(Editor’s Note: Todd Littleton was one of the prominent early Baptist bloggers. Like most of the pioneers, he has mostly laid down his keyboard for other pursuits. But he has an interesting perspective to share on the TD Jakes/Jamar Jones conflict that went on last week – to which I contributed. Our desire here is to be “SBC Voices” – which means we will have as many voices chime in as possible!)
Kenneth Scott Latourette noted,
As in the Apostles’ Creed, so in the Nicene Creed, painfully, slowly, and through controversies in which there was often lacking the love which is the major Christian virtue, Christians were working their way through to a clarification of what was presented to the world by the tremendous historical fact of Christ. (A History of Christianity, Vol 1, Beginngins to 1500)
Not much has changed. We are still working to clarify in each new era what is “presented to the world by the tremendous fact of Christ.” And, sadly, we continue to travel our forebears route with as little charity as the late Baptist historian described the era of Nicea.
Evidently there is a dustup in some circles that someone from the Potter’s House was playing the piano at the upcoming SBC Pastor’s Conference. Questions swirl around just what Potter’s House celebrity pastor Bishop T. D. Jakes believes regarding the Trinity. Why the rage? Maybe the reason is similar to what a friend of mine described having been led in worship by a Oneness Pentecostal. My friend now does not see the Trinity in the same way. Something about how they sang “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” with a different flare. I am thinking it was my Baptist friend’s lack of engagement with the more emotive Pentecostals. An admitted deficiency to be sure. But I digress.
It seems there is nothing that T.D. Jakes can do that will answer his Southern Baptist critics.
Some say he is a modalist, but never find where he clearly articulates modalism. He SEEMS to be a modalist, and since he won’t take the time to respond to critics, he must be. (This is more salient in current matters than when I first conceived this post.)
The Potter’s House doctrinal statement has been a cause for contention. It says, “There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The word manifestations is the problem, it appears.
Yet, he specifically denies this is modalism terminology in Christianity Today:
Jakes says:
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?
And, FWIW, in that Christianity Today article, he used the word “Trinity.”
So, unless you are wiling to call him a liar, he says he is not using that as code for modalism.
And, ironically, he is not the only one who uses the term “manifestations.” The Baptist Faith and Message commentary by the late Herschel Hobbs says, “The Triune God is clearly seen at Jesus baptism. Furthermore, in all three manifestations he is seen as active in both creation and redemption” (page 38).
Also, Jake’s website says, “eternally existing,” which clearly denies the basic idea of modalism (that he existed as Father, then existed as son, and now exists as the Spirit). He says God is eternally existING.
Now, we have a radio show released where he says “persons.” His exact words:
I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that they are three persons. I believe that in a way that persons is a limited word for the Godhead and even those that adhere to that say that to be true. But I think the issue is there are distinctives – there are things that can be said about the Father than can’t be said about the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that.
I’m not a big fan of T.D. Jakes, but let’s at least be honest when we criticize him. There is nothing that T.D. Jakes can say that will satisfy some. He might be imprecise (probably trying to keep connection with his Oneness past). He might not be theological. But, let’s at least be honest and say those things instead of saying he is a heretic without clear evidence that he is. He is trying (too hard) I think to not offend his Oneness friends, but that does not prove heresy (and, before you call someone a heretic, you better have solid proof). And, it seems to me that the SBC blogosphere has been disappointingly flippant in throwing that word around.
By the way, T.D. Jakes has been clearer on “persons” than the Baptist Faith and Message which says, “He has eternally existed in three personalities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Maybe there were some heretics on the BFM committee as well?
Heresy is a big accusation and maybe we should give T.D. Jakes a bit more benefit of the doubt. He is imprecise. He is trying too hard to keep friends. But, you need a lot more than that to be called a heretic. Let’s be honest critics.
{ 10 trackbacks }
{ 121 comments }
I published this by accident – I was going to hold it till later. But, here it is.
I was one of those who used the term modalist to describe TD Jakes. Todd is not the first to challenge the accuracy of this assessment. If we have been in error, we have wronged TD Jakes (and Jamar Jones, and Vance Pitman, and…).
However, I will say this:
1) The Trinity matters – it is fundamental and crucial doctrine.
2) Pastor Jake’s language is at best fuzzy on the issue. Coming from a Oneness background, he has maintained some of that language in his description.
3) I think that each of us should be careful to articulate our doctrine clearly – especially in this day. I think that the Potter’s House website statement at least leaves the door open to the modalist accusation.
I have no desire to participate in a campaign of false accusation. I also want to hold the line on the Trinity. I’m not yet ready to retract that which I said. But I am less certain than I was and am willing to hear the other side.
There has still been no word that I have seen from Vance Pittman on this. If they came out with a statement that they believe, having vetted this, that Jamar (and his pastor) are in fact Trinitarian to their satisfaction, this would be a good step.
Thank you, Todd, for giving us your perspective.
David,
Thank you for making room for different perspectives. Maybe there will be fruitful conversation here. Time wil tell.
I saw that quote from Herschel Hobbs many years ago, and I thought it was modalistic. It was amazing that so many Southern Baptists thought Hobbs was such a great theologian when he couldn’t even define the Trinity correctly.
I agree that Hobbs comment is surprising.
“The Baptist Faith and Message commentary by the late Herschel Hobbs says, “The Triune God is clearly seen at Jesus baptism. Furthermore, in all three manifestations he is seen as active in both creation and redemption” (page 38).”
I don’t think Herschel Hobbs can be called ‘modalistic’ in this case, because his use of ‘manifestations’ refers to the visual and auditory Presence of the Holy Trinity at Jesus’ baptism:
the ‘Dove’, the Voice of the Father, and Our Lord all at the same time.
Modalism exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son, so as to make them but one Person, teaching that God the Father appears on earth as the Son.
Hobbs’ example clearly shows the three ‘Persons’ distinctly present AT THE SAME MOMENT at the Baptism.
Jeff,
The reference to Hobbs is not to suggest he was modalist or that he could not articulate the Trinity. Rather than excoriate a dead theologian, it may be better to conclude that while the Trinity is important, our articulations, as confident as we may be of them do not apprehend what the Scripture describes as ineffable.
Todd, I agree. Even with all of the Church’s efforts to clarify the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, it remains a mystery beyond our grasp.
Actually ANYONE, who claims that he fully understands the Holy Trinity, is admitting that he doesn’t.
Even, if, and this is a big, BIG if, he is not a modalist, he most certainly is a “word of faith” proponent which without a question is a heresy. Therefore, he deserves absolutely NO benefit of the doubt.
Joe-
That is a completely baseless accusation. TD Jakes may appear on TBN but he is by NO means a “word of faith” guy. What evidence can you give that Jakes preaches a “word of faith” theology? I daresay there is NONE.
I would suggest, sir, that you rein in your loose tongue. It’s poison is going to turn around and bite you one day.
I would suggest, sir, that you rein in your loose tongue. It’s poison is going to turn around and bite you one day.
Thank you for the suggestion. I’ll take it under advisement.
“TD Jakes may appear on TBN”
With all due respect, he does a lot more than merely appear; he is a regular shill for the Crouches preaching to help raise money nearly every year for their beg-a-thons for their TBN travesty.
“What evidence can you give that Jakes preaches a “word of faith” theology?”
I would suggest the video here: http://tiny.cc/5cbil
Thanks for writing this, Todd. I had always heard that Jakes was a “Jesus Only” Pentecostal as well. If he affirms the Trinity, that is a very good thing.
Thank you Alan. Your comment is to the point. It is always better to let someone speak rather than speak for them. Hopefully it is clear that this is the import of the post, it’s more about us than Jakes.
Todd and Alan on the same comment thread??
Is this a Memphis reunion? Where are Paul, Marty and Art?
CB,
Cannot be a reunion without you.
CB,
Was reminded by Paul’s later comment here. I was not in Memphis either.
CB, I wasn’t in Memphis either! Too many trouble makers there. Greensboro and San Antonio was another story, however. The Alamo was a good place to make a last stand for me.
Alan, Paul and Todd,
Back between ’06-’08 “Memphis” was far more a state of mind rather than location.
You were all there, just like the Ghost of Tom Joad is “everywhere a cop is beatin’ up a guy…..” Yes, you were all there along with many, many more.
I just want to know one thing: which of you old-timers was the brains behind “SBC TooDazed” – a milestone in brilliant (and offensive) satire.
I always had my money on Marty Duren.
SBC Messenger has apparently moved on to other pursuits…
Wow, a Wes Kenney sighting too!
Todd,
I suppose I am somewhere around where Dave is now on this issue.
Jakes also made this statement “I believe that in a way that persons is a limited word for the Godhead.”
I don’t understand what this means.
Benji,
I took that to mean (and I could be wrong), that God exceeds any definition we might place on the idea of “persons or personhood.” He is more than what we call “one” person, and less than what we call “three persons” at one and the same time.
Somehow, when I began this post I understood it better
Benji,
I agree with Dave, the Trinity is important.
It would be a mistake for me to clarify Jake’s quote you reference. I have my own ideas. Maybe Frank is close to the intended meaning.
Todd-
This is an excellent treatment of the subject at hand, exactly what I would expect from you. Thanks for bringing your evenhandedness to the brouhaha. It is MUCH needed.
The problem with us Baptists is that we have a tendency to shoot off our mouths before we take careful note of the mark we are trying to hit. As a result we often miss and make a bigger mess than the mark calls for, if it calls for such at all. I have a friend on the other side of the mod/conserv. debate who is givien to taking a rather avante garde (I am being nice) approach to practically everything conservs hold dear even though he is not really all that radically. Part of the problem springs from his education training and background. He can be as abrasive as Joe B. above. The trouble we all have with abrasive people is that like the fellow whose fur was rubbed the wrong way by Billy Sunday, they, as Sunday said, need to turn around,too. Abrasiveness can spring from anger, insecurity in our own position, and a lack of informed commitment to one’s own position. Most ministers, unfortunately, or so it seems, have never done great amounts of research. They have done some research and satisfied their own need for knowledge without considering that there might be issues involved that demand further research, research in depth and in detail. Sadly, because we often fail to do that kind of research, we really do miss the joy of a real and firm grasp of the larger picture with attention to the fine details. But in this age of information, we definitely need to change our habits of study and research. One of the secrets to real progress in learning, I have found, is that of over learning, of covering practically everything you can get your hands on on the subject.
On Revelation 3:20 & Acts 16:14, my conversion texts, I have taken in excess of 200 pages of notes on all the commentaries, books of sermons, etc., that I have. It is a joy to be able to have such abundance o knowledge at one’s hand, in one’s mind. And if you want to know what kind of preaching I see to do, I will refer you to R.G. Lee, George W. Truett, Ernest R. Campbell, W.A. Criswell, Billy Graham, and a host of others that I have heard over my life time, a passionate kind of preaching.
As to the heretics, we really do need to be careful. I am reminded of the Calvinistis who were won in their initial conversion by Arminians and of Arminians who were won in their initial conversion by Calvinists. I once had a list of perhaps some 20 or more leading individuals in Christian history who had been won to Christ by people who were their polar opposites in soteriology. Being careful is not as likely to land us in grief as being quick on the draw. Only a very few people can be like my great grandfather, a cowboy and a gunman, who would do a fast draw and blow the head off of a Guinea hen in the yard that had been selected for Sunday dinner. I have never found myself a happy camper, when I have shot the other person down in a hurry, especially when I later find out that I had not really understood the issues involved. My ordaining pastor once said to me, when I wanted to take him on about his hyper-calvinist, supralapsarian views, “You don’t know enough to discuss it.” Ouch! That hurt then, and it offended me. But he was right. At the time, I literally did not know enough to intelligently discuss the issues involved. I thought I did at the time. Years later, I had to confess that I was quite ignorant. One of the things you learn from really going after knowledge is that all you do is enlarge the area of your ignorance. You open a door and go through to find 10 more dooors, 10 more areas of knowledge and ways of looking at things that you never even knew existed hitherto.
Consider how I discovered the way in which apparently contradictory truths (two ideas in one truth that are seemingly contradictory and cannot be reconciled) create a tension in the mind which enables one to become balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. The Christian Faith is like that, designed to make mature believers out of us, children of God that are an honor to His holy name. At the same time I began to discover how truths can be employed in positive ways to disarm ad get close in dealing with opponents without necessarily being offensive, to even enhance the possibilities of winning them over to your viewpoint. Not that we succeed all the time (we do not), but that we try to keep in mind the honor of our Lord in our disagreements. In any case, the ultimate approval that we seek is the Lord’s, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” That does not always come to victors. Sometimes the victims, the losers, are the ones who were right. Think of Fox’s Book of Martyrs (or better still his Acts and Monuments).
A Baptist historian a few years back cited a ource from the 1700s where an observer of Baptists were taking them to task for their being always engaged in fusses. I had to laugh at the whole absurdity, for that was what it was, because all the time the Baptists wer fussing, they were making their greatest contributions to the Christian Faith and to civilization. You see, they were securing religious freedom on a national scale, persuading General Baptists who weren’t very evangelistic or missionary minded to join with the Particular Baptists who were both, uniting Separate and Regular Baptists, employing educated and uneducated ministers together in Christian service, launching the Great Century of Missions out of a Calvinistic Theology, getting Arminians to work with Calvinists in missions and evagelism, establishing education institutions, and helping to crete the greatest nation that had ever existed in human history with reference to freedoms, and more, much more.
Let me take one more shot. I was impressed with the information about Jakes and his remarks, because I know the trinity and unity of God are two sides of one coin that have challenged the greatest of minds in theological history. The minds so challenged have admitted there are depths to the subject that they seem utterly unable to comprehend. Consider one of the problems with modern learning, namely, that of specialization which reaches the point of such technical knowledge that one literally cannot communicate with some scholar in another field who i also sufering from over specialization. One of my professors on my thesis committee for the M.A. in American Social & Intellectual History was a Ph.D. Generalist from the University of Vienna, Austria, a Jew who had escaped Hitler’s evils and had come to America and had settled at Morehead State Univ. in Ky, even though he had been offered the chairmanship of the History Dept. of Harvard Univ. He was asked by the committee to give me my oral examination on the thesis. Talk of a scary proposition. In any case, I have found that a wide and and in depth education in a number of fields is a great help to grasping what is being said in the Bible. Consider a work in the counseling field (I have a master’s in that from Liberty Univesity), a work on Therapeutic Paradoxes. Now consider the possibility that God has spoken to man in paradoxes, a well-known fact frequently discussed in Christian theology and history.(I even have book on Christain Paradoxes bublished about 1859 by the Southern Baptist Literature Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. Put that with the idea of therapeutic paradoxes and you can grasp the advantages that could be headd from tryhing such approach, one informed by the knowledge of what paraedoxes can do in couneling situations. Well, sorry, if you all feel I have taken too muchof your time, but I hope it might be helpful to you. Remember to pick the brains of the older ministers in your associations and churches. God put them there for a reason in your life and ministry.
Given that I can’t describe the Trinity accurately apart from quoting the standard wording of creeds and confessions, I’d be hard-pressed to cut down on someone just for not articulating it well. Would I question why that person didn’t cut and paste a classic formula? Yes, but I also understand wanting to put things in your own words.
This is one of those stories that flared up, demanded action, and then never quite got all the information together. I’d say it was fair for people to raise questions regarding the theological background of people at the Pastor’s Conference. Why the instrumentalist was the person to be pounced on? That’s a good question, because aren’t there a few others that fault could be found in?
In all, right doctrine is important. I’d state that right doctrine is the most important, because without right doctrine, we don’t really know God to have a relationship with, do we?
So, what do we learn from this?
1. We need to learn to ask questions and wait for answers. Had it been posed “Is this church truly a modalist group? Is that not heresy?” If the answer is “They are, it is” then proceed. If the answer is “They aren’t. It still is heresy” then act accordingly. What answers did we get that are current? Not many—mostly former interviews and and a fuzzy-statement. Enough to convince me that barring any changes, those allegations were probably correct.
2. People that make decisions need to learn to answer questions. Quickly. Vance Pittman still has said nothing. When the first questions started floating, I think I saw this on Facebook a week before it was here, “It’s a shame that the SBC has no one that can play piano. They’ve had to get a non-Trinitarian for the Pastor’s Conference.” Had that been met with a short statement from the Pastor’s Conference leadership: We’ve heard these questions, we’ve talked with Mr. Jones, and are convinced he is Biblically sound. Or the opposite: we called, he said mean and unBiblical things, and we’ve cut him from the program.
Speed isn’t always accuracy, neither is it inaccuracy. It’s just speed. Did the question need asked? Yes—and publicly asked, since it was regarding a publicized announcement. Did it need a firestorm of “Heretics at the piano!” Probably not.
And along with Dave, I’m still waiting to hear from the SBC Pastor’s Conference leadership. That’s what has me more concerned—Jamar Jones isn’t SBC, his theology (or his piano skills) has no real bearing on the direction of our denomination. That the planners of the pastor’s conference act but don’t explain, when explanation was (apparently) promised: that bears on the direction of the SBC as a whole. Jones could have been roundly criticized post-facto and then never asked back. The people planning the PC could possibly be the people naming committees and task forces in the coming decade.
Not banning anyone, Frank! But I do want the spirit of reasoned, lively debate to continue here. We’ve moved on and we are not going back.
Not sure what you are talking about, Dave so I’ll just say thank you for mentioning me
You made a comment to Joe that you said might get you banned. I’m not banning anyone today. That’s all I meant.
Ah, I forgot that short post.
CB, I’m afraid I can’t be part of a Memphis reunion since I was never in Memphis to begin with.
That said, I recall a current SWBTS professor telling me that the current BFM has been accused of being modalistic. Going a step further, I’ve heard other SBC professors say something to the effect that it’s very difficult for anyone to talk about the Trinity without sounding like a heretic. Finally, going even further into the rabbit hole, I would venture to say that if we were to ask for an explanation of the Trinity from any past accompanists at an SBC Pastor’s Conference, or just the average SBC church member, that imprecision regarding the Trinity might actually be a victory over some of the more “precise” responses we might get. We might well discover that there are a great number of Baptist heretics when it comes to the Trinity. Some may even serve as deacons, Sunday School teachers and committee chairpersons.
If I’m even remotely close in any of that I can only say that I think we should either be as hard on those folks as we would be on Jakes or we should cut him at least a portion of the slack we cut our own.
This wasn’t directed at me, but I will respond a little. I’m sure that what you are saying is true – there is a lot of imprecise (and perhaps even mistaken) theology around.
But there is some duty for my church to make sure our doctrinal statement on our website is accurate. The church has developed over time certain words that are used.
I will admit that perhaps some of us were overly hard on Jakes, or made assumptions or whatever. But I think he bears some responsibility for using imprecise theological language.
He came from Oneness Pentecostalism and continues to use their language to describe the Godhead. I don’t think it is completely unreasonable to look at the “manifestations” language – classic modalism – and deduce that he is modalist.
I’m saying that maybe I (and others) jumped the gun. I willing to consider that. But I’m also saying that accurate and standard theological language is available to describe the Trinity. Trinitarians can and should be able to make their Trinitarian stand crystal clear.
It’s called jargon.
I have training in technical theater and television production.
However, I still refer to worship services as productions whenever I’m working alongside people who want to either implement media elements or work on a seasonal production. I get looks of bewilderment because they literally think I’m cheapening the worship service or production when all I’m doing is using the language that I’m most comfortable with when speaking about technical elements.
He may be using unclear language to you, but it’s probably perfectly clear to him and perfectly clear (and probably offensive) to Oneness adherents.
I’m not sure, Bill. There’s standard language for Trinitarianism that is fairly close to universal in theological circles. One God existing eternally in three persons.
Maybe I’m wrong. It happens every decade or so.
I understand that.
Let me give an example, I’ll use theatrical lighting terms.
I use words like instrument, lamp, and dimmer.
You would call it lamp, lightbulb, and lightswitch.
It’s the interchanging of the word lamp which would confuse you.
I’m just saying that’s probably part of the reason for his ambiguity. He probably thinks he’s clear as mud and that should be good enough for everyone.
Brother Bill,
I am not sure you can call a “dimmer” and a “switch” the same. A dimmer is not a switch as a switch is an on/off instrument that breaks the circuit. A dimmer does not break the circuit it merely retards the flow of electricity within the circuit. Thus to call a switch and a dimmer the same would be “heretical” when references electrical circuitry. Would it not?
And we now have another debate over heretical language.
I think what amazes me is that Rob Bell is termed a “heretic” based on language he used in a video blurb promoting an upcoming book that, at best, can be described as unclear. While T.D.Jakes is now being let off the heretical hook and he has clear language on his website. His radio interview has now come to light but he will not change the language in his doctrinal statement on his website.
It is a strange world in which we coexist. Looking forward to Jesus coming back soon so we can get this stuff straight. Oh, and that will be in the millennial and tribulation period that we most affectionately refer to as “pre”.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I am the son of an electrical engineer. We are having breakfast and talking theology this morning with some men in our church. I asked him if a dimmer is a switch. Short reply, from a professional electrical engineer for nearly 50 years. A dimmer is a switch.
Dave,
A couple of things.
1. What did the Church Fathers mean by persons or personhood? Has our understanding of person and personhood changed?
2. And, since our Trinitarian views were crystalized prior to the Reformation in the early Church Councils prior to the Great Schism, how is it that this crystalized understanding now takes a variety of explanations across the breadth of the Christian community? I am thinking traditional Western Christian “orthodox” language and Eastern Christian orthodox language. Unless of course we are trailing blood and following Graves suggesting all other Christian traditions to be heretical.
Tim of the sect of Switch or Todd of the Sect of Dimmer,
This question is for either of you.
Would it be safe here to say, “There is One God. That One God ‘is’ The Father, The Son and The Spirit” or would that make a singular trichotomous human being a heretic?
Or would it possibly mean his “switch” is not either “on or off” but maybe not so “bright” as it is “dimmer” in the understanding of the Trinity?
Brother Todd,
I do not believe the term “personhood” came out of the Council of Nicea. It was there that they confirmed the same substance. It seems that “personhood” was added later to this doctrine.
Tim
Tim Switcher,
You are right. The term Personhood did not come out of the Council of Nicea. But Robin Hood did come out of the Sherwood Forest and Ben Cole came out of Sherman, TX, but neither did Robin or Ben live in the forest, nor were they on the Council.
CB,
Some things never change. Next we will be hearing about ‘Bama’s spring drills.
Tim,
I did not suggest “personhood” came out of Nicea. I referred to the Early Church Fathers. The history and development of Trinitarian Christianity did just that, develop. Can “person” really be considered apart from “personhood.”
The terminology concerning the ‘development’ of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity usually speaks in terms of its ‘clarification’ (putting light on it, so that it can be better understood).
Sort of like, bringing the doctrine more into focus.
There was in the Church a great desire to ‘receive’ and to ‘hand down’ that which had been received, in such a way as to guard it carefully from heresy. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity has its base in sacred Scripture, and also in the ways of praying in the early Church: some evidence of this is found in the oldest hymn to the Trinity, this one, sung at the setting of the sun and the lighting of the evening lamps:
‘Gentle Light of the Holy Glory
of the Immortal and Heavenly Father
Holy and Blessed O Jesus Christ
Having come to the setting of the sun
Beholding the Light of evening
We sing to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
God
Thou art worthy at every moment
To be praised in hymns by reverent voices
O Son of God, Giver of Life
All the world glorifies Thee’
Brother Todd,
Can’t argue with an electrical engineer. Thanks for the clarification. So, it appears that a dimmer switch is not an heretical statement, Bill. Need to back up and apologize for the term “heretical” being used in this context. Thus, we have a definitive word from an Electrical Engineer with 50 + years of experience.
Now, as to T.D Jakes. Wonder what the council in Nicea has to say about his terminology? Also, as to the late Dr. Hobbs, his use of the term “manifestations” certainly is something that is new to me and probably the reason conservative leaders of his time rejected some of his teaching.
Also, Todd, I believe your article is a good one. You certainly lay a good foundation for the argument. I believe Dr. Tony Evans takes the position that Jakes terminology is not accurate trinitarian speech but he would not term him heretical either. Thus, as you corrected my terminology concerning the “switch” why not demand the same accuracy concerning the Trinity? Especially concerning the Trinity!
Blessings,
Tim
So Tim,
You would rather not “Fight than Switch.”
Brother CB,
You are not drawing me in so you can blame me for a fight.
Dave Miller knows that I do not like to fight and he knows of my irenic spirit. It was because of my invitation that his meal was paid for in Orlando. 
Tim
Wow, all it takes is for Todd Littleton to write a post on SBCVoices and the old gang shows up. CB Scott, the Littleton Boys, Tim Rogers, ahem, me. If we could get Marty, Art, Robin Foster, Wes Kenney, and Bart Barber and have a good old scrap to get the blood up, it would be just like old times. Those were the days. Heaven forbid Ben Cole walk into this. SBCOutpost vs. SBCToday. Most here probably don’t even know about the glory days of running blog battles leading up to SBC Conventions, getting resolutions passed, Wes’ CP charts that changed the SBC forever, Frank Page’s elections, IMB policies and endless debate. Ah, the good old days.
I know! Let’s have a 3 day running battle about TD Jakes, Rob Bell, and encroaching heresy in the SBC. We can show all the newbies how it was done back in the day when entity heads sent us private emails and the future of the SBC hung in the balance – at least in our own minds.
Just kidding, guys. That all seems like a long time ago, doesn’t it?
Alan,
Those were the days. I remember some of those blog battles. We would fight like wild dogs and call each other terrible names. Then someone in the group would get sick or have sickness in their family or suffer a setback in their ministries and the whole “network” would become a “prayer chain.”
Alan, do you remember the time when we all took up money to buy one of the guys a car because his had stopped running his wife was sick? That was amazing to me and all due to Baptist Blog relationships.
It is funny that you mention Wes and the CP chart. A major SBC leader asked me a couple of weeks back if I remembered anything about a guy who put up CP giving on blogs that influenced the ’06 SBC. I told him about Wes, his charts and his yellow car.
I still think about you guys often. Some great friendships came out of those couple of years. As Marty once said, “It was a season in our lives when….”
I pray God’s blessings on all of you, your families and your ministries when I think of you. Next time you get up to Birmingham, give me a call. Lunch is on me.
“Alan, do you remember the time when we all took up money to buy one of the guys a car because his had stopped running his wife was sick? ”
That’s beautiful.
It was not really beautiful L’s. I think it was a Ford.
I love it.
Hope you are well, C.B.
Tim,
A real fight will only break out here with CB if you malign the Saban-nation. Avoid that, and his cute asides, and Dave will not have to worry about filtering your comments.
You raise one of the issues I thought of when this matter came to the fore. Dave has mentioned precise language for the Trinity. I do not intend to open up a debate on an alternative subject, but consider the 1987 Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. It did not so much settle one singular vision of inerrancy. And, at that it missed its aim. We may agree on certain words employed to create the illusion of “precision” regarding the Trinity. But, don’t we have to admit at some level even when we speak we must acknowledge we are making our best attempts? As a result, we may utilize images that don’t really clear it all up as well as we like to think? Think word pictures – apple (skin, meat, core) or water (steam, water, ice). I realize most of us here would dismiss these immediately as inadequate and imprecise.
Accuracy regarding the Trinity. If by accuracy you mean comporting with the “heresy police,” not sure. I will likely maintain that though I am Trinitarian, I acknowledge it as more about a particular fideist metaphysical move prompted by both the few Scriptures that point to the Trinity and the decisions maintained in the centered-set of Christian Tradition than obliging one group’s vision of the Trinity to demand univocal certainty.
Too often we enter the sphere of the Spirit following a scientific hermeneutic as though what we maintain we believe in that is not seen is somehow then absolutely verifiable simply because we use the right words. We then come under the weight of those words which then cause us to be more charitable, I hope, in our attempts to clarify what we find and believe to be important to our faith.
This should not be read as a capitulation to thinking we cannot nor should not say anything. And, I do believe there are descriptions that betray what is deemed the “orthodox” Christian understanding of the Trinity. Which does mean attempting to describe the Trinity with words and now we are chasing in circles to some degree.
That gets back to my question above. When we use the word person and personhood (don’t know how we talk about one without the other) exactly then what was understood then and what is understood now? I think it makes the conversation and matter much more tenuous to talk about without absolute certainty than what we like to think. After all, we preacher/pastor/theologians hailing from our particular steam do not like equivocation and think it a weakness rather than an expression of our finitude in the face of in/finity.
I believe my “smarter than me brother” put it well, when he noted what we all wince at. Scrutinizing the vocabulary of the Trinity eschewing fuzzy language would require of us to first lay siege to all of our own leaders who when pressed may discover more a penchant for the “proper” lingo than comporting with “orthodox” explanation. Vetting our own piano players, our deacons, lay folks, even our staff and some of us who pastor, may expose better this issue – even if, as Dave noted, we should post the right words on our church’s website describing our beliefs.
And now, I am full circle. If not myself in circles. We tend, in our Tribe, to level charges at others ignoring out own fallible and sometimes fuzzy explanations. We take pride in our words until pressed at the point of their meaning. And, there in lies the reason for not being so quick to pull out the “heresy” card.
Brother Todd,
That is the reason I stopped debating with you in the past, it took me too long to look up the phrases and words in order to understand what you were talking about. I need you to speak “redneck” for me.
Seriously, you last paragraph is exactly where I am. I am not quick to pull out the “heresy” card. However, when “manifestation” is used instead of “person” or “personhood” if gives a different connotation. As I said earlier, on this website Rob Bell was quickly pointed out to be a heretic based on a video blurb about his upcoming book. No one read his book and no one has any idea of what the book says. The “heresy” card was played based on unanswered questions in a video blurb. Will the book prove Rob Bell and card carrying universalist in his beliefs? According to the video blurb there is a high probability, but no one has read it. We have a website that clearly does not mention “person”, when referencing the Trinity. This has been the historical, theological, orthodox wording and view, but now we are backing up on playing the “heretic” card because “manifestation” is a biblical word. Should we be reminded that at the Council of Nicea they chose a non-biblical word homoousios, over a biblical word because the biblical word was tied to the heresy of Arius? If you remember Arius taught there was a time when the Son did not exist. Thus, using the Biblical term “manifestation” instead of the non-Biblical term “person” does not really impress me. Why? Manifestation, as a word, connotes God the Father existed eternally and God the Son beginning his existence when God the Father “manifested” himself in the Son. Thus, we have moved back to the same argument that was settled in 325 A.D.
Of course, as you said, this certainly is the best we can do as pastor/theologian/bloggers, and even this is not adequate to express the truth of the Trinity.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
It’s interesting to me that, as I read Dagg on this, he didn’t object to the use of the word “manifestation” but only preferred “person” because it was more commonly used. In fact, the implication I came away with is that some of his Baptist brethren at the time preferred “manifestation” over “person.” Maybe CB can tell us. He was probably there for the debates.
Brother Paul,
I like the way G.W.Bromley explains it in his article found in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. He says; “It (Trinity) signifies that within the one essence of the Godhead we have to distinguish three “persons” who are neither three gods on the one side, nor three parts or modes of God on the other; but coequally and coeternally God”. To use the word “manifestation” is to imply that God presented himself in a certain “mode”.
Of course we will await CB’s word on the Dagg reference. You are correct he probably was there in the debates.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
There is certainly more to be said and some interesting parallels to the whole SBC/Evangelical reaction to the Bell incident. But, I will save that for another post.
Here is the part that illustrates the point of this post,
The “heresy” card was played based on unanswered questions in a video blurb.
The same happened with Jakes. Questions were not adequately answered to the satisfaction of some observers so, what is implied is we must “play” the heresy card.
In many ways this plays to your reaction to my comment. You need a “redneck” explanation. Upon reaching the end of our understanding we pitch the “heresy” card on the table and all bets are off. End of conversation. Now in order to overcome the stigma associated with playing said card the alleged perpetrator is required to repent and dust and ashes and subscribe to the words that we have established fail to grasp the subject.
We Southern Baptists love to get into a fray so long as we get to set the vocabulary agenda. It does not really matter what is meant. If all the right words are used we are good with that. Engage Southern Baptists to think beyond our historical populist theology and it is as if our heads explode in terror at the thought. I mean no disrespect. I really don’t. I just seems to me that once we have agreed the difficulty inherent in exactness when it comes to the Trinity, to stridently maintain a position of certainty comes off as contradictory and disingenuous. Traits I know you would as soon avoid.
Tim Rogers,
I appreciate your candor about my using the word “dimmer” in regards to lighting.
Part of my training in technical theater and television production is I have a working knowledge of what an electrician does on typical home and business installations. I know just enough to diagnose a problem and relay it using their terms.
Which means I know just enough to be dangerous.
I have you have a good day.
bill
The trinity has become almost a master-signifier, to use Zizek’s term here, for evangelicals in general and SBC’er specifically with the difference being that the trinity is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. By that I mean the following:
1. The trinity is of utmost importance, yet is a code word, like inerrant Bible. You are in the “club,” part of the same team if you use that term. However, most pastors I know and many academics I know cannot really explain it very well. I cannot tell you how many pastors I have asked about the trinity. Few could explain in any depth or meaning or clarity and even fewer have ever done a message series on it. It would then go without saying that even fewer Christians have a clue what the trinity is all about as a result.
2. Because we do not understand it well, it really has no impact on our life. If we can’t demonstrate the answer to the question, “What impact does the trinity make practically in my life” we might not want to go around claiming people are heretics based on that particular belief. If it doesn’t change our life in practice, we might want to question if we really believe it because that which we believe, we do and live. Christianity is not simply an intellectual faith; Christianity is a relationship with a Godhead that transforms us back into the imago Christi, the type of human we were designed to be in the Garden.
That being said, I do not believe we should through stones at someone with whom we do not have a relationship. If Jakes is a modalist, then unless we have it on record from him he is a modalist he should not be publicly crucified but gently approached through dialoge and relationship. If we do not have a relationship with him, we can warn the people we have been gifted by God with about his beliefs to protect them. But if I chose not to engage him, clarify his remarks and actually determine that he is a modalist, I am not going to scream to the world he is a heretic, and then I am going to approach him humbly through relationship to bring him into not only orthodoxy but orthopraxy.
I need to correct something here I said with this stament:
But if I chose not to engage him, clarify his remarks and actually determine that he is a modalist, I am not going to scream to the world he is a heretic, and then I am going to approach him humbly through relationship to bring him into not only orthodoxy but orthopraxy.
I should have said:
But if I chose not to engage him, clarify his remarks and actually determine that he is a modalist, I am not going to scream to the world he is a heretic unless I have it from him on the record that he is a modalist or something other than non-eternal subordinationist 3 person trinitarian. The way we should handle this is to approach him humbly through relationship to attempt bring him into not only orthodoxy but orthopraxy.
Now, David, you’re just trying to pick a fight.
Paul…
Now David has shown up! This is a regular blog reunion!
Now I’m waiting for Ben Cole to post something about Dorothy Patterson’s hat collection (no offense intended – I’m sure it’s a great hat collection, worth of admiration).
To reconcile the proper deity of Father, Son and Spirit, with the strict unity of God, is a matter of great difficulty. There is an incomprehensible mystery in the doctrine of the Trinity. All attempts to explain it have failed. Efforts to explain the doctrine are not simply fruitless, but they lead to error. It is far wiser to admit, that none by searching can find out God. We should abstain from efforts to comprehend what is incomprehensible to our finite minds.
What God tells us on this subject, we ought to believe; and with this measure of knowledge, we ought to be satisfied; and all beyond this is human speculation, of which it is our duty and interest to beware. The Father is God; – the Son is God; – the Holy Spirit is God; – there is but one God.
Paul always has and continues to repeat what I said. Nothing has changed. He repeats me and tries to make it appear to be highly scholarly by using more words.
I shall illustrate:
cb = There is One God. The One God ‘is’ The Father, The Son, The Spirit.
Paul = “To reconcile the proper deity of Father, Son and Spirit, with the strict unity of God, is a matter of great difficulty. There is an incomprehensible mystery in the doctrine of the Trinity. All attempts to explain it have failed. Efforts to explain the doctrine are not simply fruitless, but they lead to error. It is far wiser to admit, that none by searching can find out God. We should abstain from efforts to comprehend what is incomprehensible to our finite minds.
What God tells us on this subject, we ought to believe; and with this measure of knowledge, we ought to be satisfied; and all beyond this is human speculation, of which it is our duty and interest to beware. The Father is God; – the Son is God; – the Holy Spirit is God; – there is but one God.”
See. Nothing has changed. We are just older…….and Paul has gotten uglier.
Actually, CB, I am just using the words of someone older than both of us. Well, at least he’s considerably older than me. For all I know he may be your grandson. I’m simply quoting John Dagg.
As for being uglier, that is true. I am quite a bit uglier than I used to be. But, like Charlie Sheen, I’m in denial about it. You see, earlier when Todd said I was the more intelligent brother the thought that immediately came to my mind was that he was always the smart one and I was always the good looking one.
Brother Paul and CB,
I like the way Paul threw Dagg in there he certainly has great insight into the trinity, but like his ecclesiology he does not complete the thought.
The Father is God, but the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit; – the Son is God, but the Son is neither The Father nor the Holy Spirit; – the Holy Spirit is God, but the Holy Spirit is neither The Father nor the Son; – there is but one God.”
I am not crossing swords with the Littleton Brothers and CB, just raising my plow shares.
Blessings,
Tim
Let me clarify that I did not quote the entirety of what Dagg wrote about the Trinity. He clarifies it with much more detail that I’ve given here, so whether he deserves to be criticized for “not completing the thought” or not should not be based upon the short quote that I’ve given apart from its larger context. Perhaps you’ve recently read all that Dagg wrote and are basing your comments on that. I probably wouldn’t share your opinion in that regard, but that’s neither here nor there.
Tim, would you consider these statement to be on par with your second paragraph above?:
“The doctrine of a three-fold distinction in the Godhead, belongs especially to the economy of grace…”
“We are baptised [sic] into one name, because God is one; but that is the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, because it belongs alike to each of these divine persons.”
“If an entire deity may dwell, at the same time, in three separate places, and yet be but one, why may not an entire deity dwell in three separate persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and yet be but one God?”
“Were God’s mode of existence like that of created things, either material or spiritual, he could not be in several places at the same time, or in three distinct persons; and yet be an undivided unit.”
These are all from Dagg and perhaps help to complete the thought.
Oops, meant to add that the italics are all mine.
We must remember that the writings of Dagg are far larger in scope than what has been recited here.
That is also true of the sandwich which was named for him.
The “Dagg-wood” sandwich is of such largeness in proportion that few people can eat the whole thing at one meal.
Well I thought I would sit for minute and drink my lemonade while reading Todd’s post. Now it’s been 30 minutes of reading, and 600 packages won’t deliver themselves. Now I have something to think about while I work at least.
Brother Paul,
I was basing my comment on your statement concerning Dagg. No, I have not read all of Dagg on this, but will take your word that he completed the thought.
Tim
This has been for me a hilarious and funny discussion with serious and somber overtones and undertones. It is the matter of the trinity and unity of God that is utterly fascinating for it is a revelation of the nature of the Creator and Redeemer, “God in three persons, blessed trinity.” The interesting thing as you all are meandering around in this delightful exercise of intelligent musings on one of the toughest of all propositions of biblical revelation and inspiration is that you are using more humane language, for the most part, and that bodes well for the future. Think of persuading the whole earth as to the truth of the trinity and unity of God by way of truth alone, and consider how the stone cut out of the mountain without human hands repeatedly smites the old image in its feet and utterly destroys it and the stone becomes a great mountain and fills the whole earth. The truth can appear so wonderful as to be utterly irresistible. Sort of like the ladies oohing and aahing over the diamond in a friend’s engagement ring. We often forget the beauty, balance, benignancy and benefit of truth. Alas~! Sadly, we have little confidence in the power of truth to persuade the dull, dark, dumb, and dead denizens of this world. And yet truth in all of its brilliant, beckoning, bright, blooming, bracketed, and breathless nature has yet to be considered for what it can do to resolve the problems of our existence. If the world is to be filled with His knowledge and glory, and if the knowledge of God is knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent (Jn.17:3), and if the glory is that revelled in by Paul in Gals.6:14, then truth is going to have a bigger role in bring the earth to the millenial generations (I Chrons. 16:15) than we have imagined. When we begin to grasp the present comings of the Lord to us every day and the dropping down of the heavens (Isa.45:8) in answer to our feeble little prayers and we begin to really apply ourselves in earnest to pleading the promises recorded by Jonathan Edwards in his Humble Attempt as did William Carey and others in launching the Great Century of Missions and being blessed with the Second Great Awakening, then, perhaps, if we agonize in our pleadings as Whitefield and Wesley and others did, then, I repeat, we just might see and begin to experience the beginnings of the Third Great Awakening which shall perhaps continue for a thousand generations (allow 20 years per generation and you have 20,000 years). Wait until you find out about therapuetic paradoxes and our Lord’s advocacy of the impossible (Mk.10). Paradoxes?
I’m sure I don’t know precisely what TD Jakes means when he uses the word “manifestations” to refer to the relationship between each member of the Trinity and their shared status as One God. The argument that “manifestation” is used in the Bible isn’t a good one. The passages cited where it is used do not refer to to such a relationship. Christ is indeed the manifestation of God in the world if through the second person. The Holy Spirit, it seems from the text, is manifest in the world through the gifts He gives the members of the Church. That’s not the same as saying that the members of the Trinity are manifestations of the One God.
All this “reminsicing” has me wondering two non-Trinitarian questions:
1)How is Calen?
2)Does anyone know what and how Tim Sweatman is doing these days?
Thank you for asking. My son, Caelan, is now 5 1/2 years old and is doing great. He had half of his chest removed in surgeries, so we will be facing reconstructive surgery in the future when he is older, but there is no sign of the cancer. We are almost 4 years of out treatment now. We praise God for all of the prayers during that time. CB was right. We’d all fuss about stuff on the blogs, but then I’d get a call from Tim, Wes, Robin, and Bart and I could always tell that even though we disagreed about some things, we were still brothers in the Lord. That was huge. And, it made the disagreeing more enjoyable too, because it wasn’t personal. Of course, we agreed on far more than we ever disagreed on.
Below are quotes from Promise Land church pastored by Kenneth Phillips, father of Randy Phillips of Phillips, Craig and Dean. Randy is still listed on the site as a pastor who has recently planted a sister church. The first quote is similar to The Potter’s House statement. The second quote is from their Enquirers Handbook which explains their beliefs. This is one example of how Jakes’ position fits in with a Modalistic “church” who is clearer anti-Trinitarian.
Mark,
I am sympathetic what is stirring many. That is, the fuzzy nature of language. However, to make the statement,
This is one example of how Jakes’ position fits in with a Modalistic “church” who is clearer anti-Trinitarian.
is to extrapolate from one church and impose it on Jakes where he has not been clear in this way. Were we to read what is found here attributed to Jakes as to what he believes regarding the Trinity then we would clearly be trekking down a different path. However, since we do not have that the inclusion of this statement simply illustrates a church that has itself adopted modalism. Their adherence does not Jakes’ make.
Todd,
Did I claim Jakes said as much? No, I did not. I’m giving an example of a Modalist church using virtually the same language. Just as your use of a Herschel Hobbs’ quote does not mean Jakes’ usage of “manifestations” is acceptable neither is my example concluding Jakes’ positions are not acceptable.
Mark,
My apologies if I offended you. Since the piece in question related to Jakes and the attempts to cipher his position on the Trinity, I evidently mistook your inclusion of this “example” as a means to compare Jakes favorably with said church. That is, to suggest this is how “Jakes’ position fits into a Modalist church,” conveys a categorical move. Or so it seemed to me.
The reference to Hobbs was, for me, a bit of sarcasm. I do not think Hobbs was a modalist. I think his use of manifestation was his preferred word to describe an ineffable subject, but not modalism. The irony was that too many were investing manifestation with inherently modalist meaning and yet one of our own from the past found it a word worth employing.
I would not want to offend a source for the original post.
Todd,
I’m not offended. I was just in a hurry.
It can be difficult to interact online sometimes. I think you just read too much into what I said because all I really did was present information. (Isn’t that what people accusing Jakes of being a Modalist are being charged with?)
I know you weren’t calling Hobbs a Modalist. I was just giving another example, contra your Hobbs example, of how the word manifestations is used.
I can’t find the source right now, but I recall a note from a book on Oneness history claiming that today they are using language such as “eternally manifested” to gain further acceptance. If I find it I’ll share it.
I’m not convinced that Jakes is now Trinitarian. He won’t come right out and say it even in the recent interview you posted. He won’t distance himself from Oneness folks. He makes excuses for not being clear on his stance. CRI is on record of having a conversation with Potter’s House Sr. Associate Pastor, Lawrence Robinson, who stated “affirmed that Jakes denies the biblical position of the Trinity.” Jakes and Robinson are still working with Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies a Oneness org.
Man, if we are going to have a bloggers reunion, I should probably get a hosting fee or something.
I’ll collect from CB.
I am reminded of a quote by Warren Wiersby:
“The successful Christian learns the vocabulary of the Spirit and makes use of it. He knows the meaning of justification, sanctification, adoption, propitiation, election, inspiration, and so forth. In understanding God’s vocabulary, we come to understand God’s Word and God’s will for our lives. If the engineering student can grasp the technical terms of chemistry, physics, or electronics, why should it be difficult for Christians, taught by the Spirit, to grasp the vocabulary of Christian truth?”
And it reminded me that many people expand the “mystery” of God to include things that He has plainly revealed to us about Himself because they don’t want to take a position on anything. In a sense, it’s almost as if they don’t want to take a position on anything for fear that one day, they will be held accountable for it.
I used that in an illustration on Sunday. I asked “Would we take our car to a mechanic who didn’t know the difference between a distributor cap and a serpentine belt? Would we let our children be taught by history teachers who confused WWI and WWII? Why, when it comes to God, are we OK with being confused by things He has clearly revealed? It’s almost as if we consider the mechanic or the teacher as more real than God.”
That is my primary motivation for calling out misstatements and such. Not to play the heresy card, but to be as clear as I can be about what I am teaching/preaching/saying. I don’t want people to be confused because I misspoke. I want them to see God as someone who is very real, and very concerned with the truth He Himself revealed.
That is why, when someone refuses to answer a simple question plainly (like “What happens to a good Buddhist after he dies?” – see Doug Pagitt for a completely absurd non-answer to that question), I start wondering one of two things:
1. Does this person even know what he is talking about?
2. Is this person dodging the question?
Neither are good, and both deserve investigation.
Jeff,
I cannot speak for Doug, though I do know him.
My “smarter than me brother,” who has posted here, was entertaining me on the phone while I was keeping an appointment for our church. We were discussing the Trinity. We talk theology often. He had pulled some of his books on the Trinity off the shelf and even had been reading some other resources online that he did not possess in his library. He hit on a point I attempted to make with a couple of questions to Dave earlier.
When we use the words “person” and “personhood” they surely have evolved in our understanding. In fact, since the early church councils were not held in English we have to trace the intended meaning behind their word “person.” Bridging that barrier shows no infallible move. Not one person would suggest the infallibility of the Councils – not and remain Southern Baptist.
So today we say “persons” of the Trinity and must reckon with the differences. It is not that someone refuses to answer a question, it is whether they answer it to the inquisitor’s satisfaction. Said inquisitor then subjectively renders the verdict. In this case we are quick to play the heresy card. Even when we may agree the lack of certainty about a consistent meaning from then until now. That is what makes it a subjective move though we love to tout our objective positions.
And, to your two questions. I might say that often the best answers are “Yes” and “Yes.” The person knows what they are talking about to the extent of their human understanding and chosen sources of authority. They may be different than yours. (As an aside, you refer to Weirsbe and his insistence on the language of Zion. Stanley Hauerwas does the same. But, I would wager Weirsbe and Hauerwas may arrive at some vastly different conclusions in the outworking of those words in our lives in the world.) And, sometimes it is justifiable to dodge a question wherein the respondent knows that no matter what he or she says the jury has already handed in the verdict. Also a point of the original post here.
There are certainly things we can be confident in our expressions. But, when it comes to the Trinity, I type again, our attempts to capture the idea seems to require a bit more humility than getting our minds around other subjects that derive from a much clearer collection of references in the Sacred Text.
If this website is accurate, then some alterations/changes have been made:
This is from footnote “29″
In late 1997, CRI Coordinator of Research, Sam Wall, printed out from the T. D. Jakes Ministries Web site an undated doctrinal statement that states, “There is one God…eternally existing in three Persons…” (on file at CRI). A few months later Wall noticed that the statement was changed to “three Manifestations.”
This statement comes after the heading “Trinitarian or Modalist?”
On the T. D. Jakes Ministries Web site, an older but still accessible version of their Statement of Faith reads, “There is one God, creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”29 Their current doctrinal statement has been altered somewhat to read: “THREE DIMENSIONS OF ONE GOD (1 John 5:7, Matt. 28:19, 1 Tim. 3:16)” — “We believe in one God, who is eternal in His existence, Triune in His Manifestations, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost AND that He is Sovereign and Absolute in His authority.”30
http://www.equip.org/articles/concerns-about-the-teachings-of-t-d-jakes
I love T.D. Jakes.
I love T.D. Jakes too.
With all this talk about precision in language I was struck by the realization that sometimes (often?) Jesus intentionally used either imprecise or confusing language. “Destroy this temple and in three days I’ll rebuild it,” for example. Or the times in the gospels where he tells his disciples that he spoke in parables to hide his meaning from some, or that he would say something he knew others would take in a way that he did not mean, yet he would leave them to their wrong understanding.
I’m not advocating imprecision in our statements about the Trinity, but I am wanting to avoid a situation where I become like the prevailing religious people of Jesus’ day who were so certain about everything, but were certainly wrong on most of it, to the extent that they missed the very Son of God while he stood in their midst.
I guess I rely on the fact that a lot of blood, sweat and tears went into hammering out the orthodox view of the Trinity.
I know you aren’t advocating imprecision, but I guess I’m advocating the attempt to be precise with our doctrinal statements on this issue.
Really odd when you find out that “God” shares an IP address with one of our commenters. Who knew?
Since the Holy Spirit lives in all believers, wouldn’t God share an IP address with all of us? (or at least most of us?)
Oh, wait, He doesn’t speak today beyond Scripture.
Drat. Wrong thread for that. Sorry.
You da man, Doug.
I think you’ll find that I share an e-mail address, too. Oh, and I’m a Trinitarian – for the record.
And pre-mill pre-trib, too. Right?
If you don’t answer correctly, I will know you are false and will tell everyone.
No pressure.
Oh come now, Dave. Everyone knows I’m an Amillennialist.
Oh, come now. I’ve got amillennialist leanings, but I’ve never encountered God in them at all.
Which is why I lean back when I have them.
Doug, a real encounter with God requires more than some “leaning,” notwithstanding Hymn #333 in the 1991 Baptist Hymnal. That’s like saying, “I’ve been leaning toward some thoughts that that Jesus guy was someone important, but then I realize he was no John Lenon.” If you want to find me in Amillennialism you must deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me. It’s all or nothing.
Pre-trib, pre-mil is a lot like John Lenon and the Beatles. Fifty years later they’ve still got inertia, but then you’re still left with those memories of Yoko Ono and drug trips with the Dali Lama.
Oops—-the Baptist Hymnal is never wrong, is it?
Can’t get past the letters in Revelation that talk about Jesus coming back to reign for a 1000 years and turn that into Him not coming back to reign for 1000 years.
Now, if you’re looking for agreement that, contrary to American hope, we Christians just might see at least the opening phases of serious persecution, I can join with you on that.
As to this Lennon fellow, aren’t he and Nietzsche discussing how much more popular they are than you these days? You know, calmly and peacefully since love wins out over all?
God, Could you fix the problem I am having with my blogsite posts not appearing in the SBCVoices directory of bloggers? I’ve asked and asked and asked, and it simply cannot be done by human hands. Can you work a miracle for me today?
Just another “voice” from below, I am only selahV
Hariette,
Fixing computer problems is infinitely more difficult than raising the dead. Even for God, this takes time.
that’s it…no more offerings from me….I may even skip church tomorrow.
And did you really just say that you were going to “out” God?
No, the impersonator, now that I know by the amil comment that you are, in fact, such.
Mark (re:#78),
At this point since we cannot clearly say with certainty what Jakes himself believes regarding an orthodox position on the Trinity, this still leaves me reticent to label him a heretic.
Should you or another find a clear attributable statement denying classic Trinitarian understandings, it would help us all were it posted somewhere, if not here.
That said, as he intends to stir more dust, I am wondering still what our response to such a person should be in light of the ethic of Jesus? For instance, I read a prominent blogger recently assert how Paul responded to heretics. He did not have a conversation with them. He cut them off. Are we so sure. What we have of Paul dealing with those who he believed mis-represented the faith are most often given in passing without much explanation. And, when he does use language like, “turned them over to the realm of Satan,” we cannot forget that his intent of letting them go their own way was, “to be taught not to blaspheme.” Could a person argue this to be a redemptive move rather than a word of retribution? After all, the Scripture does remind us that condemnation and judgment are not ours to give.
Some thoughts:
1. If this controversy and the controversy over ESS results in more SB folks giving more attention to the Trinity, then I think this is a good thing.
2. I think there is a difference between someone having a fuzzy understanding or a lack of understanding of the Trinity versus someone who has knowledge of the classic articulation of the doctrine and yet either rejects the Trinity or at least chooses to seemingly not articulate it in a way in harmony with its classic formulation.
3. The example of Jesus using what Paul calls imprecise language in relation to the particular example Paul gives needs to be seen in context.
For Jesus to refer to His body as the Temple revealed that He was the fulfillment of the shadowy literal Temple in the O.T. The same kind of thing is going on when Jesus refers to Himself as the “True Bread”. He was the fulfillment of the shadowy literal manna in the wilderness.
Therefore, there was a good reason to use this kind of language in the context of John’s gospel and of redemptive history. However, I personally do not see any good reason to not seek some good measure of precision when it comes to the Trinity. I don’t think any of us would say of “Biunity” something like “Well, it’s just one number off. Close enough.”
4. Todd brings up a good point concerning the statement of faith saying that God is eternally existING “in three manifestations”. However, I think all of the Scripture references that Jakes brings up has to do with temporal and not eternal manifestations. And I think they all have to do with manifestations to people.
5. It seems that on this issue there are two ditches one may fall into:
One ditch: Being unloving to Jakes.
Second ditch: Being indifferent to the Trinity.
I’m sorry, I’m missing the part where being unloving to someone who could clear the question up as to whether he’s a modalist by clearly refuting that doctrine as heresy is a bad thing. I mean, if you ask me if I believe some whacked out doctrine that was determined to be heresy in the 3rd or 4th century, I’m going to answer very clearly and precisely so that you know that I don’t embrace that heresy. Jakes refuses to do that. Therefore, if he’s treated in an “unloving” manner, he’s kinda brought it on himself.
ut I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).
We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12).
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).
Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).
Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).
Ah, yes, but YOUR definition (and L’s as well) of being unloving includes calling for Jakes to clearly explain that he is not a modalist and refute modalism as the hersey it is. Normal human beings with sense don’t call that unloving.
All Jakes has to do is issue a clear statement calling modalism a heresy and identifying himself as staunchly Trinitarian and this entire problem goes “poof”. Until then, expect him to continue to be called on it.
I’ve asked E. Calvin Beisner via Facebook if he would comment on these recent statements by T.D. Jakes in the recent radio interview. I asked if he thought that Jakes is now Trinitarian or closer to it. I asked Beisner because he’s written a couple of books on the Trinity and has even addressed Jakes in one of them as I recall.
He gave me permission to share his answer. He said:
Well said, he knows this field. Beisner was on The John Ankerberg Show years ago with Walter Martin where they debated Oneness Pentecostal leaders.
I’ve compiled much evidence concerning T.D. Jakes based upon my own experience studying, for years, Oneness doctrine: http://tiny.cc/pnskr
I stop by to comment, for no other reason than the high regard which I hold for Alan Cross.
Three brief observations:
1. I posted over at HereIBlog that there are two possible interpretations of T.D. Jakes (and this before the radio interview had been outed): He must be either (a) a recent and marginal Trinitarian whose bluntly stated goal is to get Trinitarians to get over their insistence upon Trinitarianism, or (b) a non-Trinitarian trying to grow his influence into Trinitarian fields by finding the most nearly Trinitarian language that he can affirm in order to sound like a Trinitarian. The most charitable assessment of him (the first option that I gave) still puts him in the category of being someone in grave error.
2. The history of recent interaction between orthodox Christianity and the cults is replete with the redefinition of terms and even with occasional outright deception and balderdash. This is not an arena in which we can just take somebody at his most minimally stated word. Jakes needs to be entirely forthcoming about his views of God’s nature, to the point of entertaining questions and dialoguing with orthodox theologians about the subject.
3. I think it is possible that Jakes has migrated in his view of the Trinity. Good for him, if so. But he cannot have migrated to any sort of a via media. Oneness Pentecostalism is a set of beliefs that necessarily and inherently regards orthodox Christianity as heretical. Christianity is a set of beliefs that necessarily and inherently regards Oneness Pentecostalism as heretical. There is no possible point of view from which one can regard both viewpoints as orthodox, unless one empties both theological traditions of their meaning. Jakes must flatly reject Oneness theology. He cannot be over here (Trinitarianism) unless and until he departs from over there (Oneness Pentecostalism).
Before going upon my way, I want to expand just a bit more about my #3 above (comment 107). All of our hemming and hawing about whether Jakes has said “Trinity” or “person” or whether we have to account for differences in our language from such Greek niceties as homoousios and the like…all of this, it seems to me, fails to give sufficient note to the fact that these events today are taking place in a historical context which contributes to our abilities to understand what these terms mean.
This is not just T.D. Jakes vs. Bart Barber or whomever. A clearly defined, robustly expressed difference of opinion regarding the nature of God has developed between Oneness Pentecostalism on the one hand and true Christianity on the other hand. Jakes was ordained by a Oneness Pentecostal church. These facts make it silly for us to furrow our brows and to wonder whether this is all some sort of a tempest in a teapot.
Surely you A-mils and Pre-trib,Pre-mils jest. God is clearly a crisis Post-mil, bent on winning the whole earth and every soul in it for 1000 generations (I Chron.16:15) (Isa.11:9 & Hab.2:14 & Dan.2:35). Allowing for 20 yrs. for each generation that means we will have 20,000 years of Gospel success. Was that what Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Andrew Fuller, Luther Rice and others were pleading for in their prayers pleading the promises listed by Edwards in his Humble Attempt? The earth is to be full of His knowledge and glory as the waters cover the sea…winning by peaceful persuasion, so wonderful as to be irresistible. Did God ever waste His breath?
Hey, Todd. You’ve probably seen this already but there is a review out that shows that what everyone you castigated said about Bell’s new book is pretty much right on the money–even closer than grenade close. Back where I come from, we’d call it a “Bullseye”.
So, I don’t wanna be a smart alec and say “I told ya so” but, um, well…..hey.
Shoot. My rush to gloat and be snarky and now I see that wasn’t even what you were talking about. Never mind. I retract my snarkyness. Hopefully Dave will allow my embarrassment to stand without being deleted because even I have to admit, it’s pretty funny.
Dr. Willingham , ” — as it was in the beginning , it is and ever shall be. God in three Persons, blessed Trinity “. What the beginning ?
I remeber at times why I always felt so aggraated at Hershel H. Hobbs. One, was he did preach on the Baptist hour lik he did in person. Two, he was Arminian as all get out, tossing out the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace, and, as far as I am concerned, he didn’t really hold total depravity/inability, especially important as Jesus said, “No one can come to me.”. Thre, he made a laughing stock out of my pastor at the ’63 Convention. But then, I have to note, that when he came down on the issue of inspiration, he was firmly on the side of verbal inspiration. I guess he probably set back smoked a big black cigar. My sister ad brother-in-law had him in their home. Preachers are a wonderful congeries of contradictions. You can only go as far as your theology will let you. Wait till you find out that biblical orthodoxy is the most liberal, making even liberalism look like a putty tat (remember the bird and the cat?), that is, narrow, restricted, confining, stupid, never very liberating like old orthodoxy. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!. If we only knew the truth….
Correction: Hobbs did not preach on the Baptist Hour like he did in person. The Baptit hour was a dull, dry talk. In person, he used his voice, which had a good range, and was humorous. Some of his preacher boys rose high in the denomination, and they were the ones that gave the Sovereign Grace believers conniption kitties. An executive Sec. of a State Convention hqated calvinism with a passion. Hobbs (a leading post-mill) preached a revival for R.G. Lee (the leading pre-mill of the SBC at the time), was involved in W.A. Criswell’s wedding. In fact, he was scuffling with Carl Bates, when W.A. ad the Mrs. came out on the steps, and she said, “There’s Hershel trying to ruin my wedding by fighting.” (She didn’t know he was trying to keep Carl from messing with their car). O yes, Carl was a leading Sovereign Grace believer and preacher. He once offered to go all out to help R.T. Kendall to get a leading pulpit. One the other hand, some preachers like Ramsay Pollard tried to drive one Sovereign Grace preacher out of the SBC, while Charles A. Trentham and Carlyle Marney defended him as preaching the truth. Life is passing strange! And Frank Page use to hear a strong preacher on Sovereign Grace at his home church, a former Fighter Pilot from WWII (he flew a P-38 Lightning, and at least once, perhaps twice, was the only fighter pilot in his wing to come back. He once landed his damaged plane at 150 miles per hr.That preacher, Rev. Gerald Primm, was influenced by Pink, Spurgeon, and others. Still living and in a convalescent care centre, he with the help of a worker on the floor won a worker there to Christ…around the age of 85-90.
Comments on this entry are closed.