NOTE: I still have not seen any statement, though I assume that one is forthcoming. But the link to Potter’s House and the bio for Jamar Jones have been removed from the Pastor’s Conference website.
Two items for your consideration:
1) Ed Young, Jr has been trumpeting his “EXC3ED” conference which just wrapped up. Now, I’m going to put aside my old-fogey ennui about hip spellings of words. There’s a church in my town called Riverz Edge. Good church. That z replacing the s is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me! But, as I said, I’m going to put the misplaced (annoying) 3 aside and assume this was as good a conference as Ed Young claims it was. Not my cup of tea, but it doesn’t have to please me to be a good conference.
I’m also willing to overlook the inclusion of Joyce Meyer as one of the speakers. Again, a fingernails/chalkboard moment. Her odd mixture of psychobabble and positive confession is not my thing, but alas, Ed did not ask my opinion. Oh, well.
But I do have a problem with one speaker, T.D. Jakes. Jakes, the pastor of the Potter’s House in Dallas (and other locations) does not believe in the Trinity. He is a modalist, who believes that God does not exist eternally as one God in three Persons, but believes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply sequential manifestations of the One God. This is an ancient heresy which has been rejected by orthodox Christians.
So, does Ed Young believe that the Trinity is a non-essential doctrine? He invited someone who denies the Trinity to speak at his conference and that shows a shameful disdain for basic Christian doctrine. For Ed Young, the Trinity is evidently not a doctrine worth taking a stand over. Am I the only one bothered by that?
2) The Pastor’s Conference of the SBC has engaged Jamar Jones, from T.D. Jakes’ church, to lead its instrumental music. I know nothing about Jamar Jones. For all I know, he may not agree with Jakes’ heresy. He may be a Trinitarian. I just don’t know. But on the website of the SBC Pastors’ Conference is a link to the Potter’s House website, a church that denies one of our fundamental doctrines. Our website is linking to the website of a heretical church.
I think Aspire 2011 is going to be a wonderful Pastors’ conference. The lineup of speakers is exciting. I plan to attend and I hope you will do so. Their stated goals of funding ministry to an unreached people group and of motivating 1000 church plants are as noble as they can be.
But I have a problem with the Potter’s House being advertised on the Pastor’s Conference website. I know that several people (me included) have contacted the leaders and expressed our conviction that this is a problem. I have been told that a response is forthcoming, hopefully one that will correct the problem.
I have no desire to be a rabble rouser or to somehow paint Vance Pitman as a bad guy. If T.D. Jakes were speaking, it would be a different thing for me. Jamar Jones is scheduled to direct the instrumentalists during the worship. Actually, someone involved with the conference described his ministry as “playing the piano.” I would wonder if there wasn’t someone from a truly Christian church who could have done that job. But, my major problem is the fact that the website promotes and links to Jakes’ heretical church.
Here’s My Question:
The facts are beyond dispute. T.D. Jakes denies the Trinity. There is a name we have consistently used for those who deny the Trinity. Heretic. Jakes does not proclaim the same faith we do because he does not believe in the same God we believe in. Is he saved? Don’t ask me. God’s grace is amazing. But he is a false teacher who has a false view of God.
Does the Trinity matter in Baptist life anymore? Have we turned this fundamental truth into a negotiable issue of conscience?
Why on earth is Jakes being scheduled for speaking engagements at Christian conferences? Do we now believe that the Trinity is a tertiary doctrine, one over which we should not divide? For those who have followed my series here, the Trinity is a Brick Wall Doctrine – it matters.
I am deeply disturbed that Ed Young would invite someone who denies one of the most important doctrines of Christianity to be a keynote speaker at a conference. That is shameful. What doctrine will Ed Young stand for if not the Trinity?
I hope that Vance Pitman and the leadership of Pastor’s Conference will not follow Ed Young’s lead in treating the doctrine of the Trinity with disdain. They still have time to avoid Young’s shameful action. From my contact with them, I believe they are honorable men who will take the honorable path.
Folks, we worship a Triune God. Let’s not forget that. If we are not willing to stand for the Trinity, what will we stand for? Unity is a great thing. But when we compromise truth, as Ed Young has done, we are not promoting unity but abandoning the faith.
I am an unabashed enthusiast of ASPIRE, this year’s Pastor’s Conference. I look forward to it. I continue to hope that the promised statement will clear some of this up.
By the way, before anyone asks, the Potter’s House has a doctrinal statement on their website which is clearly modalist. That’s not hearsay, folks. Read the website.
What source do you use to accuse Jakes of not believing in the Trinity? I have heard the same stuff said about him for years, all because as a young man he was involved in “Jesus-only” churches. But in recent years, for most all of his national ministry, he has affirmed the Trinity, at least according to all the reports I have read.
So unless he has recanted most of his recent statements on the issue, to bring up doctrinal issues from his past that he has distanced himself from is not reasonable.
If you will link to any place in which TD Jakes has rejected modalism, I will gladly pull this down.
In regard to the Potter’s House, the problem with the Trinity comes from trying to describe, not dutifully ascribing to it. Every attempt to make the Trinity appeal to man’s intellect is going to fail.
Once I had ants in my house. They came by the millions. I pleaded with them to leave. Nothing I said seemed to change their behavior. It’s like the just could not understand what it meant to be human and the master of my kingdom.
Accepting the Trinity as clearly taught in the Bible is “essential.” Understanding it is not. I think sometimes we confuse description with ascription.
I still have not heard back on the two emails I sent about the issue of the Trinity and the Pastors’ Conference (which I also posted). The doctrine of the Trinity is the core problem with Jakes’ theology. There is much more in the way of prosperity teaching.
I barely have time for anything more than those brief emails this semester or else I would (maybe) document other problems with Jakes’ theology.
Thanks, Dave.
I was told there would be a statement today, which is why I held off this post as long as I did. I was hoping to hear their response.
For all, Mark wrote a great letter – both direct and principled, to both Vance and Jamar. He handled it the right way.
Dave: Hey . . . your just not with it. As long as we can attract an awezome crowd of young hipsters to ASPIRE, leaving the old fogys like you and Jerry Vines and Jr Hill and all the rest way behind, then hey . . . what’s a little doctrine anyway? Don’t you appreciate Len Sweet and generous orthodoxy? Come on . . . get with it.
awezome? Dude, you are killing me.
And I do not think that ASPIRE is about young hipsters. John Piper, Ken Whitten, and Bob Pittman can hardly be called young hipsters. I think there is a pretty good balance.
Your comments may have been more apropos to the EXC3ED conference. But I think the lineup of speakers at Aspire will be good.
They’re probably more apropos, too.
What are you talking about, Bob?
(I’ve got an advantage – I can edit my typos.)
Which is why I clipped & saved it….
I can neither confirm nor deny that those words ever appeared. I have no memory of that.
Dave- you’re hilarious.
I’ll be here all week.
Don’t forget to tip your waitress.
According to the Potter’s House website:
“The Bible, the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings, and are the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.
God
There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
If the problem is “manifestations”, I think we are nitpicking wording, not theology. It took the church a few hundred years to come up with the right way to say it, so I don’t think it is reasonable to knock the above statement. If I read that statement, I would presume they believe in the Trinity. I think you have to come at it looking for a problem to see otherwise.
Blessings…
As you say, the wording of the doctrine of the Trinity has been sharpened for 2000 years. The wording on the Potter’s House website is modalist. Clear and simple.
It is not Trinitarian.
Dave,
When someone has a history of espousing Modalism, as Jakes does, it makes the use of the term “manifestations” questionable. You mention that the church spent hundreds of years to come up with the right way to say it, but that is no excuse for the Potter’s House to be hedging around with the wording. It isn’t like they came up with their doctrinal statement back in the second century A.D.
This isn’t a case of people looking for an issue in my opinion as much as it is a case of expecting that someone who has openly affirmed a heretical position in the past should be more clear in their language if their position has in fact changed to fall in line with orthodox thinking.
Yep.
My point is that the wording is clear today. If you affirm the Trinity, you use these words. If you deny the Trinity, you use those words.
Jakes’ statement is modalist, not Trinitarian.
I think we are nitpicking wording
Nope. He’s being nailed because he is a known Modalist who refuses to repent of his heresy.
I don’t think it is reasonable to knock the above statement.
Thank you for sharing that.
Hopefully Dave or someone else in the know can answer this question. Based on what I have read about modalism over the past several days, the key distinction between that heresy and Trinitarianism seems to be the belief that God is either in one form or the other and not all three at once. Saying that, based on the belief statement from The Potter’s House, that does not seem to be what is being said- the words “eternally existing” would convey to me that the believe all three “manifestations” exist at all times.
Now I will grant you that “manifestations” is probably a poor word choice given the existence of the modalism heresy, but could it be that we are granting too great a weight to one word and ignoring the rest of the statement?
Are there examples of TD Jakes promoting a non-Trinitarian view of God? I have personally looked but have not been able to find any online. Anybody got a link?
I just did a little research, after the other Dave challenged me. Jakes claims to not be anti-Trinitarian, but when he expresses his beliefs, he does so decidedly modalistic language. Having been ordained in the Oneness Pentecostal church/cult (you choose) he maintains that wording.
The best someone could say about him is that he is theologically inept. But the wording of his doctrinal statement is modalistic, and his statements are modalistic.
The difference. Both groups believe in the Father, Son and Spirit. But Christians/Trinitarians believe that these three exist eternally in three Persons. Each person of the Trinity is fully God, yet there is only one God.
Modalists/Sabellians believe that there is only One God and deny the eternal existence of three persons. They believe that God manifested himself in three modes (hence, modalism). He was the Father in the past, was the Son in his earthly existence and is manifested as the Spirit today.
If you are really curious about reading more about this, you could try this link. I went through it and it seems pretty thorough in outlining where Jakes’ stated beliefs contradict with orthodox beliefs regarding the Trinity.
http://www.equip.org/articles/t-d-jakes-responds-to-the-journal
Dave, you are correct: Jakes is a well-documented modalist. Sadly, I have tried to explain this to many Christians who subscribe to his teachings and nearly every one didn’t seem to care.
P.S.: Are you also saying that you have no interest in preaching your sermons from a “T.D. Jakes ‘Woman Thou Art Loosed’ NKJV Holy Bible” conveniently available for purchase for $34.99 from LifeWay?
http://www.lifeway.com/product/001199552/ Here’s part of the product description:
“The popular teaching of renowned pastor T.D. Jakes coupled with the timeless message of Scripture. The ‘Holy Bible, Woman Thou Art Loosed’ Edition is the Bible that addresses emotional and spiritual issues from a biblical perspective and offers encouragement as only T.D. Jakes can do. Women will find hope for hurting hearts and strength to be healed and made whole so they can live victorious lives.”
On the plus side, no words appear intentionally misspelled.
I think it would make a great post for someone to walk through a Lifeway Store and write down what is being sold there.
You don’t have to walk through the store, just browse the catalog that they send to the church every month. I will stop before I pitch the newest edition in the garbage to note what I find.
That catalog gets out of the post office? Between this, pushing the ‘flavor-of-the-month’ and the trinkets referenced in another post on this site, neither Lifeway nor CBD gets past the front door.
I don’t pick up the mail, it gets dumped on my desk to sort out and I make sure the can is close by while I am sorting.
CBD is worth perusing early in the year, before I drain my expense account.
Certain CBD catalogs have to be thrown away because I have no expense account and my wife won’t let me max out the credit cards.
Others, not so much.
Dave, Well I asked a clerk in Lifeway to send me everything they had on a certain subject and then held my breath it wasn’t going to be a thousand dollars worth. I had an issue which I took up with someone assigned that duty who basically said something about freedom of the press. Jerk This stuff you guys are talking about is unbelievable – a no brain er. Someone that isn’t a believer shouldn’t be allowed to park cars. It shouldn’t be I’ll get back to you – it should be that a mistake has been made and it will be changed, count on it. Or is this some decision somebody wants a pat on the back and a promotion for making. This is not my fight but it is my religion. You mean they have to take a vote ? If this – then what else ?
Dave
I think having Joyce Meyer there is as much of a problem as Jakes. Not only does she promote the Word of Faith heresy, but she also subscribes to the theology that says Jesus went to hell to be tormented by Satan. Dude, she’s every bit as much a whack job as Jakes, Copland, Bruce Prescott, and David Gushee**.
**No, Prescott and Gushee are not word of faith guys, but their theology is just as unbiblical and just as dangerous. 🙂
No big fan of Joyce Meyer. However, my focus is on the Trinity. I have no reason to believe that Joyce Meyer is not a Trinitarian. I’m guessing her views are probably theologically inept and underdeveloped, as is her wont, but not modalist.
My focus is on the Trinity here.
Does one have to be Trinitarian in order to be saved?
To be saved, one has to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; to repent of sin and trust Jesus as Savior and Lord.
In my article, I clarified that I am not questioning whether TD Jakes is saved. I have no way of knowing. One can be saved with all kinds of silly and false ideas – that’s why they call grace amazing.
The issue is not whether Jakes is saved. It is whether his doctrine is orthodox (it isn’t). The question is whether he should be teaching and leading in conferences like the one Ed Young held, not where he will spend eternity.
What IS the Southern Baptist interpretation of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity?
I have read different points of view given by Southern Baptists.
Historically, Southern Baptists have always been firmly Trinitarian.
From the 1858 Abstract of Principles:
From the Baptist Faith and Message 2000:
Squirrel
And here’s my own statement:
Squirrel
And its not a doctrine we have ever been willing to compromise, not in the least.
People may not like this, but I don’t need to see Joyce Meyers or TD Jakes on the speakers list. I stop as soon as I see the name Ed Young. This is the guy who spent a sermon encouraging his listeners to give him and his church their bank account information.
Links, my friend. Links!
After FBC JAX Watchdog wrote a few posts with links to the sermon or parts of the sermon.
Fellowship played the Caner card and anything remotely even mentioning Ed Young, Jr., Fellowship Church, or even the news story about Ed’s plane that doesn’t exist was pulled from YouTube and any other streaming media cite due to Copyright Laws. Some may have sprung up, but clips of that sermon disappear fast.
And yes, I’m mentioning Caner because he did the exact same thing when his whole cluster was going down…
You’re killing me, bill.
Let’s not discuss that mess while we are discussing this one.
Oh, I’m not discussing that. I was just comparing the two situations.
Hunt made a direct reference to Young, Jr.’s asking for banking account information during the close of one of his sermons.
Just google it and you’ll find that many have sounded off on this…
Dave,
Chris Rosebrough documented this with a video link to the sermon. Chris’s article is: Ed Young, Jr. Wants Your Checking Account Number. Also, note the link in the second sentence about the alleged private jet.
As to “manifestations” not being an issue, see my letter and note that even the Oneness United Pentecostal belief statement is not that much different other than God manifesting himself. Also, Equip.org has some good research articles on Jakes’ theology.
Also, Dave Jones (SEBTS professor) and Russell Woodbridge (former SEBTS professor) have just published Health, Wealth & Happiness:Has the Prosperity Gospel Overshadowed the Gospel of Christ? (Kregel, 2011). Some of the teachings they evaluate are those of Creflo Dollar, T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer, and Joel Osteen.
I would encourage those who are interested to follow Mark’s links. The video has been removed, but the link at that site to the story about the jet is chilling. Absolutely chilling.
My friend went to C3 this year.
He just skipped their parts since he’s interested in what he can learn from others in their fields, not what Meyer and Jakes have to say.
He also stated that he has really no use for what Young, Jr. has to say these days too.
He predicts that Fellowship may very wind up at odds with the SBC before everything is said and done. Considering that Ed Young, Jr. has no problem drawing attention to himself, this may come sooner than later…
Hi DAVID MILLER,
You wrote this: ‘The wording on the Potter’s House website is modalist. Clear and simple. ”
I agree with you on this. And yes, I agree that the word ‘manifestations’ is the problem. In the Potter’s House wording, we do not find a clear statement on ‘God in Three Persons’. Clever wording? Actually no. It is easy to line it up with Sabellianism, a form of Modalism.
Here is the Potter’s House wording from their site:
“There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Some background on the two Trinitarian heresies under discussion:
“Sabellianism: According to Sabellius, there is in God only one hypostasis (person) but three prosopa, literally “masks” or “roles” that the unipersonal God assumes. These three roles correspond to the three modes or ways that God MANIFESTS Himself to the world. Hence another name for this theory is Modalism.
In the Modalist system, God manifests Himself, in the sense of reveals Himself, as the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. There are not really three distinct persons in God but only three ways of considering God from the effects He has produced in the world.”
So at what point would you say “Therefore I will not attend the Pastor’s Conference” or even “Therefore I will move that the CP budget no longer allocate any funds for the Pastor’s Conference prior to the speaker’s/performer’s list being disclosed and partakers in heresy removed’?
Not trying to be snarky, but on the one hand you’re saying that the organizers have decided that adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t important in selecting the people involved, but then you say you’re excited to be going?
Is the Trinity a Brick Wall, a Picket Fence, or just a parking lot line to be ignored at random?
And I’m not sure, to be honest, what my opinion is, other than that this is where we are in many ways in the SBC: conferences, plans, task forces, boards, and so forth that are mostly good, but slightly bad. The good seems good enough to keep supporting, but we’re not sure if the bad is bad enough to get out.
Doug
I make a distinction between what Young did in having Jakes speak, and what the Pastor’s conference is doing in asking a Potter’s House musician to be the pianist.
One bothers me. The other offends me. Maybe I’m just trying to be old Huggy-Bear Dave, here.
But to answer your question: If Jakes was on the podium, I’d be responding differently.
I thought about this a lot today. I just can’t see a boycott because the pianist is from a church that is heretical.
I also believe, from things that have been told me, that the Pastors Conference leadership is aware of and working on this issue. We need to be redemptive and conciliatory in all of this.
Fair enough. That’s just what I’ve been wondering about reading here and a few other places. Lots of “They picked the wrong guy. He’s from a church that teaches heresy! Oh, I’m looking forward to being there!”
I’d go on, but it’s all going to sound really cynical, so I’ll quit for the night.
Ok, one more: the leadership picked someone to lead in worship at the conference without considering what type of church he is actively involved in? And now they’re aware of the issue and working on it?
What were they doing before?
Just guessing, someone probably worked with him at another conference. And Jamar Jones may well be a fantastic Christian man.
One of the things that I have found is that there are a lot of wonderful Christian folks who, because of the general biblical illiteracy of this world, have very little understanding of theology and its issues.
Really, I have no idea.
“I have found is that there are a lot of wonderful Christian folks who, because of the general biblical illiteracy of this world, have very little understanding of theology and its issues.”
That is so very very true, much to the Church’s shame. We’ve reached the time Paul warned Timothy of in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 and we are, on the whole, failing to perform the actions outlined in 2 Timothy 4:1-2,5.
Squirrel
Squirrel—is that a different pic? I thought you had more of a “Standing” Squirrel. This one looks like “Attack-mode” Squirrel.
We are short on teaching and preaching theology. I think, perhaps, it connects to our efforts to make the church more attractive to the world, more user-friendly, and more convenient.
Which I think is found in the Book of Hezekiah, or perhaps in II Hesitations, that we were told faith in God in an unbelieving world would be convenient.
Doug, this is my Gravitar pic. Not to be confused with my Twitter pic, or my Blogger pic.
What can I say? I guess I’m just photogenic…
Squirrel
“I just can’t see a boycott because the pianist is from a church that is heretical.”
(1) I would not characterize the creation of an additional Pastor’s Conference as a “boycott.” It’s not like there are signs and people marching in some sort of mean-spirited protest. People’s convictions simply lead them to participate in a different event with people who more closely represent their theology and denominational identity. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
(2) I think the modalism issue is just the proverbial “straw” leading to the creation of another option, but it is not the only issue. One must also include the full court press on SBC political issues, the disproportionate share (relative to the overall SBC) of five point Calvinist preachers selected last year and the inclusion of preachers affiliated with the Acts 29 Network, an organization only willing to cooperate in church planting with approximately 10% of Southern Baptists, namely the five point Calvinists.
I don’t believe there will be a boycott. I believe there will be a second Pastor’s Conference resembling the kind of conferences we had prior to Louisville.
Are you spit-balling here?
Or are you aware of plans for an alternate PC?
Here’s my thing. Until we hear from Vance Pitman, I want to be as redemptive and conciliatory as is possible I’m not here to pick a fight.
Maybe the statement that was supposed to come out yesterday will come out today and we will all be thrilled. When the statement responding to this issue comes out, then and only then will I start looking at other options
Okay, this may come across as confrontational – I don’t know. But I would guess that those who are talking about an alternate conference would likely be upset about way more than the pianist. I know there are some who aren’t crazy about the lineup of speakers and such.
I think the speakers will be pretty good. So I don’t have a problem.
My only focus is on the modalism/Trinity issue.
Dave,
I’m not really spit-balling. Check out the blog of your best friend forever Peter Lumpkins at SBC Tomorrow. He has a post, a few days old now, regarding the SBC Pastors Conference being a bit over the top for mainstream Southern Baptists. Casey has a comment around 7 pm on 2-19 that seems to indicate knowledge of a PC being planned.
Maybe I’m quibbling about semantics, but I don’t really see it as the “alternate” PC. I consider the existing one to be the “alternate.” I just want the original one to be an option once again for the rank and file Southern Baptists who are not really comfortable with several aspects of the existing Pastor’s Conference, this modalism issue being chiefly among them.
Patrick,
While I understand what you are saying (and yes, I have some beliefs that are association with Calvin), it seems to me that if that happened, then that may not be a good witness to the watching world…or even to the outside Christian world for that matter.
What I mean is this: The Trinity issue should stick out like a sore thumb. It should not be seen as just one issue among other issues of equal (or even close to equal) value.
Therefore, I think this should be a time where SB voices (of various kinds) should be united in our affirmation and defense of what is truly one of the foundational truths of our faith–the doctrine of our Triune God.
In short, I think we need to keep the main thing the main thing.
Benji,
I agree with you that doctrine is paramount. I just have other, admittedly lesser, issues with the direction of the Pastor’s Conference over the past two years.
I’m not at all sure the watching world would care that Southern Baptist Pastors are meeting for worship in two rooms instead of one. Their minds are on other things.
The outside Christian world already understands that all Southern Baptists are not comfortable with certain aspects of the Acts 29 Network or the emerging church in general, with worship leaders who deny the Trinity, or with those whose soteriology differs from the majority view among Southern Baptists. I don’t think two conferences would rock their world either. They might even yawn.
I’m not really comfortable being told at a Pastor’s Conference on Monday how I’m supposed to vote at a convention on Tuesday. So for me, it’s not really a radical thing, it’s just “Let me go to the Pastor’s Conference that best encourages and edifies me.” Not a bad witness, just the choice of a worship and preaching conference.
The Trinity should be nonnegotiable and I think it is worth getting “nitpicky” concerning the language of “manifestations”.
Dave [not Miller] said “It took the church a few hundred years to come up with the right way to say it, so I don’t think it is reasonable to knock the above statement.” [which includes “manifestations” instead of “Persons”]
Seriously? Would you mind elaborating on this statement of yours? I would think your belief expressed in the first part of your statement would give you all the more reason to knock down the Potter’s House statement.
Benji, that may be a typo—perhaps he meant “unreasonable” but we’ll wait for him to give the definite answer.
DaveM,
You hit the ball outta the park like a good Yankee slugger with this one!
It’s heartening to me so many Southern Baptists standing up to say that this just won’t fly. I only pray the leadership retracts the stand they’ve taken with inquiries from a SCBC brother who began running with this earlier. He is a fellow MABTS alumnus who went to school with Vance and another of the SBCPC11 leadership. I just hope they get over the ‘we know what we’re doing and we’re driving this thing so deal with it’ reply our SCBC brother received. I also have noted that James Smith Sr with Florida Baptist Witness picked this up and asked Bryant Wright about it. Wright is supposed to be contacting Vance and the boys about this. I’m waiting “patiently” for word on what will transpire…& praying everyone gets their heads on BIBLICALLY straight.
Please excuse the rant…but if this becomes the new culture of the SBC…the SBC truly will mean nothing in just a few years! “We” may become ‘popular,’ but we won’t be standing for anything.
SOLA GRATIA!
Anything less than a disinvite will disappoint me. By allowing Jones to stay on the card, we are indirectly approving of heresy. Whether Jones is a devout Christian or not does not matter at this point. I think at the very least, he serves a heretical church, helping them to espouse their heresy. I think the Bible is clear concerning how we’re to treat heretics. We call them what they are, and treat them like they are. We do not give them platforms or serve with them, giving the appearance that we agree.
I think the thing that bothers me most is the link the Potter’s House on an SBC Website.
I hope that what you wish will become the reality.
Interesting – I have no connections anywhere, so I never know what is going on.
Dave,
I am with you there. I don’t know anybody “in the know,” which is why I come around places like this to get informed.
Okay, here’s what I’m wondering.
Where is Al Mohler on this?
Where is Malcolm Yarnell?
Where are the Jerry Vines, the Morris Chapmans? I know they’ve retired, but still.
I was a foot soldier in a pretty long and sometimes nasty fight so that we would have doctrinal accountability in the SBC. Why is it that you only hear of bloggers raising this issue?
Maybe the men I’ve named are making behind the scenes communications. But if the SBC is starting to treat the Trinity carelessly, I would think that more than bloggers should be speaking up on this.
Maybe they are and we just don’t know about it.
Dave,
Having noticed who stayed silent during that situation last year, the one Bill mentioned that you didn’t want brought up here (ergun-lay aner-cay), I think many of our leaders are as astute at politics as they are at theology, if not actually truly better politicians than theologians.
Just sayin’…
Squirrel
“ergun-lay aner-cay”, oh my…I laughed out loud at that one! Thanks!
The pig latin is flawed too.
You are saying Lergun Caner.
I just don’t want to open that Caner worms. (my favorite pun)
There are sites that pretty much devoted themselves to excoriating Caner 24/7.
There is a site right now that is almost obsessively and wholly devoted to trashing James White.
At SBC Voices, we almost entirely stayed out of that fray. I think there were a couple of articles, perhaps. But we were not one of the combatants.
The views on both sides of that are so rabid (and often unreasonable) that I just don’t want to get involved. Every time I see a comment about that situation, I cringe.
I’ve lost several friends who have gone to Seminary, I won’t name which seminary because it would give that seminary in Texas away, but they graduated with a different set of priorities.
They pattern themselves differently now because they know they want a seat at the table after some get up from it. It’s patently obvious that they’re working angles to one day be trustees or book writers or seminary faculty or celebrity pastors.
Almost all of them are involved in church plants….in major metropolitan suburban areas.
Okay, I don’t want my comment to be as critical as it sounds I thought about that as I was falling to sleep last night.
Al Mohler and Malcolm Yarnell are good men. I just sort of picked them out of a hat to represent the Baptist establishment
My question is why are only bloggers raising this issue?
There are several possible answers
1) Scott’s comment above would give us to think that perhaps others are raising the issue. It’s just that we are more public.
2) It’s possible that there is something to this issue we just aren’t seeing. I can’t see that, but that would be the problem, of course. Maybe someone will instruct this
3) Maybe the big names ARE doing something, but are keeping quiet about it
I’m not criticizing these men or others. It just seems to me that if something like this happened 20 years ago, a few of the CR leader types would have raised the roof.
Dave,
I will be curious to hear whatever statements that Vance Pitman and the other Pastor’s Conference leadeship put out. That there has been no statement forthcoming, particularly when it was expected to have been yesterday, is itself telling. As Squirrel notes above, many of our “leaders” are astute politicians (in both the good and bad senses of that word).
There are really only two options that the SBC establishment has at this point, neither of which is very good, at least from their perspective. The first option would be to disinvite Jamar Jones from participating in the Pastor’s Conference. Although I do not believe he should have been invited in the first place, this would be the right thing to do, IMO. However, that will be seen by many of the establishment’s constituents as caving into pressure from traditional, narrow-minded SBCer’s. You would then potentially have an uproar among that group.
The second option would be a “circle the wagons” approach by putting out a statement acknowledging the concerns, but “respectfully” disagreeing with those who have expressed those concerns. The wording would be massaged in such a way as to appear to placate the more “moderate” of those who are voicing their opposition. That keeps your base (the ones who have not even given a second thought to inviting modalists, full-bore pentacostals, and a lightning-rod ACTS 29 type) happy and the only ones that are still disgruntled are those that the establishment thinks are a small minority anyway. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on option two. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I must admit that I’ve been asking myself for a while now how long this can go on – this thing with the “cares” and the “care nots” regarding doctrinal matters. I mean, how big of a tent is too big?
Squirrel
Howell, I fear you are right. I hope you are wrong.
I have been in direct contact with one person and was told two things:
1) They believe strongly in the Trinity as essential doctrine.
2) They would release a statement Monday. (This was back last Thursday or Friday) We all know that plans change.
How big a tent is too big?
For me that is simple. If we have to compromise the fundamentals of the faith, the tent is too big. TD Jakes may be genuinely born again, but my tent does not include someone who does not hold to the trinity.
Second, the Baptist tent can hold only Baptists. What is core Baptist doctrine? Well, that was the reason for the BI battle of the last 5 years. But my answer would be a high view of scripture (inerrancy), a belief in baptism of believers by immersion, symbolic Lord’s supper, etc. Not much more than that.
I want the tent to be as broad as it can be without compromising fundamental or Baptist doctrine.
Dave,
Nor was I. I respect Dr. Mohler et. al. a great deal, and think he may just be the smartest guy alive on planet earth right now. Politics are real. There has to be a realistic “cost/benefit” analysis, and the more “public” a person is, the more closely the “downside” to whatever actions one may take must be considered. No matter how much we like to think that we can separate our “public” and “private” personae, that isn’t the way it works in the real world.
And, as you say, we don’t know what may or may not be going on back stage behind the curtains…
Squirrel
Gene,
I’m glad Martin Luther did not worry so much about his cost/benefit in relation to church politics.
Where are the Luther’s of this age?
Well, Mark, you’re speaking out. Dave is speaking out. I’m speaking out. Others are, too.
Would I like to have seen some of the SBC’s “Big Guns” speak out? Yup, sure would. Do I wonder why they keep silent? Sure do. Do I think politics is part of it? Sure do. Does that disappoint me? Sure does. But it doesn’t surprise me, either.
Like I said, “real world.” Doesn’t mean I like it. Just means that it is.
Squirrel
Also, I don’t think we’re to the point that the church was when Luther shook things up. Hopefully the SBC isn’t turning into another Rome…
Squirrel
Gene,
I agree people are speaking up. That is a good thing.
You said:
To which I reply: How do you eat an elephant? 😉
“How do you eat an elephant?”
A nice cajun-style spice rub, then slow roasted over a hickory charcoal fire until it’s fall-apart tender. Pull it, mix it with a nice Georgia-style BBQ sauce and simmer for a good hour or two. Serve on sourdough rolls.
Squirrel
Hate to disagree, but elephant goes better on hoagie than on sourdough.
I have a cookbook that features recipes from what was once the NAME Region of the IMB, including a “Camel Roast.” Feeds 100, but it is sure hard to find camel in Arkansas.
Good point, Doug. Sourdough doesn’t really do well with BBQ. I should have thought of that.
Actually, after further thought, with the amount of meat available from a whole-roasted elephant, I think each sandwich should be on a full loaf of crusty French bread.
Squirrel
Think of all the hungry we could feed with a few elephants…
Reminds me of a story I learned in RAs, back when there was a Brotherhood at church and in the SBC teaching boys about missions. There was a group of SB churches in Alaska that would go out and claim the moose that got run over on the highway by semi trucks (because anything else, the moose ran over). They’d get a wrecker and a heavy duty truck, haul the moose off and turn it into food for the hungry.
Someone inspired by that really helped push the “Hunters feeding the Hungry” program in Arkansas to where it’s very well-known. Good stuff, that missions education.
Dave M:
You said:”I was a foot soldier in a pretty long and sometimes nasty fight so that we would have doctrinal accountability in the SBC. Why is it that you only hear of bloggers raising this issue?”
What if this “nasty fight” was never really about doctrinal accountability?
It was.
Dave:
Then why is it not being practiced in this huge situation. How did this situation get allowed even this far?
That’s my question.
I will also point out, that the issue IS being raised.
Sure, doctrinal accountability was one of the goals of that fight. It wasn’t the sole reason for that fight.
That’s the same as saying that slavery was the sole reason for the Civil War. For some looking back on it now think it is, but if you truly look at the Civil War, slavery was not the sole reason.
The CR is no different. If you sit down and look at it, then there is no way that doctrinal accountability was the sole reason for the fight.
If doctrinal accountability was the sole reason, then these people wouldn’t have set themselves up in power even through today, they wouldn’t have gone after the existing Baptist Press, they wouldn’t have done a lot of things which had nothing to do with doctrinal accountability.
Okay, opinions all expressed.
No more about the CR, everyone, unless it is germane to our current topic.
Dr. Yarnell has spoken to the issue of the Trinity in a blog, dated Feb. 14, of his Twitter posts on the subject. While not specifically calling out the Aspire leadership, he has forthrightly stated what must be our position.
Why the Trinity is Non-Negotiable
I am personally aware of other godly men who have sent letters specifically to the PC pres et al. and await reply.
SG!
Thank you, Scott.
I guess the difference between them and me is the size of my mouth!
It’s a good article.
Dave,
I’m sorry but the Potter’s House statement is similar to the BF&M statement on the Trinity. I would love to see T.D. Jakes and/or Ed Young, Jr. preach at the SBC Pastor’s conference. You’d support Dr. Rankin preaching at the PC right? Doesn’t he have a PPL? If we’re going to dissect what every person’s (including the pianist?!) theology we may have a difficult time filling the schedule. I choose to cooperate with my brothers and sisters in Christ as long as they preach “Christ and Him crucifed.”
Michael,
I can’t believe you are saying what you are saying. We do not need a statement that is “similar” to the BF&M. We need a statement that is the *same in substance* with universal Christian faith!
Do you really think PPL is anywhere in the stratosphere of being as important as the issue of modalism/Tr-unity?
Tri-unity
Wow, Michael, I’m not sure I know where to start.
1) The BF&M is a Trinitarian statement, while the Potter’s House is modalist.
2) To equate PPL and modalism is astounding.
I would LOVE to hear Dr. Rankin speak at the PC. I would walk out if TD Jakes were speaking.
Those are two completely different things.
Michael,
Then you my friend are on dangerous ground. Because there are no persons in modalism, it’s debateable if these heretics even preach the correct Christ. Which Christ do you preach, the manifestation, or the person? Do you preach the one that prayed to no one in the garden, or do you preach the One that prayed to His Father in the garden? Do you preach that One that came in obedience to His Father, the One that was “forsaken” by His Father, or the one that came in obedience to no one, and was forsaken by no one? Modalism turns so much of the New Testament on its head, that it’s scary if it does not bother you.
It is possible that different people could take many verses about the Holy Trinity from Scripture and sincerely arrive at different points of view. That is what happened in early Christianity.
The many early trinitarian heresies were the result. The ‘heretics’ thought that they were right. The way it was sorted out was by Church Councils meeting to ‘clarify’ the Church’s orthodox teaching on the Holy Trinity. This took time. The writings that came from the early Councils, and the writings of the early Church Fathers closely document the development of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as it is accepted today.
Also, the wonderful, readable letters of St. Ambrose of Milan do an excellent job of documenting the history of the controversies surrounding the Holy Spirit in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
I can see how someone like the commentator Michael, and the Pastor Jakes might get their wording from interpretation of Holy Scripture. But perhaps they are doing it outside of knowing the history of how the Doctrine of the Trinity came ‘into focus’ for the early Church. I don’t know this, but that Doctrine, with all of its complexities, is never easy for anyone to comprehend fully.
Misunderstandings are especially common among those who do not know the development of the Doctrine in Church history.
Jared,
It really doesn’t matter what I’m preaching, I’m not preaching at the PC. Listen to their sermons. Have you heard them preach what you just described? I haven’t heard every one of their sermons but have heard enough to know what they believe.
Benji,
Do you attend the Potter’s House Church? Who is the “we” that needs a statement? Wouldn’t that be the church? I believe PPL is very similar. I don’t condemn Dr. Rankin or TD Jakes.
I believe PPL is very similar. I don’t condemn Dr. Rankin or TD Jakes.
Unbelievable
You said what I said, Benji. You were just more succinct.
I totally agree Dave.
Maybe I’m missing it, but where is the link and information on the Aspire site? I went and looked, and didn’t see it.
NOTE: The link has been removed. There is no more reference to Jamar Jones or link to the Potter’s House on the site. I have not seen a statement, but the link that was there is no longer there.
Michael,
Are you a pastor of an SBC church?
Isn’t it great we all don’t have to believe exactly the same? Thank God for religious liberty!
No one in America is forced to believe anything.
But that does not mean that all beliefs are equally valid or true.
I don’t have to believe that Jesus is the only way, but that does not change the fact that Jesus is the only way.
I don’t have to believe in the Trinity, but that does not change the fact that denying the Trinity is also denying the faith in which we believe.
You are confusing truth with freedom. They are two separate issues.
Amen to that – and while I personally will listen to you, and you to me if the conversation warrants , that is between us.
Michael,
Is there a a reason you won’t disclose the denominational affiliation of the church you pastor? (I may be able to guess the tribe, if it is SBC).
Michael,
So should we extend “religious liberty” to Jehovah’s Witnesses so as to allow them to participate as well?
Rick,
I actually heard the other day someone talking about witnessing to a woman who responded by saying “well, you SB’s are people who like to fight each other” (or something like that).
Well, she may be right, but this is certainly not a fight. No one’s calling names. No one’s making accusations. We’re just freely assembling with like minded people. I should be able to go to a conference where I don’t feel “guilt manipulation” to vote a certain way or to accept doctrines I don’t believe. I’m not being cantankerous. I am a peace loving Baptist choosing to attend a different meeting, that’s all.
Rick,
While I did not hear every speaker, I don’t remember hearing anything about any of the “five points”, for example, from the speakers I did hear.
If I am not mistaken the theologian called “John of Damascus” believed in free will, but that does not stop me from thinking I can learn something from him on the Trinity.
In fact, I have heard Tony Evans on tape preach free will, but I still sat through his entire sermon. Thought it was thought provoking actually.
I am talking about Tony Evan’s sermon at the Pastor’s Conference.
I’m glad you enjoyed the Pastor’s Conference last year. I felt it was a bit too politicized denominationally and consisted of a markedly different list of preachers than in previous years. If it is the only conference offered at the convention, I will attend it. But if another conference is offered in which the denominational rhetoric is toned down and the speakers more closely resemble my view of Southern Baptists, I will make plans to enjoy the second conference instead. Again, no fighting, no worries, just choices. Thank God I have free will. Have a blessed day.
I had not been to the convention in several years, until I attended last year.
It is my impression though, that last year’s PC was an aberration – a two-day cheerleading session for the GCR. I was (and am) a GCR supporter and I was getting offended.
I thought David PLatt’s sermon was excellent – the kind of appeal we needed. He appealed more for the GC than the GCR!
But, while I hadn’t been in several years, the PCs I’d been to in the past were more like preaching conference.
Benji,
Let me get this straight, you’re equating Jehovah’s Witnesses with TD Jakes ministry? To use your words, “unbelievable.”
Both deny the Trinity and therefore are not within the boundaries of orthodox Christianity.
Just because both are heretical does not mean that their heresies are the same.
Do you not believe we should take a stand related to the Trinity?
A fake dollar bill is a fake dollar bill (no matter what form it comes in).
” A Fake Dollar Bill Is A Fake Dollar Bill “. You guys are Free to travel and attend anything you want but you’re not entitled to come back and report your findings from YOUR fact finding trip on a reputable SBC blog. We don’t need a vote to forbid these people the pulpit. There already a known factor regardless of what you think you heard. This is goofy stuff.
By the way, Michael, it seems that you want to raise questions but not answer them. Several people have rationally and in a calm manner engaged you on this.
It would seem cordial that you, who raised these issues, would respond more directly to those who have engaged with your statements.
I just received today’s issue (online) of BP. There is no mention of a statement from Vance Pitman or anyone else on this.
So, at this point, Jamar Jones’ picture and bio and the link to Potter’s House are down (all steps for which I am very grateful), but the promised statement is still not public.
Dave,
When national government leaders (read “politicians”) delay making public statements that were expected to be made at a certain time, why do you think that is? Could one reason be that they are buying time to take the pulse of different constituencies?
That Jones’ picture and bio have been removed, along with the link to the Potter’s House, is evidence the leadership of the Pastor’s Conference (and perhaps wider SBC establishment leaders) knew they had to take some action to stem a growing chorus of criticism on a theological issue that was a “no-win” situation for them. That does not mean that there will be an apology for the invite or even the comprehension of why people were upset to begin with. Perhaps the thinking becomes, “the less said, the better. Maybe all this will blow over.” We shall see.
It is my impression that this furor took them by surprise.
Dave,
For the sake of argument, let’s say that your impression that this “furor took them (whoever the “them” is) by surprise” is accurate. In addition to the invitation to Jamar Jones, if one were to look at some (not all) of the invited speakers (including, I believe, a Pentecostal church planter), do you think that it is indicative of a wider and deeper problem (and disconnect) within the SBC that ANY backlash was necessarily a “surprise” to them? I have my thoughts, but I let you take a crack at it first. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
I don’t have a theory as why they did not think this would be a problem. I was simply observing that, from things others have said, they seem to be surprised that an issue was raised.
The reason you see Joyce Meyer and TD Jakes invited to Ed Young, Jr.’s C3 conference is because more for their being at the helm of ministries regarded as very cutting edge in regards to their usage of technology, media elements, print media, and other forms of creative outlets.
The Joyce Meyer and TD Jakes respective slots were noticeably skipped by those attending the conferences because they both have pretty run out of things to say about leadership and its dynamics. No one there is interested in their theology, they were interested in how to better integrate technology, creative teams, media teams, video, lights, etc. into their respective ministries.
My friend in attendance at C3 felt that their names are there to lend “celebrity” to the conference and attract people across denominational backgrounds because this has more to do with media and technology rather than theology.
Then again, were creativity encouraged and fostered within the SBC, C3 wouldn’t have to reach across denominational lines…
I have seen where others have hypothesized that this was ‘convenient’ and took away from people looking further at (raising other concerns about) the likes of Rick Warren, Darren Patrick, etc. Don’t know what that’s worth, but there it is.
As a raving conspiracy theory lunatic, I wouldn’t ignore the possibility.
Although my better guess on the whole situation is one of style topping substance: look at the gathering of celebrity and talent! Come hear and see!
I wonder what would happen if the next PC was advertised simply like this:
Pastor’s Conference. Come be challenged by God’s Word. Sessions at 9, 2, and 7. There will be times of worship, times of preaching, and times of fellowship.
No names of who is preaching, who is singing, anything of the sort. The leadership of the PC just focused on getting people with solid doctrine, good skill, and something useful to say.
How many would come?
Not that there aren’t men on the list that meet those definitions now, mind you, but are those of you who are going doing so because of them or because it’s a chance to hear the Word and recharge to preach the Word the rest of the time? Do we need to advertise celebrities?
Doug,
Great insight on the whole celebrity issue.
Notice the following from this year’s Pastor’s Conference website itself: “Hobbs believed the conference was ‘designed to be a preaching ministry in which the brethren could hear some of our preachers and receive inspiration there from.'”
Some of OUR preachers, huh? Doesn’t sound like celebrities, just solid Baptist preachers. A time of worship and inspiration, right?
Now the modern description from the same website: “The Southern Baptist Convention Pastors’ Conference is an annual two day experience that provides encouragement, training & networking opportunities for church leaders.”
At its core, at least in terms of our defined purpose statements, we appear to have exchanged the 1950’s goal of a “preaching ministry” with a 2011 goal of “encouragement, training and networking.” Perhaps this is one reason why it feels so different.
I would want to make clear that I’m not against having the well-known preachers, but there are plenty of well-known and accomplished preachers/pastors in Southern Baptist life.
Yet I think we’re overly hooked on getting the famous to do these things.
I had a long conversation tonight with a prominent pastor who chastised me for this article. He may write a counterpoint article to mine, which I will post here when he does.
Here’s his point. He knows TD Jakes and believes that TD Jakes has turned his back on his Oneness Pentecostal, non-Trinitarian past. The language of his website and his other communications may not be theologically precise, but they are also not modalist, according to this pastor.
He stated that he does not believe that TD Jakes is modalist. He is a Trinitarian who may not have used precise theological language.
I stand by my belief that the language of the statement of belief on the Potter’s House website is at the very least consistent with modalism. If you were going to describe modalism, you would use words very close to the words that were used there.
It is possible though, that TD Jakes is not so much guilty of modalism as of imprecise theological language.
If that is the case, I would encourage him to correct the impression of the language of his doctrinal statement, which would tend to lead theologically astute people to the belief that he is, in fact, a modalist.
I continue to believe that the Potter’s House website is worded in such a way that a reasonable person would believe that they are modalist.
On the other hand, I do not know TD Jakes. I will admit the possibility that the problem is imprecise theological wording.
Just thought I would share this with the readers/commenters here and you can make your own decisions.
That prominent pastor is wearing rose colored glasses. Jakes knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s been (rightly) accused of being a heretic regarding his modalism. He has had numerous opportunities to set the record straight with clear, unambiguous language and has repeatedly failed to do so.
I just wanted to present another side that an honorable man asserted.
I gotta agree with Stan on this one. From all that I have read, a lot of the more recent Oneness Pentecostals are trying to say that this is just a “semantics” issue and that they are really Trinitarian. Jakes is apparently in that same group, because he has certainly been given opportunity to clarify and remove ambiguity from his position and has not done so that I am aware of to this point.
Dave,
When does your friend believe Jakes changed his position on Modalism? I have copies of the Potter’s House statements of faith going back several years and they are basically the same.
Also note that Jakes is still listed on the “Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies” site. Other issues would be Jakes prosperity theology. As I noted above, an SEBTS professor and a former SEBTS professor have a new book on the danger of Jakes theology which includes his Modalism as well as prosperity teaching.
Dave,
Sorry, unlike you I don’t have the luxury of hanging out on the computer all day. I serve two SBC churches plus work for the school system full-time. Oh yeah, and I have two teenage sons I drop off/pick up/help with homework and play ball with. So I apologize for not being as prompt as you would like in responding. I do believe the Trinity while not explicitly recorded in Scripture is a core doctrine of the faith. I don’t agree with everything everyone believes. You and I probably don’t agree on everything we believe and we’re both conservative SBC pastors. But hey, you got what you wanted, right? Mission accomplished. Maybe we could get George Beverly Shea to come in and lead worship, that would really get the crowd moving. I guess I’m just more open than most to extend the hand of fellowship with those that are working to share the Gospel, whether they believe exactly as I do or not.
Please check out this interview I found with Jakes in which he answers questions about Modalism. I’ve posted it – Is T.D. Jakes Now Trinitarian?
Hi Guys. I have a question for any/all of you. I just started attending a church in my small community the Apostolic Faith Taberncle.I am a born again Christian I believe in the Trinity. I have been filled with tthe Holy ghost(evidenced by speaking with othe r tongues-if this matters to anyone)I was earnestly seeking a church who also had a movement of the Holy Ghost and found none until this one. BUT I had a discussion with the Pastor yesterday to clarify wether they are the ‘Jesus Only’ believers that the community was warning me about. He said they are modalists who believe that God jesus are ‘manifestations’ of the same God. I’m like “What?” scizophrenia comes to mind.I’m not getting it. But my question is, I really enjoy the Holy Spirit visiting the services. I feel the power of God there.But is it wrong to BE at this kind of church that I don’t agree with? Will the Lord judge me, like I am a follower of false doctrine? Why is His Holy Spirit there? Everyone speaks with other tongues as in the book of Acts. I am soooo confused:/ But I love my Saviour with all my heart, mind and soul.
I am familiar with this church and my advice, if it matters, would be to stay away. Not only do they deny the Trinity, but their doctrine borders on a works salvation.
Just because people speak in tongues does not mean they are Spirit-filled or directed.
You don’t know me, so my advice may not mean anything. But I would find a different church.
Let me give you a couple of passages of Scripture to consider and you can decide for yourself:
And from Jesus’ perspective in a similar vein:
In other words, signs and wonders and demonstrations of some kind of powerful spirit are not our best form of judgment in these matters. If someone is openly contradicting the revealed Word or character of God, I would advise running the other way.
P.S. The tongues in the book of Acts are other real languages that people speak and understand.
Thank you, both for your comments.I had gone back to the same church(still confused)by the feeling of the Holy Ghost’ being in the services. and I have to say, during the sermon I felt ‘grieved’ in my spirit when he started teaching on ‘oneness’.I felt ‘wrong’ (conviction)for sitting there like i was going along with it. I did tell the preacher in the past that I didn’t belive in “Modalism” as he called it so he was trying to ‘convert’ me by devoting all of the services to ‘oneness’ teaching.But what I saw was every SUPPORTING scripture he used was in reference to the THREE that are one! (1 John 5:7)Jesus being baptized,Jesus praying to the Father(Lords prayer)Also, the ‘salvation by works’ I definately see.My daughter came home from Sunday school with a project they had done at church entitled”3 steps to salvation”: 1.Repentance 2.Water baptism 3.Holy Spirit(as evidenced by speaking with other tongues) What damage this could do to our children if they believed this! And his message on ‘holiness’ is adding to this as well: you must not wear make-up, women don’t cut their hair, must not wear pants,etc. So I talked to my husband last night and it turns out he felt the same way i’ve been feeling-like the bible was being ‘twisted’to fit the church’s beliefs. And that they are taking the focus off of what Jesus did on the cross for us as the means of our salvation. So we have both decided to leave the church. I definately will let the Pastor know what I think about the deception(s), whether purposely or not in his message, before I go.
Sad, but true, many anti-Trnitarians are making their way into Evangelical circles, including Christian radio/TV, bookstores, camps, missionary organizations. I can give many examples. One Christian station in ARK, has 5 anti-Trinitarian ministries airing. This is a real shame. One program is “Born To Win” This program has now been cancelled from over 24 Christian stations, but this stations has no problem airing this program. Many stations are not concerned for the cardinal teachings of the Historic Christian Church. We now have 8 time Dove award winner, Joel Hemphill of The Hemphill’s, who has written over 300 Gospel songs, many of them well known, performing concerts in SBC’s, and other Evangelical churches. Joel Hemphill denies/attacks the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy trinity in print, and on tape. His 2 books are attacks on these two Cardinal teachings of the faith. I know see his material on 4 anti-Deity of Christ sites. Why is this artist being allowed to perform in Evangelical churches? There is another pretty well-known Southern Gospel artist who also attacks the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He performs also in Evangelical churches. He duped an Calvary Chapel in OR, performing a concert there. This artist is one one of the sites that Joel Hemphill is on. Joel works closely with the anti-Deity – -anti-Trinitarian- -anti-hell Atlanta Bible College. This college has confused many Christian as well. I remember writing to Joyce Meyer about my concern that one of her employees is a leader in a church that denies the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, hell. I receive no response. My concern is that one may be looking for a church in Collinsville, IL, and read about this leader who is employed with Joyce Meyer Ministries. One may get the impression that this church is a church who preaches the Deity of Christ, and so on. Matter of fact, this churche’s statement of faith is similiar to Spirit and Truth Fellowship International, one of the largest off-shoots of the Way international, whose founder Victor Paul Wierwille was no friend of the Christian faith as is evident from his book “Jesus Christ Is Not God’. Many Way International off-shoots, just as Herbert W Armstrong off-shoots have confused many Christians. Many have seen that these groups are unorthodox, and then you have those who don’t care. One example is Light At The Lighthouse Christian Music Festival, held each year in San Pedro, CA. Again, another Way International off-shoot is invited to participate in this festival. The couple who put this on, attend and are members of an Evangelical church in LA, CA. Something’s very wrong here!!!! We need to be more discerning, and to take a stand on the Cardinal teachings of the faith.
Blessings,
James
I get the impression from this that Jakes isn’t really theologically sophisticated enough to speak precisel on the Trinity. And that is his problem.
My guess is that if say 3 or 4 well known, but theologically sophisticated pastor types sat down with Jakes and they talked privately that we would agree with a Trinitarian viewpoint correclty expressed.
I am just guessing here, however. It’s too bad this played out publicly before it could be discussed privately.
Jakes is a motivator and a shepherd. He may never have been too keen on theological distinictions.
The problem is when take on the role of pastor and speak as he does to millions of people, you had better have some theological basics nailed down.
Tom Parker, Dave and all:
Here’s an interesting comparison.
Someone above (I think it was Tom Parker) tried to criticize the SBC and the CR by pointing out that this discussion about the doctrine and the issues surrounding it illustrate that the CR was not about doctrinal matters.
Dave, your response was perfect – it is being discussed.
Well, here’s an interesting comparison from today’s news.
Does anyone remember Welton Gaddy? I do. He, Ken Chaffin and the Sherman brothers were the first to try and organize an opposition to the CR. They met in Gatlinburg after Adrian Rogers was elected in 1979, and hence, were dubbed the “Gatlinburg Gang.”
They thought that they, not Pressler, Patterson and other conservatives, had a better road map for the SBC future. Fortunately, the SBC rejected their recommendations.
Well, while the SBC (on this blog) is having a substantive discussion about the nature of the Trinity and distinguishing Modalism from Trinitarian Doctrine (an exercise that makes most Moderates roll their eyes), what is it that men like Welton Gaddy are doing now? Where have they ended upt? What are they going to be doing while the SBC is meeting in Phoenix? I will tell you.
Dr. Gaddy, who now pastors at something called the Northminster Church in Monroe, LA, is going to be participating in a religious service in Washington, D.C. at the Washington National Cathedral on June 26. What is going on there?
Dr. Gaddy and others are going to be participating in an interfaith religious service where Christians, Muslims and Jews are going to be reading each others’ sacred texts.
I suppose that Dr. Gaddy will get up and read something from the Koran, the Talmud, what have you. I have not heard if other faiths will be included, but I don’t see why not. There are all sorts of religions in the world. Some of their writings may be lovely, in places. Why not read those writings in a joint worship service?
This all seems similar to the Baptist Center for Ethics’ program called, “Different Books, Common Word”, a program about Christians and Muslims.
So, while we are disappointed at the link to the Potter’s House and other less than careful connections that Christians can make to aberrant doctrine, we need to put this in context.
The very man who claimed to be able to lead the SBC in the direction it should go, and whom I suspect people like Tom followed and agreed with, is now so far off the range that he is participating in religious services with people who do not honor Jesus for who he his, and they are reading their religious texts alongside the Bible.
I agree with the desire to be open and loving to all people. But this sort of religious confusion is not being loyal to Jesus. Jesus and his words are what we are to follow.
I believe that the SBC knows this and that the SBC and its churches are glad they did not follow Dr. Gaddy as a leader.
Just think, if we had, we might be in Washington in June, and not Phoenix.
That’s no real surprise. Since moderates reject the idea that someone must consciously trust Christ to be saved it’s no problem for them to see themselves and muslims having “Different Books/Common Word”. In contrast, Christians recognize that no muslim or person of any other faith will be saved unless they consciously trust Christ. Responding to the light they have is not enough, since that light is darkness.
Louis:
You wait three months to post to this blog and then you point to one comment I made. I guess you added some humor to my otherwise dull day.
BTW, Dave Miller notice he mentioned the CR today, not me.
Joe:
You are right. It is not a surprise.
But it is ironic that someone would try to make a big point out of the CR not being about doctrine – and then –
…on another internet site – this very day…
a poignant, real-life illustration showing just how much the CR was about doctrine.
I could not have engineered this in 1000 years – no matter how hard I had tried.
It would be like someone arguing last Sunday afternoon that the invasion of Afghanistan was not about Osama because there was never such a guy, and then having the story on the national news on Sunday night that Osama was just killed by Seal Team 6.