Well, tomorrow is the Elephant Room. Let's see what Jakes actually believes!

[annsni]

I know Thabiti Anyabwile addressed this issue very well here:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...invitation-of-t-d-jakes-to-the-elephant-room/

This isn’t on the scale of Piper inviting Warren. This is more akin to Augustine inviting Muhammad. This invitation gives a platform to a heretic. It’s imprudent and counter-productive–witness already the Trinity-related confusions and obfuscations happening since announcing Jakes’ involvement.

 

[Jerome]

Bryan Crawford Loritts, son of 'The Gospel Coalition' board member Crawford Loritts was dismayed by Anyabwile's tactics, and proceeded to call out those 'self rightous' 'legalist' 'ambitious theologs' who have 'pitched a fit' over this:

http://www.fellowshipmemphis.org/bryanloritts/?p=122

 

[annsni]

Bryan Crawford Loritts, son of 'The Gospel Coalition' board member Crawford Loritts was dismayed by Anyabwile's tactics, and proceeded to call out those 'self rightous' 'legalist' 'ambitious theologs' who have 'pitched a fit' over this:

http://www.fellowshipmemphis.org/bryanloritts/?p=122

See, the original purpose was not to dialogue with those of other faiths but to dialogue with those within orthodox beliefs. But then Jakes was invited and the purpose was changed AFTER his invite. THAT is why the issues. Had it been described as a way to dialogue with other beliefs from the beginning, that would have stopped the big controversy in it's tracks.

Just got an e-mail from hubby and he said that so far it's been non-controversial but he thinks the hardballs will fly after lunch.

 

[Amy.G]

Is there a video online of the last Elephant room? I've been looking on you tube but can only find little soundbites.

 

[annsni]

Jakes just confessed to a clearly orthodox trinitarian position.....

 

[Tom Bryant]

But did he define what he meant by that? He may feel that his modalism is historical, but modalism is certainly not historically orthodox.

 

[annsni]

But did he define what he meant by that? He may feel that his modalism is historical, but modalism is certainly not historically orthodox.

Yep - Hubby said that Driscoll really asked pointed, direct questions and he answered very directly. Driscoll wouldn't let him get away with anything less, I'm sure.

 

[Jerome]

Reformed blogger extraordinaire Trevin Wax's transcript:

Driscoll: We all would agree that in the nature of God there is mystery. But within that, for you, Bishop Jakes, the issue is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God existing eternally in three persons? What is your understanding now? Which one?

Jakes: I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you. There are many people within and outside denominations labeled Oneness that would be okay with this. We are taught in society that when we disagree with someone in a movement, we leave. But I still have associations with people in Onenness movements. We need to humble both sides and say, “We are trying to describe a God we love.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when it’s through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/01/25/elephant-room-2-live-blog-session-4/

 

[preacher4truth]

http://pastormark.tv/2012/01/25/with-a-little-help-from-my-friends-elephant-room-round-2-notes

 

[Christos doulos]

Reformed blogger extraordinaire Trevin Wax's transcript:



http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/01/25/elephant-room-2-live-blog-session-4/

Just as I thought; more confusion. What did that really accomplish?

Jakes: I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you. There are many people within and outside denominations labeled Oneness that would be okay with this. We are taught in society that when we disagree with someone in a movement, we leave. But I still have associations with people in Onenness movements. We need to humble both sides and say, “We are trying to describe a God we love.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when it’s through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.

Seriously????...using the elephant and the blind men? Talk about tearing down one's own straw-man. Why that argument could work for Muslims etc... So basically you are hateful when you are against those who would lead the Body of Christ away from the clear teachings of Scripture, and into areas which are questionable? It makes me absolutely sick that we would give Jakes a podium to spew his rhetoric :BangHead:

 

[mandym]

Jakes just confessed to a clearly orthodox trinitarian position.....

Really? The website for his church confesses modalism, he is long known for being a modalist, and I have received reports today from some who were there that he did not confess to an orthodox Trinitarian position.


In fact he was quoted as saying "he believes in one God in three Persons, then said he dislikes the word "Persons."

On his website he has

God
There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
http://www.thepottershouse.org/Local/About-Us/Belief-Statement.aspx

His background is Oneness Pentecostal which promptly denies the Trinity.

It is apparent he works to nuance his answers to this issue to avoid criticism and reality.

 

[David Lamb]

It's something that was done last year for the first time....(snip)

Thanks Ann for explaining something that I expect most of you, being Americans, knew already!

 

[annsni]

Really? The website for his church confesses modalism, he is long known for being a modalist, and I have received reports today from some who were there that he did not confess to an orthodox Trinitarian position.


In fact he was quoted as saying "he believes in one God in three Persons, then said he dislikes the word "Persons."

On his website he has



His background is Oneness Pentecostal which promptly denies the Trinity.

It is apparent he works to nuance his answers to this issue to avoid criticism and reality.

Yes, but he did say that God the Father did not die on the Cross and he did say that there are three persons. I read what he said and it did seem he took a trinitarian stance.

 

[annsni]

Thanks Ann for explaining something that I expect most of you, being Americans, knew already!

No worries David! Not everyone knew about it but some of us did. It definitely made it's way around the blogsphere!!

 

[Christos doulos]

Yes, but he did say that God the Father did not die on the Cross and he did say that there are three persons. I read what he said and it did seem he took a trinitarian stance.

My friend. Was it a clear trinitarian stance or not? If TD Jakes did shift, where was the call for repentance on leading others astray? Where was the call to renounce modalism?

What I gathered from the panel is that they all agreed that the trinity wasn't that big of an issue.

 

[mont974x4]

Apparently his answer has been accepted by some and not by others. Which is really not surprising.

We do need to be clear about our convictions. Sometimes, when talking across denominational lines, just the terms we use can cause confusion. It takes asking precise questions and some effort to really find if there is common ground. Plus, people need to want to be understood and not just play games.

 

[Christos doulos]

Apparently his answer has been accepted by some and not by others. Which is really not surprising.

We do need to be clear about our convictions. Sometimes, when talking across denominational lines, just the terms we use can cause confusion. It takes asking precise questions and some effort to really find if there is common ground. Plus, people need to want to be understood and not just play games.

My friend. I understand where you are coming from and I agree that it takes precise questions, but I grew up a pentecostal. There is no confusion with trinitarian terms. All TD Jakes had to say, I believe they are wrong. That is not throwing stones.

The elephant in the room panel was not in the least bit interested in defining the trinity. It was about kumbaya...can't we all just get along, and anyone who doesn't agree with us are just divisive....as James Macdonald said, "we should step off"

 

[mont974x4]

My friend. I understand where you are coming from and I agree that it takes precise questions, but I grew up a pentecostal. There is no confusion with trinitarian terms.
The elephant in the room panel was not in the least bit interested in defining the trinity. It was about kumbaya...can't we all just get along and anyone who doesn't agree with us are just divisive....as James Macdonald said, "we should step off"

I understand and I agree. I was not so much commenting on this event, but rather the usual discussions between pastors, or laymen, across denominations.

I have some pentecostal background, and my father-in-law is a pentecostal preacher in SC.:1_grouphug:

BTW, a couple of years ago I preached a sermon on 2 John. I entitled it, "Truth Trumps Love". In the name of political correctness, love, and tolerance, we have allowed much leaven into the church. John wrote to exhort the church to not let that happen.

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2Jn 1:8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.
2Jn 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting;
2Jn 1:11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. (NASB)


Yeah, I would get fired from a liberal church.

 

[annsni]

Here are some good words by Trevin Wax:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...gn=Feed:+wordpress/trevinwax+(Kingdom+People)

By far, the session that was most anticipated was the one in which T. D. Jakes was asked to clarify his position on the Trinity. Thankfully, he did so – though perhaps not in a way that would satisfy all of his critics. I believe we should celebrate his affirmation of the truth that there is one God in three Persons.

At the same time we celebrate Jakes’ affirmation of truth, we should also look at what it is that he celebrates in his preaching and teaching. Surely one must ask why we have to discover Jakes’ view of the Trinity in a friendly panel discussion in Chicago instead of in the sermons he delivers to his church in Texas. In other words, the issue is not if Jakes believes in the Trinity, but to what extent Jakes’ belief in the Trinity matters to his ministry? Does the weight of this truth come out in his preaching and teaching?

 

[Christos doulos]

Here are some good words by Trevin Wax:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...gn=Feed:+wordpress/trevinwax+(Kingdom+People)

I agree wholeheartedly!!

TD Jakes made the same statement about the trinity 10 years ago, and yet we had him dragged back in a room 10 years later to have him clarify his beliefs yet again. I wonder why that is?

In other words, the issue is not if Jakes believes in the Trinity, but to what extent Jakes’ belief in the Trinity matters to his ministry? Does the weight of this truth come out in his preaching and teaching?

That is a form of denial.