a teacher to excise this from their teaching is damaging.

    At this stage I am none the wiser re Jakes actual stance on this, but his language does make it seem as though he is not comfortable rejecting the OP stance. So does any reluctance to remove a ‘Bishop’ title that he received in that sect.

    In any case, his financial demands raise questions as well.

    Signs and wonders don’t prove anything about who he is, except that many people will come to see him.

  51. As RP says the both the character of God and the relational nature of the Trinity is actually what we supposed to be the image of.

    To do away with the Trinity is to do away with who we are to be as Christians – what we’re to supposed like and reflect will have gone up in smoke.

    We may or may not be saved, but at best we will be nowhere near what we were created to be – and what Jesus died to redeem and restore.

  52. Sorry, but all I asked for was an explanation of what the Articles mean by God not having a body, that’s all! Greg did not answer this.

    I understand they believe in the Trinity, since they go on, in another Article, to say they adhere to the Nicene Creed.

    It seems to be no less of a controversy, to me, to say God has no body, than to say he is in three manifestations.

    I’ll tell you why it matters. For six months before we were converted we studied with JWs, who say Jesus is not God, which was one of the sticking points with us. We were saved when an Anglican minister knocked on our door, having been led by the Spirit during this time of our seeking, as God drew us to himself, thankfully.

    Then we studied their catechism, which included the Articles, before being baptised and ‘confirmed’ as adults. We would have been told that God is without body, parts or passions, and not thought about it, just accepted it, but the JW’s say the same about Jehovah God.

    Subsequently we have studied avidly for ourselves, but it was only during this present little exercise that I was reminded of the 39 Articles, which, of course, I couldn’t make head or tail of when I was first saved, and of the Westminster Confession, which says the same.

    I’m genuinely curious for a scriptural, doctrinal explanation of this phrase, which seems strange to me.

    If you want to ignore it, just say so, and I’ll try somewhere else.

    But there’s no need to be rude!

  53. I feel the “family” is likened to the trinity, or “a” family, close friends, when two or more are gathered…..

  54. “As RP says the both the character of God and the relational nature of the Trinity is actually what we supposed to be the image of.”

    now I’m really intrigued to ask for your comments on a topic that came to my mind some time ago and where I just can’t find any clue.

    You know maybe what Sigmund Freud said about human personality and the three distinct entities he claimed to have found as the structural make-up of personality, the ego the super-ego and the “id”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego,_super-ego,_and_id

    Now what I’m unsure of is not if the theory is correct in the conclusions that Freud drew out of the concept*, but if at least a hint of the “imago Dei” within the human personality was discovered and described.

    * I think not, alone for the alleged conflict instead of harmony between the entities, Freud as an atheist did not take into account “good” and “fallen” creation and the consequences of it with regard to his observations

  55. Firstly in relation to FL’s response – mine was a general comment in to RP’s lightning rod and not FL.

    This is something I am only beginning to get a glimmer of, and in some respects may be it is hard to get hold of because we do live in a fallen world, but through the Spirit we see what could be and actually live it occasionally as well, and if we’re smart increasingly.

    I can’t give a “theological’ response like many here, but let me throw this out there.

    “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule…”

    “So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

    “And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

    Comment – I don’t see God as schizoid or suffering multiple personality disorder.

    “Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

    Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

    Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. “If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.

    Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

    Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

    “All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

    “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.Come now; let us leave.”

    “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

    “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

    “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other.”

    “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’

    “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.”

    Jn 5

    So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

    Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

    “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.”

    Heb 12

    Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.

    2 Cor 3

    Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

    We can see how the Father, Son and Spirit relate and work together.

    As RP said husband/wife is a picture of Christ and the church is picture of Father/Son/Spirit if that is not pushing it too hard.

    Fathers and children, elders and youngers

    Work and working together

    In the image of God – the Triune God.

    Get rid of that and what happens to the character and the beauty of the church and how these things are supposed to work.

    The model and unction has at best been severely diminished if not disappeared altogether

    Unitarianism becomes monotheism. Pick one.

    We just went from brilliant 3D colour with dead black and white landscape.

    FL – just one thing. I accept your point about guilt by association etc etc.

    But if Jakes is honest he should simply answer the question.

    Someone should ask it and he should answer it.

    Defending him in that sense has exactly the same utility as attacking him.

  56. Gandalf, in pyschology the persona is the ‘mask’ or ‘appearance’ one presents to the world. The persona is not something used to misrepresent oneself to others but is self-construed (the self we want others to see) and may change according to the situation and context.

    The English word personality comes from the Greek word persona. Carl Jung (Swiss) veiwed the persona as one among several selves (mainly ego, the anima and the archetype). So a person can draw on these personality traits by acting them out in certain social situation and later identifying with them as part of a new ego concept.

    The attributes of personhood are self awareness, choice, can reason, love, possessing a will and consciousness.

    The key I suppose when Scripture refers to the “Trinity” what term it is really using. Person as in seperate individual, or just personas or masks of the same person who chooses different personas to reveal Himself more fully in different settings????

  57. “And lastly S&P for mine I would see it as an important thing that you are doing wresting with these issues, and even moreso caring for the people you put yourself in the way of.”

    I am still in good relation with all OP believers I once know. Some know my triniterian views and some want me back and have me involved in ministry. I never did anything I know that was unloving. But I did challenge many who challenged me to get baptised in the name of Jesus. I challenged the teachers on pastors on things they taught for good reasons at the time so all good benefit as well.

    Many appreciated my hard questions and my commitment to seeking answers, even if they weren’t given. So they want me back. So I am still in good strong relations with them.

  58. In response to Gandalf and re super-ego et al that is Freud is alluding to fallen nature not a good thing ego. It is pride and perhaps other seven deadly sins involved.

    Ive studied psychology and Freud had some excellent theories to do with family therapy but the ego, we all have one, is something Jesus wanted to eliminate and/or have us focus on just being a good person, not “me” related but Us related. Its an interesting topic btw

  59. I love this article by Chris Rosebrough from Extreme Theology……………….

    “The Problems With The Purpose-Driven Definition of a Christ Follower”

    Sometimes it is important to step back and review, reflect and summarize your work and look for valuable lessons learned.

    I’ve spent some time this weekend doing just that. I’ve been hosting my radio program for almost 2 years. One of the daily features of my program are the sermon reviews. Each week I review 3 to 4 sermons from seeker-driven / purpose-driven churches. I review them in their entirety and am generally mortified and disappointed at the shallow self-help / felt-needs seminars that have replaced true in depth Biblical preaching in so many of these church’s pulpits. After reflecting on the sermons I’ve reviewed from such churches as Saddleback, Willowcreek, Granger, NewSpring, Elevation, Fellowship Church, LCBC, South Hills, Fellowship of the Woodlands, Mosaic, The Orchard, and National Community, I set out to find one question that could tie all these sermons together so that I could identify the common theme in all of them. Here’s the question I came up with:

    If I were an unbeliever and I attended these churches and listened to all their sermons week after week, how would I define the term “Christ Follower”?
    Here’s the answer I came up with after reviewing the sermons preached at these seeker-driven / purpose-driven churches over the last 24 months:

    Christ Follower: Someone who has made the decision to be an emotionally well adjusted self-actualized risk taking leader who knows his purpose, lives a ‘no regrets’ life of significance, has overcome his fears, enjoys a healthy marriage with better than average sex, is an attentive parent, is celebrating recovery from all his hurts, habits and hang ups, practices Biblical stress relief techniques, is financially free from consumer debt, fosters emotionally healthy relationships with his peers, attends a weekly life group, volunteers regularly at church, tithes off the gross and has taken at least one humanitarian aid trip to a third world nation.
    Based upon this summarized definition, I’ve come to the conclusion that the world is full of people who can fit this definition but who’ve never repented of their sins and trusted in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins. This definition could easily apply to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, it could apply to Emergent Heretics, Unitarians, Muslims and practicing Jews. The reason why this definition of a Christ Follower could be applied to those outside of Christianity is because this is a definition based upon deeds NOT creeds. (Which is precisely what Rick Warren’s so-called “second reformation” is all about.) Even worse, Rick Warren frequently admonishes the pastors that he trains to measure a person’s spiritual growth by their obedience. If obedience were the true measure of one’s spiritual growth then Jesus would have held the Pharisees up as an example of the most spiritually mature Christ Followers on the planet. Instead, Jesus called down woes on the Pharisees because they were outwardly obedient to the demands of God’s law but inwardly their hearts were far from Christ. Plain and simple, the Pharisees despite their obedience didn’t have FAITH. (Matt. 23:25-28, John 5:39-40).

    It is frightening but absolutely true that ANYBODY can modify their actions, just like the Pharisees, so that their behaviors conform with this purpose-driven definition of what it means to be a Christ Follower without ever believing the creeds of the Historic Christian faith and without ever trusting in Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins.

    Tradgically, the “Jesus” that is presented in the sermons that promote this definition of being a Christ Follower isn’t the savior of the world who died on the cross for the sins of the world and calls all nations to repentance of their sins and the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the Cross. Instead, the “Jesus” that is presented in these sermons is a “life coach”, a training buddy and the supreme example of an emotionally well adjusted risk taking leader who lived the ultimate life of significance and purpose. This purpose-driven “Jesus” is there to help you achieve what he achieved and invites you to follow his examples and methods so that you can be Christlike too.

    This seeker-driven / purpose-driven definition of what it means to be a Christ Follower is fatally flawed and I fear that there will be many people who appear before the judgement seat of Christ saying, “Lord, Lord, we were emotionally well adjusted self-actualized leaders who lived a life of significance and purpose, took risks, enjoyed healthy sex lives in our marriages, celebrated recovery, tithed, volunteered at church and helped dig fresh water wells in Africa” and Jesus will say to them “Depart from me, I never knew you!” (Matt. 7:21-23)

  60. I find it fascinating that there are entire ministries devoted to the idea that if we don’t preach repentance and the cross in every sermon it is not a viable gospel message.

    It usually stems from, what I would call, condemnation ministries, who still believe that, although a Bible believing person, a long term Christian, or, for that matter, even a new believer, is washed in the blood of Jesus, has been forgiven through the work of the cross, has been raised to be seated with Christ in heavenly places, sealed with the down-payment of the Holy Spirit, justified, sanctified, glorified, and made the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, they are still considered sinners, who need to repent at every meeting we hold.

    These ministries seem to fall short of the resurrection of Christ, which brought us out of sin into right standing with God, which means we are guilt-free, blameless and unreproveable in his sight.

    Yes it’s true we have to continually examine ourselves, and confess sin if we fall, but the simple act of communion is made available to us, and we need to make sure we stay right before God. We are admonished to be weapons of righteousness, not weapons of sin.

    If we are holding an evangelistic meeting where the majority of those attending are unsaved, then we would be expected to preach the cross, and press for repentance, but, when we are addressing the local church, we are leading people into holiness and virtue, and our messages should reflect the precepts of the Word which takes people beyond the cross into the resurrection life, the prize of the high calling in Christ. We need to be ministering out of the Epistles, and encouraging people to live the gospel life according to their new creation realities.

    Jesus died once for all. We are only saved once. Ten we enter the Way. From then on we work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We live the life. We walk in faith, walk in the Spirit, walk in love, continue in the faith grounded and settled.

    Judging a message by the cross and repentance content is poor exegesis. Our whole life should be a life of repentance, that is the kind of repentance not repented of. In other words, once we have turned, we do not turn back, we walk towards the goal of the high calling, the resurrection life.

    I have personally heard or read Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and others in similar ministries preach gospel messages which emphasise the need of repentance and salvation. Hybels is well known for his books on practical personal evangelism. I’m just reading his latest book on soul winning at present. But, yes, of course he and others mentioned also extensively preach and teach lifestyle issues, and the ways and means by which we need to have God’s will and Word restored and regenerated in our lives.

    As did the writers of the New Testament.

    Roseborough, sadly, misrepresents some of the core issues ministered by these ministries in his contrived definition.

  61. FL, have a listen to this podcast – there’s some interesting history behind the mega-church movement.
    Chris Rosebrough and Pastor Bob Dewaay had a private meeting with Rick Warren over these issues and his seeker-sensitive methods. They don’t approach these matters as legalistic “Pharisees” but as men with a passion for truth and the body of Christ. You would find yourself in good company, if you had that same opportunity.

    http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2010/02/who-is-responsible-for-unleashing-the-emergent-virus-on-the-church.html

  62. And then there’s this….
    “Cross-Centered Not Cause Centered Ministry” by Mark Driscoll – Mark Driscoll speaking after Rick Warren at thr recent “Radicalis” conference. (The last segment of the podcast)

    http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2010/02/taking-the-gloves-off-regarding-brian-mclaren.html

    Rick Warren at the same conference (last segment) – I would recommend listening to Rick Warren first.

    http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2010/02/church-of-england-offers-romantic-tips.html

  63. May I suggest for finding really good material dealing with the theological issues behind the concerns that FL raised, namely the issues of justification, sanctification and righteousness to turn your eyes on what is called the debate between reformed theologians (like Sproul, Piper et al) and the so called “New Perspective on Paul” ?

    Both camps have really good resources that help you to make up your mind and to prove what is said by looking into your bible.

    There are two books “the future of justification” by John piper and “justification” by N.T. Wright that are often referred to as documents of the two viewpoints.

    For the reformed camp, a good starting point is:
    http://www.ligonier.org/learn/collections/the-doctrine-of-justification-and-the-new-perspec/

    For the NPP camp a good starting point is:
    http://www.thepaulpage.com/new-perspective/around-the-web/articles-from-the-new-perspective/

    The discussion goes on issues like “imputed righteousness” “present and future (on the last day) justification” and how the deeds of the “Spirit generated new life” come or don’t come into play here.

    What I find remarkable in this discussion is, that while both camps agree on the formula “justification by faith alone” the disagreements arise about the change, the transformation that faith triggers. Maybe it is always the same demon that haunts us in our wealth and comfort, that we know if we’re faithful life might become less comfortable?
    On the one hand we might find such a teaching:

    “one can be an adulterer and not only be “justified,” but actually declared by God to be “moral” in that justification”

    as opposed to:

    “true justification leads to a Spirit-led life in which morality becomes tangible and salient – not just a divine declaration apart from any evidence or reality in the life of the believer.”

    these examples are from a blog comment on this page:
    http://trevinwax.com/2009/01/13/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/

  64. Sproul is a superb teacher. Solid teaching is essential for Maturing as believers.

    oh … Paul’s Gospel was the same Gospel as Jesus. The difference was that Jesus came to the Jews. He ministered to Jews and indeed, his only focus was the Jewish people.

    Paul opened it all up and preached to Gentiles. The difference here is that we gentiles have no understanding of the Law of Moses. Paul expands the message somewhat to give us a bigger understanding. Jesus spoke to Jews, so we miss a lot of his meaning, as we don’t have all that Jewish understanding of God and the Old Testament.

    Styles are different … the packaging is different … but the content is basically the same as ever.

    With the modern approach to make converts … have they changed the content or only the packaging.

    That’s the only question. Giving only the lovey-dovey side of the Gospel is no Gospel at all.

    “Hell-fire and damnation” is the other side of the coin which has “God is love” on the first side.

    We ignore this at our peril.

  65. I think Jesus may indeed be the father son and holy spirit, because we can be parents, children and workers at the same time and we are one person … so I believe in the trinity.

  66. Phil Pringle twitted five days ago:

    RT @TommyTenney: Impossible is a big word thrown around by a lot of small men. (via @RevRunWisdom)
    3:02 PM Apr 12th via API

    Tommy Tenney is another minister who is also supposedly exposed by many apologists, to be a Oneness Pentecostal minister and teacher as well.

  67. Kong ha mee yah? Luang su kong. Mm chai kong ha mee yah? Ki ki lan boh ming gia jo. Ta kan ta kan kong ming gia boh ngam. Mm gee hei dei gong mei? Kong yeh mm ngam yeh. Hei dei ho tak han, mo yeh jo.

  68. As a person who is currently at Hillsong conference I simply must detest what you are saying! You claim that they should State “Money, Power, Deception”.

    First of all – have a cry… the living God is throughout that church and the conference and if you’re in so much denial that you must go against it all then you need some serious prayer ministry and need to seek God!

    It is a church planted by the Lord! Brian and Bobbie have such a heart for the house of the Lord and give their all to make Hillsong what is it. The conference is AMAZING and i have found the Lord time and time again throughout many of the teachings.

    These terms used – “Money, Power, Deception” – every church takes up offering. Jesus teaches about offering in the Bible – do you not remember the little old lady who gave her 10 cents? – I go to conference and I give with a generous heart because as stated in the bible, the World of the generous gets larger while the world of the withheld gets narrower.

    Power – The power of the Lord is the power they posses – The power to win the unsaved to christ, the power to bring the hardest of hearts to tears – the power to bring people to their knees before the lord – to conflict the hearts of us all to serve the lord the way we should! THEY DO NOT MAKE THIS HAPPEN – Jesus does.

    “Deception” – have you ever experienced Hillsong? Have you ever truly gone to experience the lord or do you just sit and watch your stupid TodayTonight kind of shows that show one side of the story?! I can promise that the “Deception” that you speak of is unmerited and isn’t based on fact.

    Go have some prayer time, seek the lord. It’s kind of sad that I, as a 15 year old, finds you whining and criticizing the house of the lord and feels like she has to stand up for some amazing people.

  69. while there may be some corruption with how ministers spend their money, I disagree with your stand that the Whole of Hillsong should be thrown out with the bath water. there are many godly brethren in Hillsong and you are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. According to scripture, it is not your job to seperate these. It is the Lord’s job. You do err. Why don’t you allow the Lord to build a church thru you, instead of pointing fingers at other ministries, who by the way, I find very fruitful, alot more fruitful than you will ever be! the pride of your own thinking needs a little rest. Ask the Lord to give you a job, instead being focused on the job of another – to his own master he stands or falls, yea, God is able to up hold him, but who are you oh man of God, to judge the servant of another?

  70. “Jesus teaches about offering in the Bible – do you not remember the little old lady who gave her 10 cents?”

    Yeah. Hillsong took that money. People like you defend their actions. What’s new?

  71. Jesus called the pharisees who accepted the widow’s mite, ‘devourers of widows houses’. Read the rest of the passage in context, and leave out any heading in the text.

  72. Who are we to judge another?

    Well, Judgment begins in the household of God.

    There have been dodgy ‘ministers’ since Paul’s day. Jude tells us what to do with them, Peter tells us what to do with them, John tells us what to do with them.

    These true, foundational, Apostles would have had the new, so-called, super-apostles thrown out of the church had they appeared in their day.

    Brian Houston would be driving a taxi or flipping burgers, as he isn’t qualified to do anything else. A pity that he never got the opportunity to learn a trade, like the 12 had to.

    Paul made tents, Peter fished and so on.

    So why do we see millionaire celebrity church-leaders and Hero Preachers today?

    We put them on pedestals … it’s mostly our fault that we get exploited. If we were more mature, eating real meat then we would no longer find palatable the sour milk we get from T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, et al.

    For the 15 year old that defended Hillsong, when was the last time you heard a sermon on Galatians? Or Hebrews, or Jude, or James or Romans Chapters 9, 10 AND 11?

    Brian is way too busy making money to teach the Word, as he needs to pay for the personal trainer for Bobbie, and all the cars and the motorcycle.

    Shalom

  73. Peace be to you in the name of Jesus. The triangular illustration of God reminds me of a time we asked God to tell us what He is really like – the God we had come to know privately seemed way different from the church experience we were then having, even though Jesus kept saying hang in there, keep your eyes on ME. God gave us a vision in 2001 – actually many, many visions around that time – one of which so described the state of the body that we are having it, by God’s amazing provision, rendered into a graphic by one of the artists from Avatar no less!

    The reason why I speak in the collective Royal WE is that it is not really ME which lives but HE which lives IN ME – so I cannot say I, because “I” died.

    In 1983, in a clear blue sky, we saw a vision – a golden triangle of glory – in the middle it said GOD and in the top corner FATHER and on our left WORD and right SPIRIT. It began to move toward the earth in the direction of the WORD – and I saw that the invasive point of the kingdom of God was backed coequally by the other two – and then it began to move toward the SPIRIT with the same emphasis that while one aspect of God is the point, the other two are right there too!

    In 2001, I was in Noosa and had incredible things happening. While there I made the acqauintance of Mr Willem Bellaard, a man well versed in COC culture and religion in general in Australia. When back in Christchurch, the Holy Spirit instructed me to phone him – he was walking along Hastings St when he took the call, asked what do you want – I said “Dunno, Spirit told us to” – he handed the phone to another he had just encountered. We explained how we knew Willem and worked as a Jeweller. He asked if I believed and got all amped up and told me how that God had told him and another in a prayer time to search out the mystery of the Seven Facet jewel of Jeremiah.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=seven+facet&qs_version=AMP

    Researching, we found a schematic for a seven facet jewel in a text book, which blew “me” (:->) away as it was the third phase of a progressive sovereign revelation of God as He revealed more and more of His workings to us. In 2001, at a very intense prayer meeting, the Holy Spirit had said, “I am going to teach you about My Seven Spirits.

    But to be truly a seven facet jewel, the obverse must be the inverse – another seven facet jewel – a reflection. This is also correlated to the Persecuter, Rescuer, Victim triangle – which is the darkened estate of the man who is cut off from God’s light. If you draw an equilateral triangle with another 1/3 the size inverted in its centre and then join each point of the centre triangle by a straight line to the inside point of the larger triangle you get a seven facet schematic. Write GOD in the centre triangle, then Father in the upright, Word to the left and Spirit to the right – then on the facets which remain, those bordering the large triangle’s faces, write on the left, Faith, on the right, Hope and on the base, Love. These are the seven Spirits FROM (Aramaic) or OF GOD. Faith Hope and Love are as MUCH GOD and as intrinsic to God as are Father, Word and Spirit. He is His corporate character – they are indivisible and unique. There are seven colours to the spectrum – there are seven Spirits to God and seven facets to reflect his light. You may see one colour of God’s spectrum, but it took the full spectrum to make that one distinction. When we behold the fullness of His radiance, we manifest the same image, we have the witness of Jesus.

    The calling card of the true Apostle of faith is the miracles and wisdom from God – real miracles – I see very few and most are attributable to God’s network of intercessors who have got their ears on. These are His true apostles of faith – they speak His will into the earth. if you are called to prayer, please consider this saying – “Prayer is not communication WITH God, it is the communication OF GOD.” Now let God show you the facets of meaning in that saying – especially concernig the communication OF God. When you have a prayer from the throne, you are never alone! Oh Boy, you have all that God is backing you up! Can’t you get that? If we pray HIS WILL, He hears us! What is HIS WILL? It is LOVE!

    Of course Brian Houstan and all these guys are so wrong, but are we so right already? Each has their own angle of inclination to the Truth, even though we are all anchored into the same VINE, we are all to some degree at variance to the TRUTH, which is JESUS.

    When all come into alignment with Him, and not in this Babylonian Talmud (Tall Mud?) crossed with Deuteronomy 22 agreement doctrine deal which Houston and his WOF mob exploit, but real agreement in the Spirit. There is an alignement coming, a coming into line with Jesus – for with MEN it is IMPOSSIBLE, but with GOD, all things are POSSIBLE – the same God who is not willing that ANY SHOULD BE LOST…

    Maranatha – come Lord Jesus -soon, please, huh…?

    The darkened fallen human condition goes like this:
    For Father, persecuter, for Son victim, for Spirit rescuer, for Love hate, for Faith fear, for Hope despair.

    When we become conformed to His image, we become just like Him. I have had the joy of going to the throne a number of occasions, amazing things I could fill books with – but it pales into insignificance compared with what is to come.

    First it gets incredibly dark, while the happy clappy joy bunch dance on, oblivious to the coming storm. The depression which is going to hit this world, the wars, the famines, the plagues – the name and claim it bunch are in for a very rude awakening – especially when the 501 exemptions get axed because of these have who have lived in luxury while their brothers starved.

    Then, in the darkest of times, when it seems all hope is gone there will come a ‘VIVAL’ the likes of which has never been seen – a fire will start – people will fall in love – the great cities will come to God as a wave, a Tsunami of the Spirit sweeps the globe. It will happen quickly, it will be like wildfire – it will consume all in its path – it will be God’s most exquisite revenge as he saves the world and establishs His kingdom on Earth. In the Aramaic it says, “The recompense is MINE, I shall repay.” The VENGEANCE is GOD’S – He took it to the grave!

    I had the joy of seeing the beginning of the Great End Time Outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the coming of the Son of Man happen in the Spirit, in 1983, in an open vision – and in several visions since. In one, I was shown how the conventional churches, especially Pentecostal, would oppose what was happening but would be swept away by a wave of rhe Spirit. The ‘Vival’ will be in the streets, it will be workers sent out by God who will be converting thousands by their fiery witness of Jesus Christ resplendent! Oh if you could just have eyes to see it, or maybe you have and know about it already!

    It thrilled me to see that illustration of God in the earlier post, as it helped to affirm the vision(s) I have had. God has kept me aside as an intercessor, and away from the limelight, you can actually accomplish so much more in secret! I venture out into the blogosphere betimes to provoke inquiry.

  74. See how compulsively and seamlessly we revert to I and me? But then I am dead and my life is hid with Christ in God. We rose with Him in His resurrection and now we are seated together with Him in the heavenlies at the right hand of majesty – its the only place to be! Pray with audacity! Pray with POWER. But remember too the trials of faith endured by others.

    One of the most important lessons the Holy Spirit imparted to me was that it is He alone who says “I Am” and that if I do it, I am then being as a god, knowing…

    And many shall come in my Name, saying “I Am” and shall deceive many. Watch out for the I AM bunch – that is the theological BACKBONE of Freemasonry!

    The Masonic/Occultic/New Age influences have been infiltrated into Christendom under the guise of inclusiveness by direction of the Sanhedrin of Satan. People who do not recognise this will think them that do to be crazy – but it is out there and it is trying hard to influence the church. The pattern of these things is emblematic in our culture – the churches are full of it – eye-cons and I-Cons.

    Come out from her, and do not partake of her iniquities – the whole world grew rich by the luxuries of her inner frills (Aramaic Rev 18) – weep for her! It is talking about Christendom! It is talking about the Greco-Roman culture of comfort which seduced the Resurrected Body of Christ and made it into the Roman Church and all its many and varied descendents – which by the way, you all are as Christians, regardless of what you may think. You are still in the Family Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil – otherwise you would be walking in the miraculous and starting wildfires – but be patient – it is coming – and the Life of the Tree is in the midst of the Garden. He is in YOU!

    Beware of Babylonian partnership deals – agreements are binding – you can become bound by your alliegances – Deut 22 – if you vow a vow etc. Your word is Law.

    We were shown how that Bot-Nets of believers had been formed by soliciting prayers and agreements and then harvesting the agreement energy to accomplish dreadful things in terms of human bondage and judgment. Big chunks of the American Church are being led around by a ring in their noses. They think that they are praying for valid causes but their faith has been commandeered, channeled.

    If you want the good oil on leadership, read what Paul had to say in Acts 20 about false leaders and wolves and not preaching ANYTHING as regarding material possessions or wealth, and working with his own hands to provide for his own needs and those who were with him. Now that is my kind of minister, he not only picks up the tab, he pays for his mates too! And by his own hands, and not by fleecing the flock.
    0(:->)

  75. God has indeed chosen the foolishness of preaching…

    I want to provoke people to look at how much God has done and can do – my call is to those who have ears to hear…the ones who do not bow to Baal at their Bethels.

  76. Ian,
    ‘The calling card of the true Apostle of faith is the miracles and wisdom from God – real miracles – I see very few and most are attributable to God’s network of intercessors who have got their ears on. These are His true apostles of faith – they speak His will into the earth.’

    Why is it that so many ‘intercessors’ sound strange, and manage to include extra-biblical, mystical interpretation of scripture in their unfathomable exegesis. They also seem to claim almost total responsibility for the good stuff that happens, whilst the rest of the Church is the problem. And they’re always on about repenting for things we’ve repented of many times.

    I’ve been trying to get my head around this phenomenon for some time.

    According to my Bible there is no special ‘intercessors’ ministry. We are all called to pray, including intercede, make supplication, etc.

  77. Faithlift: “According to my Bible there is no special ‘intercessors’ ministry. We are all called to pray, including intercede, make supplication, etc.”

    Amen!

  78. Well, I’ll correct that, in fact. Jesus is ever making intercession for the saints, as is the Holy Spirit. You would call that a specific ministry.

    And we are all called to intercede. No believer is exempt.

    What I mean is that there is no set apart call, office or five-fold-like ministry of intercession.

  79. Provided that you actually know how to pray….

    Actually it is a little more fun-duh-mental – there are two kinds of prayer – that which begs or pleads and that which determines.

    I only know what I know because some years ago the Holy Spirit told me to stop praying (for a season). I got to the point where I felt like I would burst and setting myself to pray, I heard, “What are you doing?”

    “I am praying Lord”

    “That’s right, YOU ARE PRAYING, and I TOLD YOU NOT TO.”

    About that time, I was one night laying on my son’s bed, praying bedtime prayers with him, when he asked, “Dad, why do we pray?”

    “Well son, prayer is communication with God”.

    From out of my heart, the left side of my breast, came these words, “Is it Ian?” It was the Father’s voice.

    I was jolted clean out of the bed, left lying prostrate on the floor, with one leg still on the bed, and my 9 yr old son giggling.

    “What did you do that for?”

    “I didn’t”.

    I just lay there, feeling like a total fraud – for with one little question, God ripped me open and showed me MY faith was a fraud.

    A while later, he told me to go to a church and to observe their prayer time. After 10 minutes of agony, I asked to be excused, and as I left, I heard the Holy Spirit say, “Ian, I want you to teach my people how to pray.”

    “OK, but first you will have to treach me.”

    I sensed that what He was talking about was something else. He said, “I already have!” and I remembered that morning He had awoken me with, “Prayer is not communtication with God, it is the communication OF GOD.”

    The pattern for prayer is the the prayer Jesus gave to the disciples – so that His Fathers’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven – by the COMMANDMENT OF FAITH.

    Intercessors do not claim any special inference of faith, nor do they claim to especially have God’s ear, they have simply found that when they pray the will of God, it gets slick, and that they have to be open to it. Many intercessors are the prophetic voices by which God speaks His will. He only needs one to stand in the gap.

    I have spent so much of my life trying to warn ministers and people of coming calamities and present conditions that it has got to the stage where I almost feel like they can all fry – they just do not listen – and then I remember that I am a watchman for the Lord and it is not about me.

    The trouble with hearing God is that religious folks always want to crucify you, if such a word was at all biblical. But they are just envious that you hear God and they don’t, or that your prayers get answered.

    If all of Christendom were honest with God, you would take all your doctrines and your beliefs and put them on the altar regularly and see what burns up. Go on, I dare you to…I do it all the time!

    Remember, whatever you bind is bound, and that includes you. 0(:->)

    If you only knew how truly disgusting self righteous religion is to God, but then He tolerates a degree of childish behaviour to bring forth the man of God.

    Here is a poser for you, who is the authority Paul spoke of in Romans 13? If you think it is the (secular) Government, then your Pastor is probably in the pay of Babylon – if you understand that it is your God given conscience, then you are a Man of God.

    But God is so much bigger than our errors and dysfunction. Thank God!

    You say, “According to MY bible” – that speaks volumes to me…starting with it is not YOUR BIBLE, it is GOD”S WORD!

    15Yes, truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. And the Lord saw it, and it displeased Him that there was no justice.

    16And He saw that there was no man and wondered that there was no intercessor [no one to intervene on behalf of truth and right]; therefore His own arm brought Him victory, and His own righteousness [having the Spirit without measure] sustained Him.

    17For [the Lord] put on righteousness as a breastplate or coat of mail, and salvation as a helmet upon His head; He put on garments of vengeance for clothing and was clad with zeal [and furious divine jealousy] as a cloak.

    Jesus is the intercessor, all we should do is to pray what He says, even if it means crashing the Dow Jones Index, even if it means levelling a temple or two, even if it means being vilified by loving Christians who in delivering you up to death, think that they do God a service. Some of you guys are in for a big shock when you see who is in heaven – like EVERYONE God ever created! After all, He is not willing that any should be lost…and guess what? Eventually, HIS WILL IS DONE! He is God, after all…

  80. Yes, of course, if you need it qualified, Ian, it’s His Word, and it is delivered to us, so it is His Word to us.

    Jesus is the intercessor, yes, and so is the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us when we are born again. Therefore, we can know the mind of Christ, and pray accordingly. Even if we do not know how to pay about a certain situation, the Spirit helps us.

    Romans 8:26-27
    26 ¶ Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
    27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

    I don’t understand why the Lord would countermand his own instruction for us to pray without ceasing by making you stop praying! Which is another thing which strikes me about some ‘intercession’ ministries, the exclusive aspect. God’s word tells us that Elijah was an average kind of guy like all of us, yet he was able to pray because he had the right fervent attitude.

    We are encouraged that God will hear the simplest of prayers. What is required is righteousness, not know-how. We can only be made righteous through faith in Christ.

    James 5
    16b The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
    17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months.
    18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit.

    Then there is the gift of praying in other tongues, which aids us in prayer, and which you did not mention.

    1 Corinthians 14
    2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

    The armour of God is the same armour Jesus, the Intercessor of Isaiah, wore. We are admonished to put it on. The Armour expressly contains prayer as one of the weapons, and is to be worn by every believer, making every believer an intercessor in Christ.

    And, of course, Jesus taught us how to pray. There is so much on prayer in the Bible that the only thing which could stop a person from praying correctly is a decision to not to.

    Claiming a special ministry of intercession for chosen individuals, is, unless someone can point it out, extra-biblical.

  81. Thankyou FL, those words “pray without ceasing” immediately came to mind when I read Ian’s comment. 1 thess 5 was already my header when your post came up.


  82. In CONTEXT, the scripture you gave about the stone is:

    Ze 3:8-10
    “‘Now listen, Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who are sitting in front of you–indeed they are men who are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My servant the Branch. ‘For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,’ declares the LORD of hosts, ‘and I will (D)remove the iniquity of that land in one day.”

    The time this was roughly written was when the Jews were rebuilding the temple and wall of Jerusalem under the reign of Darius. The high priest that was overseeing the temple is revealed in Zechariah’s writing as Joshua. Zechariah prophesied in front of them, seeming to demonstrate the word he receive from God with a stone (maybe even a cornerstone! 🙂 ). They were a symbol of hope to the Jews as they worked on restoring the temple. But Zechariah alluded to a greater symbol of hope as he prophesied to them. While the Jews saw the High Priest and his Priests as a symbol of hope, Zechariah prophesied that a ‘Servant’ called the ‘Branch’ Jeremiah 23:5,6 will be bought in to them by God. This Servant called Branch is the ‘Stone’, linked to the Jews understanding of the Babylonian King’s prophecy from Daniel of the millenial stone that crushed the gentile nations (Daniel 2:35, 45). This stone is Jesus Christ as it is associated with the God’s servants, ‘The Branch’, prophesying of His coming! (Matthew 21:8)

    So what’s with the seven eyes? It’s not seven spirits.

    Joshua, the High Priest is being told that the national conversion that he has just witnessed in type must come under the leadership of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is noted that Joshua is not only High Priest, but also crowned king! This symbolic merger of two offices not only bought hope but also a symbolic significance of one who is to come with those offices.

    On Bible Gateway, the seven eyes can be cross-referenced in (Zechariah 4:10; Revelation 5:6; 1:4; 3:1). The seven eyes speak of infinite intelligence and omniscience. This stone was engraved or ‘written’ on. The seven eyes/facets are also alluded to in Isaiah 11:2 and the seven torches also found in Revelations before the throne of God. These represent the seven-fold ministry of the Holy Spirit. Not only was Jesus born of the Spirit, but the Spirit was upon Him (engraved upon Him) to fulfill the work of the one who sent Him. Jesus demonstrated that He was the one that Isaiah prophesied about in Isa 11:2

    Jesus declared the ‘Spirit of the LORD’ was upon Him and demonstrated that He was fulfilling the Father and Spirit’s revealing that His Spirit was a Spirit of ‘wisdom and understanding’, ‘of counsel and strength’, ‘of knowledge and the fear of the LORD’.

    God’s promise is that He’ll personally remove the ‘iniquity’ from the land. The last part of this prophecy echoes Isaiah’s prophecy. (Isa 4:4-6.)
    God did so through Christ. This stone is Jesus Christ. To say anything like wise I will tend to view as New Age or similar.

    I hope you are happy with my response Ian.

  83. When you use the noun “theologian,” do you mean academic theologian? One of my lecturers said that every Christian is a theologian in some way, and that theology is too important to be left up to academia.

  84. I seriously don’t understand why anyone thats leaving these negative comments does so if you really had the love and conviction of christ within your heart you wouldn’t have to come onto the internet and judge others publically or even privately…judging people is usually an outlet of value issues. which GOD does value YOU more than anything! i honestly pray that people like you that represent christians world wide would have a revelation that God Loves anyone and everyone no matter what they do or do not do. Or continue to do.

    God Bless

  85. Amen to that brother. Amen. I believe that our roles as Christians is to be the salt and light of this world. We are to spread the Word and to bring as many to know Christ as we can. LOVE is the key word here. We love because God first loved us. Everything (including rebuking) is to be done in love. In Luke 9:38 to Luke 9:41, Jesus himself mentioned to John that he was NOT to stop others from performing miracles in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ because what is not against Us is FOR us. I am not saying that doctrine is unimportant, but rather, which is more important? saving lives for Christ or nitpicking over small details? Why should we brothers and sisters fight over petty details which are not as important as saving lives for Christ? Aren’t we behaving as the Pharisees did? Brothers and sisters in Christ, the fields are ripe with harvest but the workers are few. If we fight and squabble among ourselves, then when shall our Saviour’s work be done? As for sorting out wrong and right, are we so faithless that we completely discount the presence of the Holy Spirit who resides in each of us? We as sowers sow the seed. But it is He, our Father in heaven who GROWS the seed and brings it forth to maturity. Sow the Word of Christ. Trust the Holy Spirit to do the rest.

    Blessings.

  86. Pingback: serm
  87. Pingback: mmorpg

Comments are closed.