AnthonyB Posted November 7, 2009 Report Posted November 7, 2009 PC, At Hillsong conference this year they are having T D Jakes, I'm curious as to your thoughts on him? (specifically his "onenss" leanings) His churches websites defintely uses "manifestations" not "persons" in regards to the persons of the godhead. Quote
HillCumorahCC Posted November 9, 2009 Report Posted November 9, 2009 One could make the case that the Book of Mormon, especially the manuscript and first edition, could lead one to a "Oneness" interpretation of the nature of God. Quote
prisonchaplain Posted November 9, 2009 Report Posted November 9, 2009 T. D. Jakes was raised in Oneness. He does not specifically teach it. However, my sense is that he respects the church and people of his upbringing, and so refuses to condemn them. Fundamentalist critics have tried to corner him by demanding that he denounce his spiritual heritage, or be labeled a Oneness proponent. It appears he does not feel obligated to answer people who seem to intend him no favors anyway. Quote
HillCumorahCC Posted November 10, 2009 Report Posted November 10, 2009 One could make the case that the Book of Mormon, especially the manuscript and first edition, could lead one to a "Oneness" interpretation of the nature of God.I would also add that one could make a case for the "Pentecostal" part of "Oneness" using the Book of Mormon also...The Nephites:Clapped their hands for joyShouted for joyWere "Slain in the Spirit"Prayed to Jesus at timesI dare say if someone completely unaware of the traditional LDS form of worship and beliefs concerning the nature of God were to read the Book of Mormon, they would think it was written by a "Oneness Pentecostal". Quote
bytor2112 Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 I would also add that one could make a case for the "Pentecostal" part of "Oneness" using the Book of Mormon also...The Nephites:Clapped their hands for joyShouted for joyWere "Slain in the Spirit"Prayed to Jesus at timesI dare say if someone completely unaware of the traditional LDS form of worship and beliefs concerning the nature of God were to read the Book of Mormon, they would think it was written by a "Oneness Pentecostal".Well, someone ignorant of the verses that they sited anyways. Quote
jadams_4040 Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 PC,At Hillsong conference this year they are having T D Jakes, I'm curious as to your thoughts on him? (specifically his "onenss" leanings)His churches websites defintely uses "manifestations" not "persons" in regards to the persons of the godhead. As far as i,m concerned he is simply another nut case. Quote
prisonchaplain Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 As far as i,m concerned he is simply another nut case. Okay...wow...that sure came out of nowhere. This is a man who speaks to thousands. He gets prisoners to connect with God. He speaks to women who've been abused/molested/trampled upon, and helps them find deliverence in Jesus.Maybe you don't like his style, or something he's said. But "nutcase???" I'm not getting that. Quote
bytor2112 Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 I don't know if he is a nut case...BUT, he does share the stage with some rather questionable men/ladies of the cloth on TBN. I read recently that he received a $200k Bentley from Paula White, whose Church, Without Walls is under some scrutiny because she and her former husband were a bit....dishonest? Quote
prisonchaplain Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Bytor...financial excess and greed might be a worthy conversation...but I didn't have the impression that is what jadams was addressing. Quote
bytor2112 Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Bytor...financial excess and greed might be a worthy conversation...but I didn't have the impression that is what jadams was addressing.Not sure what Jadams was addressing...maybe he has this thread confused with current events and is making a very erudite comment that simple conservatives souls like you and I can't understand do to the progressive and enlightened nature of his vocabulary? Maybe? Quote
Faded Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 I presume he subscribes to: Oneness Pentecostalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIt's a rehashing of Modalism, sometimes referred to as Sabellianism. Sabellianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIt's not our place to criticize the conclusions that others draw from the Biblical record. Unitarianism, Arianism, Trinitarianism, Modalism and the LDS Godhead viewpoints are all valid and reasonable conclusions that could easily be drawn by anyone reading the Bible for the first time. If the Trinity is to be viewed as the traditional orthodox view, Oneness Pentecostalism and the LDS Godhead Doctrine would simply be a semi-equal divergence from the "traditional" and "official" Trinity teaching of Christianity, but going in the opposite direction. Modalism in its various incarnations erases the distinction between the three persons in the Eternal Godhead. The LDS view goes the opposite direction, upholding the Trinitarian idea that there are three distinct persons in God, but denouncing the teaching that the three share "one essence and one being." Shortened version: Oneness Pentecostalism is slightly more foreign to LDS thinking than the Trinity because it moves farther to the opposite of our understanding of God. In the end: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Quote
HillCumorahCC Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Well, someone ignorant of the verses that they sited anyways.While I admire your bravado, I must inquire how you came to such a conclusion? Thanks in advance. Quote
HillCumorahCC Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 I, myself, was ministered to by his book "Loose that Man and Set Him Free", though I may not agree with his particular preaching style or personal excess. "...anything virtuous lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." His books are praiseworthy, even if, perhaps (and we can't know for sure), he is doing it for money. But seeing interviews he has done, I believe he is sincere, if not a little caught up in the prosperity gospel craze. Quote
bytor2112 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 While I admire your bravado, I must inquire how you came to such a conclusion? Thanks in advance.The examples you site when read in context shouldn't lead anyone to associate it with Penatcostal Oneness. Quote
HillCumorahCC Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 The examples you site when read in context shouldn't lead anyone to associate it with Penatcostal Oneness.I would beg to differ. Let me assemble some of the verses I am thinking of and begin a new topic. Be patient. Quote
prisonchaplain Posted November 13, 2009 Report Posted November 13, 2009 Faded, imho, you presume too much. Jakes has remained vague on the issue of the Trinity. His church's statement of faith says "God is triune in manifestations." That could be read as modalism, since Trinity is not mentioned. But all we can say with certainty is that he's chosen not to emphasize the teaching. Quote
bytor2112 Posted November 14, 2009 Report Posted November 14, 2009 I would beg to differ. Let me assemble some of the verses I am thinking of and begin a new topic. Be patient.Well....I am known for patience:) BUT...I am familiar with the verses that you make reference to...but I'm game. Quote
AnthonyB Posted November 15, 2009 Author Report Posted November 15, 2009 PC, Jakes on the "trinity" actually sounds a bit like Alexander Campbell. Wanting to avoid non biblical terms, use biblical phrases and just wanting people to follow Jesus rather then get caught in abstract arguments over "precise" non-biblical theological words. (Also Jakes church’s emphasis on the need to approximate baptism to the salvation experience is something Campbell would applaud but definitely not the prosperity stuff nor the tongues!) This is his churches statement. To me it sounds “oneness” God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. “Manifestations” of God make me think of the burning bush or the pillar of fire, not the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You can’t grieve the burning bush; the pillar of fire wasn’t able to address the Father in prayer; the shekinah can move but it still seems in a different category. Whilst one can use unorthodox terms and still mean biblically sounds things by it, when someone from a particular tradition uses an unusual term, that is distinctive to that tradition and purposefully avoids the more common phrase (Can you find a quote from Jakes’ where he uses “person” of the trinity.) I think he should be queried as to what he means by it? So some questions for you PC, Can someone (in your opinion) hold a theology that is acceptable to both “Oneness” and “Trinitarian”? Is One God in three Manifestations an appropriate description of the Godhead? God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing only in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I think adding the “only” to Jakes’ church’s wording would help make it sound more orthodox and certainly create a clear distinction between “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and the other ways God has been manifested. Quote
prisonchaplain Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 Anthony, Bishop Jakes should speak for himself. He's intentionally chosen not to clarify his position. My sense is that it's not important for him to camp on one side or the other. He respects his heritage, loves his trinitarian brothers and sisters, and leaves the matter for others to fine-tooth-comb. I asked one of my professors what he thought about the Oneness doctrine in relation to salvation and orthodoxy. His response, "Oh, I believe they are saved--they just need to grow up and embrace orthodoxy." In other words, he finds the Oneness theology to be superficial, but believes the leadership has staked their position there, and will not easily be moved. 3:1 vs. 1:3...so close, but so far. :::sigh::: Quote
Jenda Posted December 6, 2009 Report Posted December 6, 2009 T.D. Jakes preaches a prosperity gospel, and I don't believe that that is a correct interpretation of the gospel. Quote
pam Posted December 6, 2009 Report Posted December 6, 2009 Wow Jenda, I didn't know you were still around. Quote
Jenda Posted December 7, 2009 Report Posted December 7, 2009 I've been in and out over the years, lurking. How are you doing? Quote
jadams_4040 Posted December 7, 2009 Report Posted December 7, 2009 T. D. Jakes was raised in Oneness. He does not specifically teach it. However, my sense is that he respects the church and people of his upbringing, and so refuses to condemn them. Fundamentalist critics have tried to corner him by demanding that he denounce his spiritual heritage, or be labeled a Oneness proponent. It appears he does not feel obligated to answer people who seem to intend him no favors anyway. Hes obviously doing nothing more than making money. Quote
prisonchaplain Posted December 7, 2009 Report Posted December 7, 2009 Hes obviously doing nothing more than making money. OK...that slam came out of nowhere??? There is no doubting that he has profited from the work he does. And, how appropriate that is might well be a legitimate discussion. But to condemn and dismiss with such a cryptic judgement...am I misreading you??? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.