Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

TD Jakes: Orthodox or no ?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post TD Jakes: Orthodox or no ? Da Sheik
I know some will bristle at the notion that we should even question or examine any teacher. Admittedly, I am no heresy hunter. I trust God is going to separate the wheat from the tares at the appropriate time. Let me say something from the outset....I find his preaching immensely relevant. I don’t think I have ever listened to one of his sermons without gaining some insight. I can’t put my finger on it, but something just doesn’t seem quite right. Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
10/12/18 12:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
My impression is that he is a mix. He’s Pentecostal, Charismatic, Word of Faith, Progressive and Oprah like. BTW, I’m a mix too but I’m no influential leader. So, mine doesn’t matter. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
10/12/18 2:28 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Definitely not orthodox Quiet Wyatt
He is Oneness; not dogmatically so, but modalist nevertheless. Add to that a huge degree of influence from fellow Oneness charismatic Mark Hanby plus a bit of psychology, and there you have it. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
10/12/18 4:54 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
I don't know if Jake's is really oneness. How oneness does this sound?

Quote:
The true foundation upon which the doctrine rests is God himself. It is God as he acted in history, revealing himself to Israel. It is God as he acted in history, entering our world as a Jewish carpenter named Jesus, dying and rising again to save. It is God as he acted in history at Pentecost, descending as the Spirit to share life with the Christian church. But if God is eternally one; and God is eternally three persons, how are we to understand this? Since God is personal, any example we use to think or speak of God ought to be personal. When we search for personal analogies, we find that there are only two options. We may think of God as three persons or we may think of God as one person.

The word “person,” however, did not mean to the early Christians what it means today. To us, a person means someone like Tom, Dick, or Harry. But the Latin word persona originally meant a mask worn by an actor on the stage. In Trinitarian thought the “mask” is not worn by God to hide but to reveal his true character. It is clear that when we think of the Trinity, we should not try to think of three persons in our sense of the term, but three personal disclosures of God that correspond to what he is really like.





_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/12/18 7:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
It’s his roots. That’s why I say that he is a mix. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
10/12/18 7:30 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
I don't know if Jake's is really oneness. How oneness does this sound?

That's modalism, Patrick.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/12/18 7:45 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
I don't know if Jake's is really oneness. How oneness does this sound?

That's modalism, Patrick.


Actually, it is orthodox trinitarianism, at least according to the man who wrote it, who was not T.D. Jakes.

The quote is actually from Church History in Plain Language by Bruce L Shelley. This work is a textbook at Southwestern Assemblies of God University. Shelley's views mirror those of other trinitarian scholars like Allister McGrath. Granted, others' perception of orthodoxy contradicts that of Shelley and McGrath.



Orthodox tritarianism is adamant that the three persons of the trinity are not beings, as that would denote tritheism. If we reject Shelley's definition of "person" for one that makes each person in the trinity a center of self-consciousness, we are indeed making the persons of the trinity into beings. In fact, the modern definition of person is "self aware intelligent BEING".

So, which defiition of "person" is correct? Are Shelley and others correct in the assertion concerning the original intent of the use of the word "person" by early trinitarians?

Again, please don't blame me. I'm simply pointing out the elephant in the room that most trinitarians refuse to admit is there.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI


Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 10/13/18 7:36 am; edited 1 time in total
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/12/18 8:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post The Potter’s House Website Doctrinal Statement Affirms Modalism Quiet Wyatt
“There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.“

https://thepottershouse.org/explore/belief-statement/
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
10/12/18 8:30 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
So, which defiition of "person" is correct? Are Shelley and others correct in the assertion concerning the original intet of the use of the word "person" by early trinitarians?

One in essence, three in person.

"We do not have a logical contradiction here because God is both one and three at the same time, but He is not one and three in the same sense. The three divine persons are distinct in terms of their personal relationships to one another, but not in their essence. All of them are the being of God. They do not have an independent existence—you could not take away any of the three persons and still have God. Rather, the three persons subsist within the one divine nature, coequal in terms of their shared essence."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/one-essence-three-person/

Re-reading the quote you shared, "disclosures" could fairly be interpreted as orthodox trinitarianism, which affirms one God who reveals Himself eternally in three persons. The latter part of the statement still feels kludgy -- that they together reveal the totality of God, as if each "disclosure" contains only a part of God's essence. I assume that is not Shelley's intent, but he's not very precise, IMO.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/12/18 9:05 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
So, which defiition of "person" is correct? Are Shelley and others correct in the assertion concerning the original intet of the use of the word "person" by early trinitarians?

One in essence, three in person.

"We do not have a logical contradiction here because God is both one and three at the same time, but He is not one and three in the same sense. The three divine persons are distinct in terms of their personal relationships to one another,

That is fine. However, this would make their "relationship with each other" similar to that between a hand and foot, purely functional. Only beings can have an interpersonal relationship with each other.


but not in their essence. All of them are the being of God. They do not have an independent existence

Again, I actually agree. However, this affirms the idea that "persons" in this contexts are "masks", as Shelley described, as the lack of a personal existence means the lack of the ability to have a relationship with others. This also negates the idea of a Father-Son relationship prior to the incarnation and the advent of the "Man Christ Jesus".


—you could not take away any of the three persons and still have God. Rather, the three persons subsist within the one divine nature, coequal in terms of their shared essence."




https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/one-essence-three-person/

Re-reading the quote you shared, "disclosures" could fairly be interpreted as orthodox trinitarianism, which affirms one God who reveals Himself eternally in three persons. The latter part of the statement still feels kludgy -- that they together reveal the totality of God, as if each "disclosure" contains only a part of God's essence. I assume that is not Shelley's intent, but he's not very precise, IMO.

_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/13/18 7:43 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
That is fine. However, this would make their "relationship with each other" similar to that between a hand and foot, purely functional.

I don't think there's really any agreement available for us at the end of this discussion. I fundamentally and totally disagree with this statement. God is one essence in three persons.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/13/18 8:52 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post TD Jakes Fully Trinitarian Since 2012 (link) FG Minister
http://www.bpnews.net/37054/td-jakes-says-he-has-embraced-doctrine-of-the-trinity Acts-celerater
Posts: 872
10/13/18 8:59 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: TD Jakes Fully Trinitarian Since 2012 (link) Resident Skeptic
FG Minister wrote:
http://www.bpnews.net/37054/td-jakes-says-he-has-embraced-doctrine-of-the-trinity


I also claim to be fully trinitarian, but within a certain school of thought on the subject. I'm of the "one who, three what's" camp, God in three persons (personas). The prevailing view now is "one what, three who's", not "God in three persons", but "three persons (beings) who are each God".
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/13/18 9:22 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: TD Jakes Fully Trinitarian Since 2012 (link) Dave Dorsey
FG Minister wrote:
http://www.bpnews.net/37054/td-jakes-says-he-has-embraced-doctrine-of-the-trinity

Fully Trinitarian?

From the article: "Jakes said he prefers the term "manifestations" instead of the term "persons" -- a position he has stated before."

That's modalism, full stop. Also, Jakes' so-called conversation at the Elephant Room cannot be reconciled with this statement on the Potter's House website which affirms the same:

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

https://thepottershouse.org/explore/belief-statement/

What Russell Moore states in the article is fair -- to take Jakes at his word if he claims to be Trinitarian. But even giving that, it's clear his understanding of Trinitarianism is not mature.

Additionally, as the article points out, Jakes is also heavily into the health and wealth gospel. We have only focused on his views concerning the Godhead so far in this thread, but his preaching of the prosperity gospel should be considered as well IMO.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/13/18 9:27 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
My two cents on the OP... I think Jakes has some heterodox beliefs, but taking him at his word as Russell Moore said, I would affirm him as a brother, even though I probably would not affirm his ministry. My two cents, which are worth every bit that you paid for them. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/13/18 10:16 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
I should hasten to add for my part at least, that I do not find affirmation of classical trinitarian doctrine to be a requirement for salvation. In my view, Oneness, while obviously unorthodox, is not necessarily damnable heresy. I am not saying all Oneness folks are necessarily saved. Nor am I saying that all trinitarians are necessarily saved. I am simply saying that my understanding of the New Testament is that the conditions for salvation are genuine repentance towards God and faith in Jesus as LORD. The doctrine of the trinity is a question of systematic theology, which, while certainly a valid and important endeavor, is not an essential of salvation.

When I say Jakes is unorthodox concerning the trinity, I am simply recognizing that his views are not in alignment with historic orthodox doctrine concerning the trinity.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
10/13/18 11:01 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Da Sheik
I suppose I opened myself up for a Oneness debate by using the word “orthodox”. I think for me, I get a funny feeling because I am rarely confronted with my sin from his preaching. I do find it very appealing because he has an amazing gift for relating to his audience. What worries me is that Satan spoke through Peter and Jesus told him he was more about the things of man than the things of God. I guess it’s that humanistic element that I find both appealing and yet disturbing. Not sure if that makes sense. Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
10/13/18 11:11 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
I’m in the “I don’t know and neither do you and it really doesn’t matter” camp. 😂 Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
10/13/18 11:15 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
Da Sheik wrote:
I suppose I opened myself up for a Oneness debate by using the word “orthodox”. I think for me, I get a funny feeling because I am rarely confronted with my sin from his preaching. I do find it very appealing because he has an amazing gift for relating to his audience. What worries me is that Satan spoke through Peter and Jesus told him he was more about the things of man than the things of God. I guess it’s that humanistic element that I find both appealing and yet disturbing. Not sure if that makes sense.


Oh yes, in my view, Jakes’ sermons (unless he has changed a whole lot in recent years since I stopped listening to him) are all about you. God is primarily presented as a means to one’s personal ends, as is the case with basically all those who preach the so-called prosperity gospel.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
10/13/18 11:21 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Da Sheik wrote:
I think for me, I get a funny feeling because I am rarely confronted with my sin from his preaching. I do find it very appealing because he has an amazing gift for relating to his audience. What worries me is that Satan spoke through Peter and Jesus told him he was more about the things of man than the things of God. I guess it’s that humanistic element that I find both appealing and yet disturbing. Not sure if that makes sense.

That makes total sense. Great point.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/13/18 12:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.