Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/12/07 06:19:19 AM |
Age 28, TX |
I was confused as well. I have read many of TD Jakes books (own them, in fact) and have never seen anything like that in his books. The link given sent me to Ingrid's article. What is sited at not agreeing with the triune godhead is a gross misinterpretation.
From the link:
"Jakes himself says:
While I mix with Christians from a broad range of theological perspectives, I speak only for my personal faith and convictions. I am not a theologian, and I avoid quoting even theologians who agree with me. To defend my beliefs, I go directly to the Bible.
My views on the Godhead are from 1 John 5:7-8, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (NKJV)
I believe in one God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe these three have distinct and separate functionsso separate that each has individual attributes, yet are one. I do not believe in three Gods (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/108/13.0.html, emphasis added)."
I don't believe in three gods as such either. To quote Scripture directly "I the Lord am one God." While we may not fully understand what it means to be one God in three persons, I do not believe that he means that there isn't actually a Father, son, and HS. Once again, Ingrid's article fails to prove her point, and Ken made the gross mistake of quoting her to prove HIS point. She feels that we can't 'all just get along' nor should we, because that would be accepting false doctrines or at least aligning ourselves with those who are not doctrinally correct. Well, I have yet to meet one person (including myself) who believes 100% truth. None of us are perfect.
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/11/07 06:10:55 PM |
Age 51, NH |
Did I say I was?
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/10/07 08:20:35 AM |
Age 33, TX |
Are you John the Baptist?
|
Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/09/07 02:25:28 PM |
Age 54, OK |
"Not One..." is confronting "...the theological/biblical corrosion of modern day evangelicalism head on?"
How about Dr. John MacArthur?
I guess it depends on what kind of confrontation you're looking for.
The decline of our chuches is so broad and commonplace I don't even have a church home now.
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you sure you understand
| Posted On: 01/06/07 01:17:12 PM |
Age 63, OH |
Hi Jeff, It is pleasant to respond to someone who treat people with respect. Yes I an able to read that fast but I an unable to keep from stopping to ponder things. So the only way I have found that I can go through the whole Bible in one weekend is to 1st Go somewhere private where there is no phone. 2nd Have food etc prepared so I do nothing but listen. 3rd Get a good set of CD's where actors read the different persons in the Bible. 4TH Punch play and listen for 16 hours a day. I found that I had many close up views of the Bible but this allowed me to step back and see what the whole thing looked like. Kind of like, we can inspect wood under a microscope and learn many things but when we step back we are amazed that we are looking at a house. I feel strongly that this is something that everyone should do.--- Jeff what are the attributes of God. Would you agree that God is the only being with these attributes: No beginning and no end of days, No father and no mother,the power of an indestructible life,sinless or righteous on His own account. He is also the ONLY ONE who qualifies to be both King and Priest. It was not God's plan to have any man as king but Israel insisted so God chose Saul to be king . But when Saul also tried to take on the duties of priest and sacrifice instead of waiting for Samuel, God was very angry and took the kingdom away from Saul and gave it to David. In Joshua 10 Adoni-Zedek tried to say he was "Lord of Righteousness" and God destroyed him for it. No mere man is allowed to be both King and Priest. David was King but Nathan was prophet, and Zadok was priest. It was not God's original plan to have a man for a priest but God wanted to be our King and Priest. Who could be King of Righteousness except God Almighty. Melchizedek was both King and Priest. The only one allowed this same honor is Jesus. Melchizedek was King of Righteousness, had no beginning of days and no end of life, no father and no mother, and the scripture says he REMAINS a priest forever. No one can do these things except God. I can not look back to your response to see the rest of your ?s. My e-mail is lounewton1347@yahoo.com please e-mail me your response. --- Lou
|
Some of the responders strain at Silva's gnats and swallow Jakes' camels
| Posted On: 01/05/07 11:30:17 PM |
Age 47, MO |
I want to thank Ken Silva for alerting us about a Southern Baptist pastor inviting a health-and-wealth huckster and false teacher such as T.D. Jakes to speak at a conference. The CWN e-mail headline did make me think that the whole SBC endorsed Jakes, but reading Silva's article set me straight. I am far more dismayed by the attitudes of the responders who have attacked Silva. The responders who want Silva to discuss the matter privately with Jakes need to realize that many other Christians tried to do that long ago, but Jakes never repented of his Oneness heresies. Now we must shun Jakes and treat him like a Roman Empire Tax Collector! Those who defend Jakes' false doctrine are even more misinformed. (BTW, one of the Christian leaders who attempted to speak with Jakes was the much-maligned Hank Hanegraaff!) OTOH, one responder supported Silva, but shot some "friendly fire" by using an idiom with the word "spade" in it; the idiom has the word "spade" mean a digging tool, but "spade" has also been used as a racial slur and therefore should never be used in a discussion about an African-American!
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you sure you understand
| Posted On: 01/05/07 12:10:58 PM |
Age 26, MO |
Lou,
I appreciate that we can have a civil dialogue. It is nice to be able to discuss issues without being disrespectful. I am also impressed with your devotion to the Word. Thirty-two years is a long time to devote oneself to anything, and it is admirable that you chose to devote that time to the Lord. Am I to understand you correctly that you have read through the entire Bible in one weekend? If so, your reading speed is phenomenal. I too devote myself to regular, in-depth study of the Word, though I am not able to read near that quickly.
I would like to respond to your questions/comments. Im not sure what you mean when you say that my reasons are human. See, I head into the Scriptures with the presupposition that God is reasonable and logical. He may be beyond reason (mysterious), but He is not against reason (illogical). Human reason can only take us so far in our search of God; we can only learn some things from His Spirit. However, I believe we hear the Spirit most clearly and accurately through the Word when we use reason and common sense when reading the Bible.
You asked if I ever talked to myself. I suppose you ask this to support the idea that the Father was speaking to Himself in the Hebrews passage. Yes, sometimes I do carry on an inner monologue. Sometimes, like you, I even speak to myself out loud such as when I am searching for something. Yet, when I speak to myself, I am doing just that - speaking to myself. However, at no time do I believe I am speaking to another. Those who speak to themselves and believe they are speaking to another usually suffer from some kind of mental illness, such as schizophrenia. When one looks at the aforementioned passage in Hebrews, it is clear that the Father is speaking to another. God is not mentally ill, and it seems strange to suggest that God is somehow under the impression that He is speaking to another if He is, in fact, only speaking to Himself. A good rule of thumb for biblical interpretation is: when plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense. Also, I learned a phrase a few years ago that has helped me. It is the phrase, Context is king, meaning the context of a passage will determine the meaning of the words in a particular passage. The context of Hebrews 1 (and really the first 10 chapters) is the superiority of Christ. In the text in question, Hebrews 1, the writer of Hebrews proves Christs superiority over the angels. Thus, when the Father enthrones the Son, it is a proof the writer is giving for Christs superiority. You dealt some with the Hebrews passage that I cited earlier, but there are a number of passages in my earlier posts that have not been answered. Im not trying to browbeat you. I just want to give you some things to think about and work through.
In regards to you never being addressed as three distinct beings: that has never happened because you are not a trinity as God is. If one were a Trinity, one would expect to be addressed as such. Interestingly, God is addressed that way. It is also interesting that you suggest there is more biblical evidence for seeing God as a sevenfold being rather than a threefold being. You rightly say you are made in Gods image. Yet, you dont see yourself as a sevenfold being. You see yourself as a threefold being.
I am unclear on your interpretation of some of the text of Hebrews. I agree with you about Christ being our Kinsman-Redeemer. Where I disagree with you is when you say that Christ has the same rank as Melchizedek. Melchizedek does not have the same rank as Christ, only He can occupy that place. Rather, Christ is of the same order as Melchizedek. In other words, the writer of Hebrews uses Melchizedek as a picture/type of Christs eternal priesthood. Thus, Christ is not Melchizedek in a human body (as you state). He is God in the flesh Who has an eternal priesthood forever.
-Jeff in Missouri
|
Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/05/07 10:15:04 AM |
Age 63, OH |
I like your response. I can't find a church in my area where any mountains are trembling either. ---- Lou
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/05/07 09:48:40 AM |
Age 63, OH |
A very well stated argument. You make valid points. And you are correct in the fact about what you say about Ken's methods. ---- Lou
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/05/07 08:52:50 AM |
Age 51, NH |
Brian, I have no control over how CWN's email alert reads and the title of my article is quite clear in the piece itself. Straining at gnats again, are we? By the way, I don't see you thanking me for taking time out of my busy schedule to help remove the speck from your eye. The you you preach: "Fortunately, God was kind enough to create us in His own image, which I believe includes the ability to think logically." Yes, we were created in the image of God, but perhaps you may have heard of the fall? It is quite unwise to trust that we can think logically on our own or do you not remember God saying His thoughts are NOT as our thoughts? My advice to you is to find something better to do than to try and correct those of us whom Christ has sent to teach you. Here's an idea: Try listening and taking to heart what you are taught. I wonder, suppose the Pharisees thought John the Baptist was a jerk?
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you sure you understand
| Posted On: 01/04/07 10:44:55 PM |
Age 63, OH |
I have no idea what oneness theology is but I read the scriptures asking Jesus what they mean. I belong to no group or ordinary church. I have made the study of the scriptures the major work of my life for the last 32 years. I have sometimes went through the entire Bible in a weekend, or other times spent an entire month in one book. I tell you this just to say that I have tried to be obedient and take everything I possess to buy the entire field then dig the entire field up to find the pearl of great price. I have confidence in his grace and his promise to lead me into truth if I look with no agenda and with all my heart. The reason I believe the way I do is that is what the Lord has spoken to me and confirmed it many times over. My 1st statement still stands. Do you ever talk to yourself, I do,sometimes even out loud. In the morning one part of me will argue with another part of me. Part of me wants to get up part of me wants to sleep longer. I have a body, a soul(mind, will, emotions), and a spirit; but not one person has ever addressed me as three persons. I have three parts to me but I am one person and I am made in Gods image. I am a son, a husband, and a father and these three functions are very different. They almost make me feel like different persons at times ; but I am just one person and made in His image. I am made in the image of God and I am not three persons but have three parts to my one person. In the Revelation it talks about the "seven spirits of God" so there is more scriptural evidence to call God a "Septinity" than a "Trinity". All your reasons you are giving me seem to be human reasons like God would not talk to himself. I hope you will pray about these things and then wait for His answer not decide yourself. He is our "Kinsman-Redeemer", and this was one person such as Boaz. Boaz is a type of Christ. A kinsman-redeemer had to be willing, of the right rank(in the family),able to redeem,and a close kinsman. This is why God had to become a man in the same person. He had to be a man to be a close kin to us. And he had to be God to be able to redeem us. This is why Hebrews says Jesus has the same rank as Melchizedek who was the King of Righteousness. Jesus had to be the King of Righteousness to have the right rank to be able to redeem us. But Melchizedek and Jesus are not two people but one. Jesus is just Melchizedek in a human body so he would be our close kin.---- Lou
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/04/07 09:55:28 PM |
Age 30, TN |
Ken,
I never assumed that you had not studied logic. However, from this last response of yours I am now pretty sure that you would be well served by at least a refresher course. I am pretty sure of this because in your response you commit two additional logical fallacies, namely, the tu quoque or you too fallacy, and the fallacy known as the argument from silence.
Where you say it is actually you who now resort to ad hominem you really just avoid responding to my assertion that you commit an ad hominem fallacy by accusing me of doing the same where I raised the objection. Classic you too fallacy. Once again, you here revert to the playground style Im rubber; youre glue; bounces off of me and sticks to you defense strategy.
Where you say However, Dr. Frank Page's non-response here does [endorse the conference with the Youngs and T.D. Jakes] you simply argue from his silence on the issue that Dr. Page holds a certain position. Basically, you are putting words in his mouth that he did not say. The following definition of the argument from silence from another website may help explain this:
Argument from Silence is an informal logical fallacy where a positive conclusion is drawn from someone's silence. For example, if one's opponent in a debate does not respond to an argument, it would be a fallacy to conclude that he or she cannot counter the argument. Especially on web forums, this is a fallacy because there are many other reasons why a particular respondent might not want or be able to respond. Reasons include hardware failure, scheduling, or a simple lack of desire to continue an obviously fruitless discussion. Another example of an argument from silence is concluding that a speaker or writer must be ignorant of something if he or she is silent about it.
You dont even give Dr. Page the benefit of the doubt. Did you even tell him thank you for taking the time out of his busy schedule to respond at all?
Finally, where you say concerning my use of logic in a debate setting, This gives me the impression that you are seemingly in love with the wisdom of man and thinking as men think I will only assert that I am, in fact, in love with the wisdom of God, and that I try to think LOGICALLY as he does. God is the God of order and not of chaos. I know that Gods thoughts are orderly, even if they are higher than our own. If Gods thoughts were not orderly and logical, then we could know nothing at all about him, or even differentiate between God and Satan. Fortunately, God was kind enough to create us in His own image, which I believe includes the ability to think logically. So I make no apology for using logic or for pointing out its misuse by others.
And by the way, I do sincerely applaud you for trying to warn other Christians against the dangers of distorted teachings whether from the Emergent crowd or from T.D. Jakes or elsewhere. But I do appeal to you as you continue in your efforts to try a little harder not to come off like such a jerk.
Thanks,
--Brian
|
Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/04/07 08:16:29 PM |
Age 63, TX |
The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as the Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians. The first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time before 206-208. . . This is quoted from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm
We see that the oneness doctrine is very old. In response to it the Athanasian Creed grew out of the Synod of Alexandria in 361 and affirms the truth of the Trinity, Christs Incarnation, Ascension, second coming, and the final judgment. Many devout Christians in the third and fourth centuries held a form of the oneness doctrine. Consequently, are we to understand these believers who held an unorthodox view of deity are denied everlasting life? As non-Roman Catholics and non-Eastern Orthodox, Protestants would do well to comprehend that orthodoxy is determined by the creeds rather than Scripture. Holding an unorthodox doctrine makes one a heretic by definition. Therefore, it is conceivable that one may be true to the teachings of Scripture and be a heretic (unorthodox); and conversely, one might be orthodox but unbiblical. Of course, this assumes that not all the creeds are on an indisputable biblical foundation. Before condemning fellow unorthodox believers, Protestants would benefit from recognizing all Protestants deny some of the creeds, which makes us all heretics. For the record, I am a Trinitarian but very unorthodox.
I am writing from the shadow of the church owned by the Reverend T. D. Jakes, The Potters House. I have a simple question for authenticating churches. Here it is. Is the community in which the church is located profoundly more like Jesus on Monday morning than it was on Saturday night? They do not make any difference. Regardless of size or doctrine, all the churches of my area are without divine power. Not a single mountain even trembles - much less cast itself into the sea.
Signed Heretical Old Glen gboydsmith@sbcglobal.net
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/04/07 07:09:29 PM |
Age 63, TX |
Brian,
Well spoken, accurate, and thank you.
Old Glen gboydsmith@sbcglobal.net
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/04/07 05:32:23 PM |
Age 30, TN |
Ken,
I also noticed that CWN/Worldview Weekend was fooled by the misleading title of your article "But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes" not only within the text of the email they sent out, where they refer to it as
Article # 1
Southern Baptist Convention Says OK to T.D. Jakes
By Pastor Ken Silva,
but also in the title of their email which I believe was "Who Wrote the Bible; The SBC and T. D. Jakes; and More" (for some reason my computer's "Outlook" program won't open right now so I may be off slightly as to the title of the email, but I know for certain that it says as part of the title "The SBC and T. D. Jakes."
When you have to instruct your critics to "read carefully" to discover the real meaning of what you said because they took the bait and misunderstood the sensationalozed title to mean something else, it should be clear to you that your article title is less than transparent if not obscure. As I said before, it is dishonest to use misleading (though perhaps technically accurate) titles for your articles merely for shock value and increased readership. The reason using article titles like the one in question is a dishonest practice is because it is exactly the same technique used by shady salesmen that is referred to as the "Bait and Switch" routine. On the surface or at first glance, the unsuspecting shopper has his curiosity piqued by one thing that he believes is being offered to him only to have the salesman change the rules midway into the game and offer him something else entirely. You shouldn't get angry when readers misunderstand your "Southern Baptists" to mean "The SBC." When have you ever heard of a fisherman getting angry at the fish for taking the bait that the fisherman himself cast out to it?
--Brian
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/04/07 04:42:36 PM |
Age 30, TN |
Ken,
I just noticed that the email sent out by CWN or Worldview Weekend has your article listed as follows:
Article # 1
Southern Baptist Convention Says OK to T.D. Jakes
By Pastor Ken Silva
Which constitutes proof that the title of your article is so misleading that it fooled even those who distribute your writings on a regular basis.
--Brian
|
Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/04/07 03:26:42 PM |
Age 30, TN |
Ken,
I just noticed that the email sent out by CWN or Worldview Weekend has your article listed as follows:
Article # 1
Southern Baptist Convention Says OK to T.D. Jakes
By Pastor Ken Silva
Which constitutes proof that the title of your article is so misleading that it fooled even those who distribute your writings on a regular basis.
Nice going, Slick.
--Brian
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/04/07 03:23:21 PM |
Age 51, NH |
Brian, Here is where your problem lies. You say: "this line of reasoning is easily identifiable as what is known in the strategies of debate as committing the logical fallacy called the 'Ad hominem' argument." If I were you I wouldn't be quick to assume I haven't studied logic and here you speak down to me. This gives me the impression that you are seemingly in love with the wisdom of man and thinking as men think. I answered the objection but when you don't like my answer it is actually you who now resort to ad hominem. In any event, Ed Young's church is SBC and I did NOT say the SBC endorses this. However, Dr. Frank Page's non-response here does: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/01/an_indepth_anal.html
|
Re: Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/04/07 03:04:47 PM |
Age 30, TN |
Ken, Your response here is less than admirable. You are quite emphatic when you deny saying that the SBC endorsed Ed Young Jr's conference, however, that is exactly what the sensationalized title of your article leads any casual reader to understand you to mean. For example, I'm certain that there is more than one Southern Baptist church member who thinks that abortion is okay, and therefore you could write an article with the technically accurate though intentionally misleading title "But Southern Baptists Say OK To Abortion." Any casual reader of the title of such an article would understand the author to mean that the SBC itself had endorsed abortion and not merely a few individuals. Giving articles sensationalized and misleading titles for the sake of shock value and increased readership is dishonest, regardless of whether the title is "technically" accurate or whether the content of the article, scathing as it may be, is also verifiable.
Additionally, where you say "Nice try. But you see, before you have the audacity to make false statements about Christ's teachers such as you have done here you'd best do your own homework. And you are flat wrong here when you say: 'It's just simply not a valid argument.' I'm afraid you'll have to find a better issue with which to take your shot at me" this line of reasoning is easily identifiable as what is known in the strategies of debate as committing the logical fallacy called the "Ad hominem" argument, meaning that you did not address the real issue, you simply attacked the other person. The other writer did not "take a shot at you" personally. He questioned what you had written. You even quoted exactly what he said so there is no confusion about what he was referring to. Nor did he "have the audacity to make false statements about Christ's teachers." He simply disagreed with you, and you took it personally. But in your response you merely prop yourself on the crutch of being one of "Christ's teachers" to support your own authority, and you simply reject his authority to question whatever you say by telling him to do his homework, which basically implies that he is incompetent to debate someone such as yourself. Furthermore, you never did defend the validity of your argument or provide any reasons why it is wrong to call it an invalid argument. All you did was to say "You are flat wrong," after you questioned his authority to debate you. It should come as no surprise to you that others disagree with you when you write in such a sensationalized and inflammatory style. So if you can't take the resulting heat for what you spout off about, either grow up and get past the playground style "I'm rubber; you're glue" defense strategy, or else stop saying things just to provoke a response.
--Brian
|
Re: Re: But Southern Baptists Say Ok To Bishop T.D. Jakes
| Posted On: 01/04/07 01:27:17 PM |
Age 51, NH |
Thank you. I covet all the prayer I can get! Even from those too blinded by their own prejudice to see. For my answer to...um, whatever it is that you didn't see check my response to the comment below. The Lord open your eyes so that you might see the dark red sky this morning and recognize the time in which you now live.
|
|
|
|
|
