Why I do not (and cannot) support T.D. Jakes:

[Dikaioo]

Hello,
I'm not sure who all is aware of this, but T.D. Jakes doesn't believe in the Trinity. He believes in the ancient heresy started in the early church commonly referred to as Modalism or Sabellianism. Sabellius was one proponent of this heretical doctrine, and once again it has spawned in our day :sick:

If you visit www aomin dot org you can listen to a RealAudio program about him.

It is referred to as "Jesus Only" movement, sometimes.

What does everyone else think?

[jcright]

Who's TD Jakes?

[Gold Dragon]

I think that Oneness Pentecostalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostal) is a non-othordox, heretical teaching that in my mind is a silly distinction from trinitarianism. I don't understand the motivation behind the theology but I wouldn't say that Oneness Pentecostals are not saved because of that theology.

Even in trinitarian theology, we recognize that there is an element of mystery in the relationship between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Oneness Pentecostals choose to explain that mystery in an unorthodox way that I feel is unnecessary.

I've spoken to members of the United Pentecostal Church who have held trinitarian views. Their oneness theological pastors did not consider the apparent conflict in their beliefs to be a problem.

[bleechers]

Hello,
I'm not sure who all is aware of this, but T.D. Jakes doesn't believe in the Trinity. He believes in the ancient heresy started in the early church commonly referred to as Modalism or Sabellianism. Sabellius was one proponent of this heretical doctrine, and once again it has spawned in our day :sick:

If you visit www aomin dot org you can listen to a RealAudio program about him.

It is referred to as "Jesus Only" movement, sometimes.

What does everyone else think?

:amen:

[ZiSunka]

Hmm, God is one, yet three, right?

[Dikaioo]

One way to put it is this way, We're talking about three persons but one being :D

[Dikaioo]

Who's TD Jakes?

The so-called "Next Billy Graham"
www tdjakes org/

[ZiSunka]

One way to put it is this way, We're talking about three persons but one being :D
I've always wondered what exactly does "person" mean in this context?

[Dikaioo]

A seperate character, person, yet three. To be able to explain it all, I cannot. But who would want a god that you could explain 100%? ;)

[bleechers]

The so-called "Next Billy Graham"
www tdjakes org/

Oh is he gonna refuse to defend the faith, glorify Islam, and buddy up to a bunch of unsaved world leaders too? ;)

[2Timothy2]

Oh is he gonna refuse to defend the faith, glorify Islam, and buddy up to a bunch of unsaved world leaders too? ;)
Quit reading my mind!!!!


There is a thread in the Deeper Fellowship forum that touches on this subject, Jakes, not Graham. Actually, TBN as a whole.

[Dikaioo]

Oh is he gonna refuse to defend the faith, glorify Islam, and buddy up to a bunch of unsaved world leaders too? ;)

Good description of ol' Billy ^_^

It's quite sad though when you think about it, too.

[Gold Dragon]

Oh is he gonna refuse to defend the faith, glorify Islam, and buddy up to a bunch of unsaved world leaders too? ;)
Would you be so kind to give examples of the first two?

I have buddies who believe in other religions. What is so wrong about that?

[Sword-In-Hand]

A seperate character, person, yet three. To be able to explain it all, I cannot. But who would want a god that you could explain 100%? ;)
:amen:

If we could explain everything about God then that would put us and Him on a similar level and well that's just not gonna happen. :D

[theseed]

One way to put it is this way, We're talking about three persons but one being :D
I prefer the BFM "three personal attributes in one essence"

[BBAS 64]

I've always wondered what exactly does "person" mean in this context?
Good Day, Lambslove

This may help:

http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html

Peace to u,

Bill

[bleechers]

Would you be so kind to give examples of the first two?

I have buddies who believe in other religions. What is so wrong about that?

I will address the first part later... although BG has refused to defend the gospel his entire career... including in his own biography.

As to the second... what's wrong with it? There is only one gospel and one way to heaven. There is no other name under heaven by which they must be saved. If they have not the Son, the wrath of God abides on them. They are condemned already and their only hope is salvation through Christ alone.

All other "gods" are false gods.

[Gold Dragon]

As to the second... what's wrong with it? There is only one gospel and one way to heaven. There is no other name under heaven by which they must be saved. If they have not the Son, the wrath of God abides on them. They are condemned already and their only hope is salvation through Christ alone.

All other "gods" are false gods.
Who said anything about them being saved by any means other than Christ? Being buddies with someone of another religion doesn't mean you think their god' or religion is true. How do you witness to people if you can't be their friend unless they are Christians?

[VT_Boy]

Instead of bashing people do you pray for them?

[bleechers]

Who said anything about them being saved by any means other than Christ? Being buddies with someone of another religion doesn't mean you think their god' or religion is true. How do you witness to people if you can't be their friend unless they are Christians?

Oh... you had me worried there for a moment.

I have no problem with having friends (on a certain level) of another religion. I thought you were saying that they were of another religion and what is wrong with people being of another religion in terms of salvation (not in terms of friendships).

In BG's case, he was tossed a softball on the Today show about Muslims and instead of lovingly, kindly, gently telling them and the national audience the gospel... he just went on praising the wonderful "religion of peace". I nearly fell out of my chair.

Thanks for letting me clear that up.

:sorry:

[theseed]

Although TD Jakes is pentacostal, and I don't agree with much of the things he believes, I found that he has much biblical wisdom to offer on the pratical side of life. He seesm to borrow alot of concepts from counseling psychology. He is also very talented--he is a good artist too. I was suprised at all the talents he has.

[bleechers]

Instead of bashing people do you pray for them?

What is your definition of "bashing"?

Paul withstood Peter to his face for he was in the wrong (Gal 2). Paul commands us to "rebuke them sharply" who err in doctrine. He commands us to send away anyone who preaches any other gospel than the one Paul preached. We are commanded to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with sound doctrine.

Do you believe sincere animists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and others can be saved by a sincere adherence to their faith because of a so-called "ignorance of Christ"? Even those in contact with Christians, but who still hold on tho their "faith"? Billy does.

Oh... by the way... welcome VT_boy.

[Gold Dragon]

In BG's case, he was tossed a softball on the Today show about Muslims and instead of lovingly, kindly, gently telling them and the national audience the gospel... he just went on praising the wonderful "religion of peace". I nearly fell out of my chair.
I don't know the context of the interview, but if I was asked a question about Muslims, I don't know if talking about Christianity would be the most appropriate reponse. Maybe he didn't answer the question the way you would, but that doesn't mean he believes Muslims will be saved.

If you have the transcript from that interview, that would be greatly appreciated.

[bleechers]

He seesm to borrow alot of concepts from counseling psychology.

Well, there's one more reason to reject his teaching.

[bleechers]

Maybe he didn't answer the question the way you would, but that doesn't mean he believes Muslims will be saved.

If you have the transcript from that interview, that would be greatly appreciated

The Today Show I saw with my own eyes. The following is from his appearance on the The Hour of Apostacy, er, Power (1998):

"Christianity and being a true believer -- you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that -- the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven."

[emphasis mine... denial of the gospel Billy's]

Call back all the missionaries... Muslims are already in the Body of Christ!

:shock:

[Gold Dragon]

Call back all the missionaries... Muslims are already in the Body of Christ!
This brings up a tricky theological issue. The exclusivity of Christianity.

I think you are slightly misrepresenting BG. I don't believe he is saying that all Muslims, Buddhists, etc are going to heaven. I believe what BG is talking about is Karl Rahner's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rahner)theology of anonymous Christians (http://www.stjohnadulted.org/The_09.htm#Karl%20Rahner's%20Arguments%20for%20Inclusivism). While I would lean towards religious exclusivism, I am open to the possibility of inclusivism but always through the grace of Christ. He will be the ultimate judge, not I. However, I wouldn't count on non-Christians being saved in this way and make missions obsolete and I don't think BG would ever suggest that either.

[theseed]

The Today Show I saw with my own eyes. The following is from his appearance on the The Hour of Apostacy, er, Power (1998):

"Christianity and being a true believer -- you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that -- the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven."

[emphasis mine... denial of the gospel Billy's]

Call back all the missionaries... Muslims are already in the Body of Christ!

:shock:
Actually, that statement is right in line withe Calvinist soteriology. Often people are born again long before they officially make a profession of faith. That means that he simply sees himself as a harvestor of what God has planted. This fits with the metaphor found in Ezek. 37 where Elijah says "Hear the world of the Lord", and the dry bones come to life.

[bleechers]

Too much here! :)

Gold, there is no argument here. Christ has already conluded that those who do not have the Son are "condemned already". That is it. I don't need to judge anyone, Christ has already done that.

TS, the metaphor in Ezekiel 37 is clearly about Israel. It is in no way a picture of the new birth. There is no example anywhere in the NT of anyone who was born-again before they believed. The scriptures reference being "born-again" several times and it always accompanies faith. Jesus said "if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sin."

Billy didn't say "Muslims who will someday believe in Christ will be saved". He clearly believes that they "are saved".

Paul didn't say that if others come preaching another gospel that you have not recieved, well, maybe they're just anonymous Christians that we'll see in heaven. No, he said, let them be accursed of God! That is serious stuff. Maybe the Philistines were just "ananymous Israelites"... it just makes no biblical sense. It is a doctrine straight out of Catholicism (Vatican II - Dogmatic Constitution, 1964).

Billy is saying that non-believers are already in the Body of Christ! How, since the only way in is through being baptized in by the Spirit through faith in Christ? There is only one faith, one Lord, ONE BAPTISM. Muslims aren't mysteriously baptized into the Body of Christ. That makes a mockery of the gospel and suggests that Christ died in vain.

[theseed]

TS, the metaphor in Ezekiel 37 is clearly about Israel. It is in no way a picture of the new birth. There is no example anywhere in the NT of anyone who was born-again before they believed. The scriptures reference being "born-again" several times and it always accompanies faith. Jesus said "if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sin."

I disagree. A paralell can be drawn between Ezek. 37 and Rom. 10
http://www.theseed.massah.org/v3(5)hear.htm

It is true that those born again will have faith, after all that is a fruit of the Spirit. However, being regenerated does not always instantly lead to an explicit conversion. Most of the time it does, but there are times when people are regenerated, but have not asked Christ as Savior.

I don't know what BG said, but glancing over it, it sounded Calvinist. Does Graham beleive that all Muslims are saved, or just some?

[bleechers]

Ezekiel 37

11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

God is clearly prophesying the return of Israel to the land. The second metaphor is even more clear and can in no way be seen as a picture of a slow regeneration process, yet it refers to the same event as the dry bones. Ezekiel even asks the Lord what the picture is and the Lord says it's Israel's return to the land:



Ezekiel 37
15 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.
21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

[d0c markus]

Often people are born again long before they officially make a profession of faith.
:eek:

i thought i heard it all on this board.

[theseed]

Yes, this and Ezek. 36 speak about the New Covenant. See Ezek. 36.25-32, and Ezek. 34.11-13.

Also, your post does not address my claim that Ezek. 37 is parallel to Rom. 10.9-17.

[theseed]

Yes, this and Ezek. 36 speak about the New Covenant. See Ezek. 36.25-32, and Ezek. 34.11-13.

Also, your post does not address my claim that Ezek. 37 is parallel to Rom. 10.9-17.
Also see Rom. 11.25f

[bleechers]

Also, your post does not address my claim that Ezek. 37 is parallel to Rom. 10.9-17.

Because Ezekiel 37 is abundantly clear. There are two pictures there, both of which God tells us picture the return of Israel to her land. The second can in no way be construed to picture some born-again experience before actually believing. God repeats several times in the chapter that He is specifically referring to Israel's return to her land.

For those of you just coming in, I posted Ezek 37 on the previous page.

Romans 10 is about the uselessness of Israel seeking justification by law (as in the Book of Romans as a whole). How that somehow pictures a "born-again" Muslim going on in his practice of Islam escapes me. :confused:

You did not address the problem of how a Buddhist can be baptized into the Body of Christ while still being a Buddhist. That was the premise of Graham's argument. In fact, he never even states that they ever believe on this earth. Regardless, there is not one NT doctrine or verse in regard to either the new birth or baptism into the Body of Christ by faith that would teach that a Hindu is "born-again" and in the "Body of Christ" but that he just doesn't know it.

Colossians 1
4 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints...
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son...

Are Muslims translated into the Kingdom before they believe?

Romans 12
4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

So is Paul suggesting that Hindus have spiritual gifts in the Body?

The church, the Body of Christ, is ALWAYS addressed to those who are in Christ "by faith". And that faith would be faith "in Christ".

Nicodemus, you must be born-again. But then again, you may already be born-again, you just don't know it yet. In the meantime, prove your worthiness by adhering to your Messiah-denying faith.

:confused:

I put to you again. If a Muslim can be born-again without ever having heard of Christ, then call back the missionaries. You can massage and nuance salvation, but the NT is clear.

[Dikaioo]

Actually, that statement is right in line withe Calvinist soteriology. Often people are born again long before they officially make a profession of faith. That means that he simply sees himself as a harvestor of what God has planted. This fits with the metaphor found in Ezek. 37 where Elijah says "Hear the world of the Lord", and the dry bones come to life.

That is a far cry from an authentic representation of Calvinism. Calvinism says that a Christian would live like it (Eph. 2:10) once he is saved. Of course, some believe that regeneration takes place a while before salvation, but Billy wasn't speaking of that.

[theseed]

That is a far cry from an authentic representation of Calvinism. Calvinism says that a Christian would live like it (Eph. 2:10) once he is saved. Of course, some believe that regeneration takes place a while before salvation, but Billy wasn't speaking of that.
How is it a far cry from Calvinism? You just repeated what I said.

[theseed]

That is a far cry from an authentic representation of Calvinism. Calvinism says that a Christian would live like it (Eph. 2:10) once he is saved. Of course, some believe that regeneration takes place a while before salvation, but Billy wasn't speaking of that.
Salvation is regeneration of which the results are faith. There is no reason to say it has to be an immediate faith. Also, I did not say that Graham was speaking of that, I simply said that it sounds like Calvinism.

[theseed]

Because Ezekiel 37 is abundantly clear. There are two pictures there, both of which God tells us picture the return of Israel to her land. The second can in no way be construed to picture some born-again experience before actually believing. God repeats several times in the chapter that He is specifically referring to Israel's return to her land.

For those of you just coming in, I posted Ezek 37 on the previous page.

Romans 10 is about the uselessness of Israel seeking justification by law (as in the Book of Romans as a whole). How that somehow pictures a "born-again" Muslim going on in his practice of Islam escapes me. :confused:

You did not address the problem of how a Buddhist can be baptized into the Body of Christ while still being a Buddhist. That was the premise of Graham's argument. In fact, he never even states that they ever believe on this earth. Regardless, there is not one NT doctrine or verse in regard to either the new birth or baptism into the Body of Christ by faith that would teach that a Hindu is "born-again" and in the "Body of Christ" but that he just doesn't know it.

Colossians 1
4 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints...
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son...

Are Muslims translated into the Kingdom before they believe?

Romans 12
4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

So is Paul suggesting that Hindus have spiritual gifts in the Body?

The church, the Body of Christ, is ALWAYS addressed to those who are in Christ "by faith". And that faith would be faith "in Christ".

Nicodemus, you must be born-again. But then again, you may already be born-again, you just don't know it yet. In the meantime, prove your worthiness by adhering to your Mussiah-denying faith.

:confused:

I put to you again. If a Muslim can be born-again without ever having heard of Christ, then call back the missionaries. You can massage and nuance salvation, but the NT is clear.
All I am saying is that one can be born again before they make a professoin of faith. if they are born from above, then they will make a profession of faith. This is the Calvinist view.

[bleechers]

Also see Rom. 11.25f

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


The context here is Gentile salvation which was a mystery in the OT. The church which is primarily Gentile in this age, is also referred to as a "mystery". What he is saying to the Replacement theologians is not to get to high on yourself. God is not done with Israel. For the sake of the Gentiles, Israel has been blinded "in part". As with all of Romans 9-11, God is not speaking of individuals, but of nations.

How this teaches that Animists are born-again before they have faith in Christ is a mystery to me.

:)

[theseed]

The second can in no way be construed to picture some born-again experience before actually believing.

You deny that we are spiritally dead with the quickening of the Holy Spirit? That is not in The Bible. And since we are spirituallly dead apart from regeneration, and regernation comes from God. Then it follows that there is a parallel between Romans 10.9-17

[Lynn73]

I've heard of TD Jakes but don't know anything about him. I know of a black lady who holds to the "Jesus only" doctrine. A friend of hers told me that's what her church believes. The Bible indeed does reveal a Trinity. I don't have to understand it, but I believe it.

[12volt_man]

Hello,
I'm not sure who all is aware of this, but T.D. Jakes doesn't believe in the Trinity. He believes in the ancient heresy started in the early church commonly referred to as Modalism or Sabellianism. Sabellius was one proponent of this heretical doctrine, and once again it has spawned in our day :sick:

I share your concerns about him.

I also am turned off by his commercialization of Christianity.

[Dikaioo]

I share your concerns about him.

I also am turned off by his commercialization of Christianity.

Yes, I heard from a reliable source that when he is asked for a meeting, he has to have $50,000 up front before the meeting even starts. My pastor doesn't make that in a year :eek:

[Lynn73]

In BG's case, he was tossed a softball on the Today show about Muslims and instead of lovingly, kindly, gently telling them and the national audience the gospel... he just went on praising the wonderful "religion of peace". I nearly fell out of my chair.

Thanks for letting me clear that up.

:sorry:
Seems like nowadays some evangelists are more concerned with being politically correct and not offending people than with telling the truth. Well, guess what, the gospel is always going to be offensive to some people. I don't get why BG would say stuff like that. I myself don't recall Graham ever ever saying anything unbiblical but have heard other people tell certain things he's said like being able to get to heaven without Christ. I can't imagine him saying that. :scratch:

[SumTinWong]

I don't know.

Say what you want about Billy Graham.

I refuse to say anything against a man chosen by God, and who has done what He has done for the spread of Christianity.