# TD Jakes and Modalism



## JoshCasey (Jan 27, 2007)

http://www.thepottershouse.org/PH_beliefs.html

All right, read the link, let me know what you think. This is probably common knowledge, but I'm rather shocked by it. Does anyone have any more info on TD Jakes/his church and Modalism?


----------



## turmeric (Jan 27, 2007)

This is pretty old news, in fact the United Pentecostal Church is modalist. I don't think this man is a believer in any sense.


----------



## JoshCasey (Jan 27, 2007)

Well, true, he is a Oneness Pentecostal. But if you look over his statement of beliefs, it looks tolerable, except for the word "Manifestations" instead of "Persons". Could Modalism/Sabellianism be derived just from that itself? (I mean, not even the word Persons is strictly true, in the sense that I am a person, you are a person, we are people). 

This phraseology is probably even worse: http://www.thepottershouse.org/PH_doctrine.html -- "THREE DIMENSIONS OF ONE GOD". 

And also, out of curiosity, what do you guys say as to how we interact with them? I mean, do we consider them as entirely non-Christian, or apostate, or a cult, or what?


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 27, 2007)

JoshCasey said:


> Well, true, he is a Oneness Pentecostal. But if you look over his statement of beliefs, it looks tolerable, except for the word "Manifestations" instead of "Persons". Could Modalism/Sabellianism be derived just from that itself? (I mean, not even the word Persons is strictly true, in the sense that I am a person, you are a person, we are people).
> 
> This phraseology is probably even worse: http://www.thepottershouse.org/PH_doctrine.html -- "THREE DIMENSIONS OF ONE GOD".
> 
> And also, out of curiosity, what do you guys say as to how we interact with them? I mean, do we consider them as entirely non-Christian, or apostate, or a cult, or what?


Josh, "manifestations" is the classic approach Modalists will use to describe the way God appears to work in three persons. It is a dead giveaway, because manifestations are not personal; rather, they serve as the masks by which God approaches us.

As to the question about how to interact with these people, add me to that list. After all, I sat next to T.D. Jakes himself on a flight to Atlanta this summer.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jan 27, 2007)

JoshCasey said:


> http://www.thepottershouse.org/PH_beliefs.html
> 
> All right, read the link, let me know what you think. This is probably common knowledge, but I'm rather shocked by it. Does anyone have any more info on TD Jakes/his church and Modalism?


old news. the guy is a heretic. Funny thing is that he excuses it by saying that the "Trinity" is such a controversial topic that Christianity ought to focus on other issues.

Anyway, T.D Jakes is a perfect example of Christianity in America whereby a man of unsound and heretical doctrine can actually put on a facade of preaching and have it pass off as Christianity.

check out the following link

http://www.equip.org/free/DJ900.htm


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 27, 2007)

Slippery said:


> old news. the guy is a heretic. Funny thing is that he excuses it by saying that the "Trinity" is such a controversial topic that Christianity ought to focus on other issues.
> 
> Anyway, T.D Jakes is a perfect example of Christianity in America whereby a man of unsound and heretical doctrine can actually put on a facade of preaching and have it pass off as Christianity.


----------



## Chris (Jan 27, 2007)

JoshCasey said:


> And also, out of curiosity, what do you guys say as to how we interact with them? I mean, do we consider them as entirely non-Christian, or apostate, or a cult, or what?



Seperate but equal? 

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not going to run around telling people they're lost because they disagree with me on the nature of God - especially since the issue of the Trinity is in so many ways beyond our ability to grasp. On the other hand, I'm not going to promote them, either. It's a tough issue. 

I have had a former drug addict who was a member of the UPC look me in the eye and say 'I was addicted to coke and I'd be dead if the Lord hadn't saved me'. His life showed it, too. I'm not going to call him lost just because his church teaches an errant doctrine. So many times, the congregation has never thought through the doctrinal positions of the church; an ignorant modalist is in that regard no worse than an ignorant trinitarian.


----------



## Chris (Jan 27, 2007)

Slippery said:


> Anyway, T.D Jakes is a perfect example of Christianity in America whereby a man of unsound and heretical doctrine can actually put on a facade of preaching



I was flipping through TV one night and came across him on TBN doing a presentation at some sort of women's ministry event (many women were watching from prison via television) and he honestly did the most stirring recreation of Hosea I've ever seen. He had actors in the background portraying the events of Hosea as he talked through them, and it was quite well-done.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jan 27, 2007)

Sure, he puts on great theatrical presentations....


but he won't save you money on car insurance.

(or preach a consistently _saving_ message.....)


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jan 27, 2007)

Chris said:


> an ignorant modalist is in that regard no worse than an ignorant trinitarian.


sheer pragmatism. if it works don't fix it. Heck, Malcom X was a coke addict and he credited Islam with him quiting. We have virtuous buddhists, hindus etc. The fact is the ultimate goal of the gospel is not to reform morals but for the salvation of man to make mankind worshippers of God in spirit and in truth.

Fact is, many people of excellent morals are going to hell, i.e the Jehovah's witnesses, the Mormons etc are all of excellent morals. But do their gospel save and grant them the gift of worshipping God in spirit and in truth? NO. Therefore it is satanic, blasphemous and antichrist.


----------



## JoshCasey (Jan 27, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> Josh, "manifestations" is the classic approach Modalists will use to describe the way God appears to work in three persons. It is a dead giveaway, because manifestations are not personal; rather, they serve as the masks by which God approaches us.
> 
> As to the question about how to interact with these people, add me to that list. After all, I sat next to T.D. Jakes himself on a flight to Atlanta this summer.



True, true, I wasn't exactly aware of the way the word is used by the Modalists. It is rather interesting that that would show up in such a small way on their statements. It's almost as if they're trying to slip it in without anyone noticing. I love the way Jakes tries to get around it by saying there are so many more important things... Um, exactly what is more important than God and the Trinity, I would like to know? 

Did you mention that plane flight to me once? I think I remember it. I'm guessing you had a nice talk.


----------



## Chris (Jan 27, 2007)

Slippery said:


> sheer pragmatism. if it works don't fix it. Heck, Malcom X was a coke addict and he credited Islam with him quiting. We have virtuous buddhists, hindus etc. The fact is the ultimate goal of the gospel is not to reform morals but for the salvation of man to make mankind worshippers of God in spirit and in truth.
> 
> Fact is, many people of excellent morals are going to hell, i.e the Jehovah's witnesses, the Mormons etc are all of excellent morals. But do their gospel save and grant them the gift of worshipping God in spirit and in truth? NO. Therefore it is satanic, blasphemous and antichrist.




Did you post in the wrong thread? We were discussing modalism here.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 27, 2007)

It's not in the wrong thread - it's a response to your post above about the coke addict.


----------



## Chris (Jan 27, 2007)

turmeric said:


> It's not in the wrong thread - it's a response to your post above about the coke addict.



You sure? I said the guy testified - in word and deed - that God had delivered him from drugs as a byproduct of regeneration, and that he was a member of a church who taught modalism (nevermind that his brain may well be too fried to understand the difference between modalism and trinitarianism).


That was countered with a wild tangential rant about morals and Christ-denying religions. 

If that qualifies as 'discussion' I'm not interested.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 27, 2007)

Chris said:


> I'm not going to run around telling people they're lost because they disagree with me on the nature of God - especially since the issue of the Trinity is in so many ways beyond our ability to grasp.



Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is, ultimately, deeply mysterious. However, when dealing with modalists, or anyone else who might be fuzzy (I'm being generous here) on the Trinity, at least we can point out that the Bible clearly teaches that the God exists in three genuine, actual, divine Persons, all of whom are fully God. That's the basic doctrine, the minimum that Christians can say they believe about God's trinitarian nature. Anything less than that is not Christian.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Mar 14, 2007)

I'm hesitant to say much, but I will venture to say that the people who are pushing this anti-Trinitarian theology often seem to have a personal animosity against the Trinune God. From my recent reading, I can't believe the gymnastics an otherwise smart man will go through to deny the plurality of persons in the Godhead. This seems to go a lot further than an insistance that "one Jehovah" in Deut. 6:4 means "Unitarian God" in "one person". It's really confusing why this is appealing to anybody, except that they're confused / deceived. I know people come out of these sorts of things, but those who have more than a "party spirit" in their opposition to the Trinity make me wonder. I don't know if any of this helps- I'm just thinking out loud.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 14, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Sure, he puts on great theatrical presentations....
> 
> 
> but he won't save you money on car insurance.
> ...


 
 You got that right, in fact.. you just might lose money since he seems to be one of those name it and claim it preachers... 
...but only on condition you give $1000 + to his church.  

Though forgive me if i'm mixing him up with someone else.. is he the one that has the 50, 100, 1000 dollar lines? Or is that Creflo Dollar?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 15, 2007)

Chris said:


> I was flipping through TV one night and came across him on TBN doing a presentation at some sort of women's ministry event (many women were watching from prison via television) and he honestly did the most stirring recreation of Hosea I've ever seen. He had actors in the background portraying the events of Hosea as he talked through them, and it was quite well-done.




Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

But it's still broken....


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 15, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is, ultimately, deeply mysterious. However, when dealing with modalists, or anyone else who might be fuzzy (I'm being generous here) on the Trinity, at least we can point out that the Bible clearly teaches that the God exists in three genuine, actual, divine Persons, all of whom are fully God. That's the basic doctrine, the minimum that Christians can say they believe about God's trinitarian nature. Anything less than that is not Christian.



Say it one' mo' time. 

2 John 7-11.... I like the Assemblies of God's wording on this issue:



> h. Transgression of the Doctrine of Christ
> Wherefore, it is a transgression of the Doctrine of Christ to say that Jesus Christ derived the title, Son of God, solely from the fact of the incarnation, or because of His relation to the economy of redemption. Therefore, to deny that the Father is a real and eternal Father, and that the Son is a real and eternal Son, is a denial of the distinction and relationship in the Being of God; a denial of the Father, and the Son; and a displacement of the truth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 15, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Say it one' mo' time.
> 
> 2 John 7-11.... I like the Assemblies of God's wording on this issue:



Interesting that this thread was brought up at this time. Just last night (Wednesday, March 14th) I brought up T.D. Jakes and modalism at a church gathering. 

(BTW, I will be in Gaithersburg for a Sovereign Grace seminar in April.)


----------

