James MacDonald has just submitted his resignation as a council member of TGC (The Gospel Coalition). This is of course good news to hear given MacDonald's recent compromise of the Gospel message. It is however sad that his resignation has to come from him, instead of him being admonished by the other council members who should have the intestinal fortitude to rebuke MacDonald for his compromise (c.f. Titus 1:9). Yes, TGC is not a denomination, which is why I did not ask for them to discipline him. But rebuking those who contradict sound doctrine (in either word or deed) is not limited to those with same church affiliation or the lack thereof.
Pastor Ken Silva has received an interesting email on this issue. As it states in part,
Last week James was put under a lot of pressure from leaders of The Gospel Coalition, a reformed group of about 50 pastors he has fellowshipped with for the past few years. They were asking that he 'pull the plug' on Bishop Jakes coming to the Elephant Room (ER) conference. Their reasons are rooted in weak evidence of Jakes' current doctrine and infighting among the black members of the Gospel Coalition who have deep seeded resentments. Crawford Loritts is the black pastor who spoke at James' 50th birthday and is also a council member of the Gospel Coalition. Crawford is participating in this ER conference because he believes in what James is doing and has stepped forward to help. All that to say, not even Gospel Coalition members are unanimous in the opposition, but certain influential men have rallied to pressure James to cancel Bishop Jakes. After prayer and counsel with other Christian Leaders and some of our Elders, James believes it is best to simply resign from the Gospel Coalition and continue to pursue his vision of gracious conversation, face to face, as a model for how to handle disagreement in the church.
I wonder, is this how Christians should navigate doctrinal disagreements? I understand the desire to correct a brother behind closed doors, and the desire not to be seen fighting in public. But firstly, MacDonald's error is public. Secondly, MacDonald refuses to repent of his sin. Are we engage in the same type of staff relationships that secular corporations engage in?
The only person who spoke up publicly is Thabiti Anyabwile and for that he has my respect. At least he understands (in this particular instance) how damaging MacDonald's compromise has on the witness of the Church. If only Carson and Keller were of the same caliber! But of course, New Evangelicals will be New Evangelicals, regardless if they are called the National Association of Evangelicals, Fuller Seminary or The Gospel Coalition. I guess I should not have high expectations of them.
78 comments:
I agree that inviting T. D. Jakes to the Elephant room is a tacit endorsement of Jakes' theology. But I hate to break this news to you. The fact is the vast majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics these days NO LONGER REGARD ONENESS PENTECOSTAL TEACHING AS HERESY. Excuse me for yelling:) But I think this emphasis needs to be made. Basically, the Charismatic movement is more concerned about spreading Pentecostalism and Charismatic teaching than about correct doctrine on the ESSENTIALS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. For example, The Society for Pentecostal Studies, which publishes a theological journal called, Pneuma, does not require belief in the trinity or triunity of three persons in one divine nature. That can be easily demonstrated in the compromise of their original doctrinal statement here: Wikipedia: The Society for Pentecostal Studies. The short of it is that that Pentecostals and Charismatics are compromised from the get go because their emphasis on the "gifts of the Spirit" and the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" trumps the orthodox and essential doctrine of the trinity. I've been saying this for several years now and I'm wondering why so few are listening?
The fact that T.D. Jakes enjoys such mainstream popularity among Charismatics and Pentecostals and on "Christian" TV is proof enough that the movement as a whole is cultic, heterodox, and heretical. Yes, you heard me right.
Another indication of this sort of heterodoxy is the widespread acceptance of the Word of Faith doctrines on health, wealth and prosperity--doctrines which come from Christian Science and New Thought. Included in that package are extremely heretical doctrines on the incarnation of Christ and His deity. Word of Faith teachers say that Christ is not fully God but is simply a "Spirit-filled man". They also teach that Jesus was demonized on the cross and that He suffered for three days in hellfire.
It is beyond my comprehension why anyone who considers themselves Reformed in theological perspective would want to lead others into this heretical and heterodox movement. I'm thinking here of "non-cessationists" like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Vincent Cheung, Mark Driscoll, Vern Poythress, and others. This wrong emphasis is akin to saying it's ok to be Mormon! In fact, the Word of Faith movement also incorporates some Mormon doctrine since Kenneth Hagin taught that God has a "spiritual" body, i.e. a spiritualized physical body.
I could go on but I'll stop there. The short of it is that I think Evangelicals in general are way too gracious toward Pentecostalism and Charismatic theology because of the fear of losing support.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
Thank-you for pointing out that the Gospel Coalition is not exactly the fortress for the truth.
Inviting someone to speak at an open forum is not sinful. Jesus himself spoke to sinners, touched them, healed them.
Please provide biblical proof of McDonald being in sin for INVITING someone to speak at an open forum to talk about theological and doctrinal differences?
He was not affirming Jakes beliefs by inviting him. Have you ever invited a non-believer to your home or an event? If so, were you in sin by providing them a public forum to introduce perhaps atheist or worldly beliefs to your friends?
This may seem trivial, but they are important questions to ask yourself?
If the purpose of the invitation is to confront Jakes with his heresy, I would agree. But we both know that the whole purpose is to muddy the waters, justify Jakes' false teaching, and confuse the laity. Please.
Since the Trinity is an essential doctrine and those who reject it are lost, that would mean that T. D. Jakes is unregenerate and unconverted.
Can you please show me in the scripture where a complete understanding of the trinity (God's physical make up and attributes, and characteristics) is necessary for salvation? Further, can you please explain how that coincides with Romans 10:9-10?
As a side note can you explain to me how having a 100% accurate view of the trinity causes one to grow closer to God or furthers one's personal walk with God? If you have a personal testimony in that regard, would you mind sharing it?
Don't get me wrong I am not a Oneness Pentecostal, and I reject the doctrine, however I just don't find biblical justification for claiming someone is not saved based on how they see the physical attributes and make up of a God that no one had ever laid eyes on. Witholding Moses who was only allowed to see him from behind.
I accidentally stumbled across your site while looking for info on how James McDonald resigned from the TGC. Please do not take offense to my posting here.
Oh, so you confess that you think a false teacher is "saved"? Why am I not surprised? And you have no idea where the Bible teaches the Trinity? Shame on you!
Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 13:14; John 1:1-3, 11, 18. And those are just for starters. I seriously question the salvation of anyone who thinks the Trinity is optional doctrine. It really is an indication of the end times when Evangelicals are as liberal as the liberals!
As for T. D. Jakes, he is not just an ignorant layperson. He understands the doctrine of the trinity intellectually but refuses to believe it. I don't know how else to describe someone like that except as unregenerate and unsaved.
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1 NKJ)
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, (1 Timothy 4:1 NKJ)
The Athanasian Creed says the same thing.
Since it is Scripture that determines what is to be believed for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15; John 12:47-48) it behooves us to follow Scripture, not "popular" opinion.
As for how understanding the Trinity makes one closer to God, that one is easy. To accept the doctrine of the trinity and to believe it makes one a Christian. To openly deny it and teach others to reject it is to reject Jesus Christ and all that He taught. It's a package deal. There is only one faith:
Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3 NKJ)
This is not my blog. It belongs to Daniel Chew.
I am an avid bible reader and am not a liberal, by the way. The scriptures that you cited regarding the trinity I am very familiar with. However, I think that you misunderstand my question. What I was asking is for direct biblical evidence of why a 100% accurate view of the trinity is essential to salvation which most protestants believe is achieved through grace alone and that we are justified by faith alone. I still am failing to see how any of the scripture that you provided change my understanding of Romans 10:9-10, which is by far the most widely accepted scripture for how one receives salvation.
I know the book of Jude well, about earnestly contending for the faith, I know of Timothy and Peter and the warnings about false teachers. What you still fail to do is to provide direct biblical evidence of how UNDERSTANDING the trinity with 100% accuracy is essential to salvation.
Here are scripture that refer to salvation:
Acts 4:12 None other name...whereby we must be saved
1Tim.2:5 One mediator between God and men...Christ Jesus
Jn.3:16 God...gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should...have everlasting life
Jn.3:36b He that believeth not the Son shall not see life
Jn.8:24 If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins
Jn.10:1 He that entereth not by the door...but climbeth up some other way...is a thief and a robber
Jn.10:9 I am the door: by Me if any man enter in...be saved
Jn.14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me
1Cor.3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than... Jesus Christ
1Jn.5:12 He that hath not the Son of God hath not life
Jn.3:16 Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life
Jn.11:25,26 I am the resurrection and the life...whosoever believeth in Me shall never die
Acts 16:31 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved
Rom.10:9,10 If thou shalt...believe in thine heart...thou shalt be saved
1Jn.5:1a Whosoever believeth Jesus is the Christ is born of God
Now, Paul told Timothy watch his life and doctrine closely, so it's most certainly important to our faith.
The bible clearly explains that we only see in part now (1 Corinthians), and that we see through a glass darkly (Jeremiah). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't seek truth, but what it does mean is that nobody fully understands all things. The trinity is quite mysterious to man, in terms of how one God can function in the form of three beings. Yes, there are scriptures that speak to it, but not clearly enough for someone to claim that they fully understand it. To believe otherwise is prideful. Satan, was guilty of the same type of sin.
We have to be careful about going beyond to what is written Paul warns the church in Corinth of this in 1st Corinthians 4. In Galatians the Judaizers tried to add to salvation by grace alone by persuading people that they must be circumcised in order to saved.
God bless, and it was an interesting conversation. I may not post back , but do look forward to your reply. Please, no need for rhetorical slams like "liberal" (I'm theologically conservative) or other labels, I was just attempting to pick your brain about why you believe certain things (possibly works?), that you attach to Romans 10:9-10 that are necessary for salvation.
One final thought. Are people who receive Christ on their deathbed unable to truly be saved if they never understand the trinity before their death? Also, is it possible that the criminal on the cross understood the trinity before he died on the cross with Christ? Would be curious to get your thoughts on these two very realistic scenarios (one biblical ;-).
Sojourner, while you may claim to be theologically conservative, your views are identical to both theological liberalism and to the Roman Catholic idea of "implicit faith". The fact of the matter is that saving faith is accepting the propositional truth claims of Scripture, most particularly those truth claims that are "essential" to "saving faith".
I already pointed out to you that the Bible teaches the Trinity, which you agreed to. Scripture is sufficient for saving faith. You seem to think that saving faith is something other than accepting the propositional truth claims of Jesus, the apostles, and the Scriptures. I would like to know what this indefinable something is? Pray tell?
Jude 1:3 clearly says that the Christian faith is a body of teaching that should be earnestly contended for. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 says that there is only one Jesus Christ and to preach another Christ, i.e. a person who teaches something other than what Jesus Christ taught, is to be deceived.
Finally, to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe what Scripture specifically teaches about Christ. Even a child can understand that Jesus is both God and man and that there is only one God. (Deuteronomy 6:4). Even a child can understand that the Bible teaches there are three persons in the Godhead (Matthew 28:18-20; John 1:1; Luke 3:22; Luke 22:70).
The fact is even a new Christian can understand these basic doctrines--unless of course there are false teachers whose purpose is to lead them astray. (1 John 4:1-3). Jesus Christ can only be fully God if the trinity is accepted and He can only be our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) if He is both God and man in the incarnation. (1 Timothy 3:16).
The Westminster Shorter Catechism is simple enough. It was used to teach new converts the truths of Scripture. The Shorter Catechism says:
6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
Answer: There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.1
See also: WCF 2.3 | WLC 9
---------------------------------
1 1 John 5:7; Matt. 28:19; John 10:30
The bottom line is that Scripture holds everyone accountable to believe in the Triunity of God and in the absolute deity of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 13:14; John 1:1; Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 1:3-4; 2 Peter 1:19-21).
Your idea that Christians can believe whatever they want instead of accepting what Scripture specifically says about God as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is not Christianity but liberalism.
I have been reading the Bible since age 8. And from that age I understood that God was three persons and that Jesus Christ was God. I could not fully explain the doctrines but I DID accept them because they are simple enough that even a child can grasp what Scripture plainly says, particularly in 1 John 5:7; Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 28:19 and other places.
I hope this helps you see that muddying the waters is not an option for genuine Christians.
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9 NKJ)
Charlie
Sojourner, special pleadings such as death bed conversions do not change the fact that Christians who are not on their death bed are obligated to believe the essentials of the Christian faith. Furthermore, the vast majority of those on their death bed have been exposed to Christian teaching at several points in their lives and understand the basics of the Triunity of God and of the deity of Christ.
The thief on the cross obviously did not believe that Jesus was merely a man, otherwise how could he appeal to Jesus to bring him to heaven? The thief on the cross must have had exposure to Jesus' teaching prior to that point since Jesus had a huge popular following and His teachings were widespread in Jerusalem and the surrounding provinces.
So to answer your question, yes. Even death bed conversions have an obligation to accept the basic teaching of Scripture regarding the trinity and the deity of Christ.
The 1662 Book of Common Prayer has a service for those who are terminal:
Included in that visitation is the reciting of the Apostles' Creed, which is thoroughly biblical:
Here the Minister shall rehearse the Articles of the Faith, saying thus,
DOST thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?
And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead?
And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection of the flesh; and everlasting life after death?
The sick person shall answer,
All this I stedfastly believe.
Visitation of the Sick
I have used the service when visiting my terminally ill aunt, who was at best a nominal Christian before becoming ill. She cried and accepted the Lord and His forgiveness after I read the service.
Peace,
Charlie
Sojouner, I might add that I never said someone has to have a detailed theological justification for believing in the trinity. What I said was that a person has to accept the "basic" doctrine which is obviously perspicuously and plainly taught in Scripture, which even you have conceded. Those who deliberately deny the trinity and contradict it are not saved. I have an uncle in the Oneness Pentecostal teaching and I do not consider him to be saved either. If he dies in that condition then he is lost. (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Peter 1:19-21).
Good points, but I think you're still missing my point. No big deal, it's neither here nor there.
I've been saved for 30+ years and have been and avid bible reader for years, so I don't quite understand the snide remarks. They seem very unnecessary and un-Christlike -
"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel".
"Shame on you!"
"It really is an indication of the end times when Evangelicals are as liberal as the liberals!"
Each of these statements is very hurtful and I think there is a more loving way to speak with someone that you disagree with. Oh well.
All that I was simply trying to say is that not a single person can can claim to fully understand the trinity. If you believe that it's necessary for salvation then that's perfectly fine. It may be semantics that we're disagreeing over more than anything else. I also believe in the Trinity, and I made that clear, but instead you chose to twist some of my statements and exaggerate my points in order to "prove a point", it appears. Before you know it, I'm a sad liberal that has been saved for 30 years, but has no idea that I'm going to hell?
Although, I've come to notice this pattern amongst many Christians these days (especially those who are Reformed). It's as though the knowledge that they have puffs up. But, remember it's love that builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1) Especially on social media like this where anything can now be said and bible verses like Ephesians 4:32, 1 Corinthians 13:1, and many more can be disregarded so easily. It saddens me.
Sojourner, I don't understand what you mean by "demeaning"? Truth is truth. If you disagree with the truth of course you're going to "feel" that you were slighted. The Mormon, the Buddhist and the liberal will all have the same response when confronted by the truth.
The fact is the Trinity is and has been essential doctrine since the time of the apostles. It has been fleshed out by Tertullian and other church leaders since then but the churches have all agree that to deny the trinity is to place oneself outside the Christian faith.
I don't feel the need to soft peddle on issues that are absolutely crucial to saving faith and the salvation of individuals. To do so puts souls in danger of hell.
The Bible makes it clear that we are not to invite false teachers into our homes, much less into public forums where they can deceive others:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 1:7-11 ESV)
Carl Trueman, professor of church history at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, has said the same thing in more irenic tone that I have used: Do you beat your wife?
The Bible also makes it clear that when the reprobate are led astray by false doctrine that too is God's judgment:
Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 ESV)
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie
Sojourner, the line "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel" is from Galatians 1:6. It's a Bible verse.
I could point out that your views are in line with the more liberal Arminian side of things since in your opinion doctrine is not essential to salvation. I do not understand how you can claim to believe in the Trinity when you think one's understanding of who God is is a matter of indifference?
You might want to listen to this edition of The White Horse Inn: Christianity and the New Liberalism.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Charlie
It saddens me, Sojourner, that you focus on the love verses alone instead of on the teaching of Scripture as a whole. Is it loving to lead someone to hell?
2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL Scripture is profitable for teaching......
Charlie
As usual, it's difficult to truly share an opinion on a blog. I appreciate your input, but you're misunderstanding my points on many levels.
Before I decided to depart from the blog without writing a final reply back I peeped at your profile description and a few things came to light, so I decided to reply back.
We actually share similar backgrounds. Charismatic raised, but now Reformed. I too, had gone that route (Reformed), but pulled back a bit when I realized what doctrine and theology can do to people when it's not firmly rooted in the foundation of love. I hung in Reformed circles for quite some time and learned much from the sound biblical, doctrinal, and theological teachings that were missing from the "Charismania" filled days of my youth. I don’t know you personally, but based on your first response to this article I almost get a chuckle out of it now knowing your background. Believe me, I feel your frustration with your background of Pentecostal and Charismatic craziness. I know it all too well, firsthand – the lack of discipline, the abuse of the gifts of the spirit, their lack of respect for the authority of scripture. You’re as angry about it as I used to be. LOL
However, I came to realize that when doctrine and theology are taught too often while neglecting to teach people of love, faith and grace it comes at a price. Essentially, if unguarded it quickly can turn into legal intellectualism, void of the grace that Christ showed to us all. IMHO, it’s actually the lack of being led by the Holy Spirit that is often the shortcoming. In other words, too much doctrine an theology void of the spirit, creates a bunch of people who are incapable of translating that doctrine and theology into loving their neighbor and God (which forms the whole foundation of the Law). Are doctrine and theology important though? A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y! Which is why I attend a church that teaches strictly expository (not very common these days), but they also teach people how to love one another!
Continued......
Anyway back to my point, about why I pulled back (just a little from Reformed circles). Meaning, I still like much of the teachings, but have backpeddled just slightly on giving them my full ear, and decided to attend a church that still has a high view of scripture, but is not Reformed ;-) I’ll speak further on this at the end…… Anyway, I ran into sooooooo many Reformed people who “knew-it-all” and were often just looking to pick fights with anyone who challenged them biblically. Sure, we’ve all read Jude, and earnestly contend for the faith, but do you know how to correct people in the same loving way that we see Christ do it? Did he immediately condemn the prostitute, did he refuse to heal the deaf and lame even though they may have been in sin, did he constantly lecture Peter because he often said wrong things, did he condemn the women at the well, did he belittle Matthew the tax collector before inviting him to be a follower, did he refuse to go to the Pharisees house even though he knew beforehand that he would lecture him about hand washing? Did he not see something good in a sinner like Zacchaeus before going to his house, did he speak condescendingly to Saul before he became Paul (Saul, Saul, why do you kick against the goads?), did he he tell Thomas that he would not obtain salvation after he questioned his existence after the resurrection, did he do the same of John The Baptist after he questioned who Christ was? When the apostles could not understand some of his parables, did he tell them that they must be unregenerate (hmmmmm…), did Aquila and Priscilla not expounded to Apollos the way of God more perfectly, or did they point their finger in his face and tell him that he was teaching falsehoods. These are the images of God’s grace that I see in the bible. It is loving to correct someone, IN A LOVING WAY.
Tim Keller is by far one of my favorite pastors of the Reformed crowd, because I feel he has a grasp on these different aspects of the faith that seems to allude some of his Reformed Brothers. You and others might refer to him as a liberal. I call it understanding the full counsel of God. He's sound in doctrine and theology, but also speaks about things like the tenderness of Christ. He’s a far cry from many other reformed people I’ve met that are very knowledgeable in the scriptures, but harsh with their words and in their demeanor. I’m not saying that’s you because we’ve never met personally, but your replies back to me off hand put me in that mindset. They use their knowledge more as a whip than as a tool to be salt and light, and to reflect the love of Christ. Claiming that I’m a liberal. Stating that I can’t possibly understand the trinity, and that I have an opinion doctrine. Really? Is all of that necessary? Instead, why not just lovingly point me to scripture that speak otherwise. It’s more effective.
Continued.....
Which leads me to why I posted here in the first place. I felt that the article about McDonald was overly harsh considering that simply because he invited someone to speak in an open forum about their beliefs that he is now a heretic. Inviting someone to speak at a open forum is not a wholesale endorsement of their beliefs. Greg Laurie , Perry Nobles and Futrick all hold different beliefs than McDonald, Driscoll and Platt. McDonald and Driscoll in know way were telling their audience to convert to Armenianism (who some hardline Reformers would say are not “saved”, LOL) by inviting those guys. If they were, I don’t follow the logic behind that thinking. By the way, Carson and others have already confirmed that they believe that he (Jakes) now believes in the Trinity (after the Elephant Room). Is he now officially saved from the pit of hell because a board of men called the TGC have decided so? Just joking, but I would be interested to get your opinion now that Jakes has confirmed that he believes in the Trinity and does not believe in Oneness doctrine?
You may still disagree with many of my points above and my so-called “Armenian” perspective, but hey we can always lovingly agree to disagree. By the way, I do not necessarily hold firmly to Calvinism or Armenianism, but nice try. I’m a Calvary Chapel guy (big Chuck Smith fan), and I don’t like the idea of referring to myself after a man. It’s Christ and Christ alone according to the bible. Paul warned about such “For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?” 5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.”
Love you in Christ brother. You pray for me and I will pray for you. God bless, and please don’t take offense to anything that I said above. I’m sure if we got to know each other in person that we would have much in common ;-) God bless you. Number 6:24-26
By the way, this a great example of what I'm talking about regarding Reformed rhetric:
"I have an uncle in the Oneness Pentecostal teaching and I do not consider him to be saved either. If he dies in that condition then he is lost. (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Peter 1:19-21)."
Fortunately, this is not within your authority according to scripture. IF you uncle has accepted Jesus as his Lord and savior, then you have no idea what will happen to your uncle.
Solomon told you and I at the end of Ecclesiastes what God will do in the end...."13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil."
Who did God give the authority to, to judge all men in the end?
JESUS is the Judge of All.
"And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead." Acts 10:42
"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:30-31
"in that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." Romans 2:16
"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:" 2 Timothy 4:1
Praise God that he gave us discernment, but not the authority to judge. It's the job of our great and High Priest (read Hebrews).
Again, God Bless you and it was a great conversation.
Sojourner, you just don't get it, do you? You don't get to tell Scripture who is saved and who isn't. Scripture does that. Scripture says that there is only ONE God.
You seem to be following a god of your own imagination. I got a chuckle when you said Tim Keller is your favorite pastor. Sorry but Keller is an irrationalist who follows the subjective views of Van Til's theology.
Also, I happen to agree with you that many Reformed folks these days are neo-legalists. Why? Because like you they don't realize that "love" is the law of God. When Scripture commands us to "love" that is LAW!
The Law/Gospel distinction IS the Gospel. The Law reveals us all as unloving, hypocritical sinners who deserve HELL. So your fake love doesn't fool God. If you think your "love" makes you a Christian, then you have fallen into the trap of legalism. Salvation is a free gift based on God's sheer mercy and grace. The Gospel is that God promises to save those who BELIEVE. Salvation is not based on one's level of sanctification, love, or any other such command or law. Jesus fulfilled ALL the law for us because we are unable to keep it.
Unfortunately, you're still in the false religion of relativism, Sojourner. My salvation is based solely on the active and passive obedience of Christ and the objective work He did for me on the cross--not on what level I keep the command to "love" God and "love" my neighbor.
The idea that the trinity is adiaphora in your opinion proves you're not a Christian.
Since you contradict Scripture, you have based your views on your own opinion and the idols of your own imagination. While you might convince yourself, you certainly have not convinced me of anything other than your sheer ignorance of Holy Scripture.
Charlie
Sorry guys. I was having a nice mini-holiday and wasn't around to join your conversation.
@Charlies:
it is true that many Pentecostals and Charismatics no longer Oneness Pentecostal teaching as heresy. But many does not mean all. Being wrong on certain areas does not necessarily imply being wrong on other areas.
As for Piper et al, I most definitely do not know why they believe what they believe, but I have a hunch a misunderstanding of cessationism contributes to the situation.
@sojourner:
TD Jakes is not just "invit[ed] ... to speak at an open forum." He is invited to speak at an open forum for Christians to discuss their theological beliefs. That was explicitly stated before the furore over Jakes' invitation was made public.
That being said, Jakes is treated as a Christians in this forum, a priori. This is not an open forum to discuss theological differences, but an open forum of Christians to do the same.
And no, I would not provide a public platform for my non-Christians friends to introduce "atheistic or wordly beliefs," unless we are talking about a lecture on other religions.
@sojourner:
check out my article here(http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2010/07/tacit-faith-versus-implicit-faith.html) where I addressed the issue.
To sum up the application, believers do not have to explicitly believe in the Trinity if they have not heard of it, but they have to believe in the Trinity in a tacit form and not deny it.
The Bible does not have to say,"Believe in the Trinity to be saved." If the God one believes in is not the Triune God, it is by definition not the God of the Bible.
@sojourner:
>Fortunately, this is not within your authority according to scripture. IF your [Charlie's] uncle has accepted Jesus as his Lord and savior, then you have no idea what will happen to your uncle.
The issue is, "Which Jesus?" The "Jesus" of the Oneness Pentecostals is not the Jesus of the Bible.
Yes, if Charlie's uncle did receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, then he will be saved. But if he believes in Oneness Pentecostalism, then he did not really receive the biblical Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Ok, thanks Charlie. Guess I'm not one of the elect. Darn!
There you go contradicting the scripture that you love so dearly again.....
Charlie J - "If you think your "love" makes you a Christian, then you have fallen into the trap of legalism."
vs.
John 13:35 - "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.
1 John 4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
I didn't know that you don't have to love to be a Christian, Charlie. Your theology is unlike any I've seen before.
Love alone does not make you Christian, I think we can both agree to that, but love is a fruit of the spirit. So there really isn't one without the other.
Christianity 101......
@Puritan -
"The issue is, "Which Jesus?" The "Jesus" of the Oneness Pentecostals is not the Jesus of the Bible."
Again, you can't confirm that.
Now if his uncle was Mormon, well then you could pretty easily build a biblical case to say that is true.
Jesus was appointed as the judge. Can we not be obedient to scripture and wait until it's the appointed time as Christ himself commanded us to? You need to go back and read what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4, even about himself: "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes."
Go back are read the whole thing for the full context, it's somewhat shocking. Let's be humble in our judgments concerning salvation of individuals and just let Jesus do the job God entrusted him to. He is able.
@sojourner:
are you positively telling me that the "Jesus" of Oneness Pentecostalism is the same Jesus as the Jesus of the Bible? Yes or no?
Question for you: can you be saved if you believe in another Jesus?
@ Puritan, Jakes clearly confirmed that he believes in the Trinity (Godhead - 3 in 1), during the Elephant Room. Therefore, based on your opinion (implicit) in the article he is saved.
If this is so, can we agree on this point?
By the way, thank you for speaking to me in a loving and Christlike manner. I always appreciate when people are respectful and reflect the love of Christ in social media spaces. It's rare these days.
@sojourner:
>Let's be humble in our judgments concerning salvation of individuals ...
Question: Is it humility to say that God does not reveal what He has already revealed? Is it humility to say that God has not passed judgment if He has already done so?
@sojourner:
using the mere word "persons" is not good enough. Hear Dr. White's response in his Dividing Line here (http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4955)
@Puritan - Fine point taken on humility.
However, my point still stands, you can't refute scripture. God will judge Jakes beliefs in "three persons", he's the only one capable according to scripture.
1 Corinthians 2:11
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Therefore can you truly say he's not saved? Fact or fiction? Even if you can, what value does it hold in God's eyes, and how does it relate to your own personal walk with God. Please no logical arguments just use scripture to justify.
@sojourner:
of course God will judge Jakes, and everyone else. That's not the issue.
The issue is this: If God has said in His Word that those who do not believe in Him are not saved, are we warrented to deduce that a particular person who does not believe in Jesus is not saved? Can we apply God's Word in this manner?
Daniel, I was an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God and I was a member of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. ALL of the leading Pentecostal leaders without exception now regard the Oneness Pentecostals as brothers in Christ. While they are still trinitarians themselves and they still reject the Oneness view, they all without exception view this as a matter of adiaphora, not a matter of first level heresy. Hence, the non-cessationists like Mark Driscoll have simply joined with the mainstream Pentecostal/Charismatic movement and have given T.D. Jakes a free ticket to continue deceiving people.
It comes down to this: Either the Oneness heresy is false teaching that leads folks to hell OR it is simply a matter of adiaphora as T. D. Jakes and the vast majority of Pentecostals/Charismatics today believe. The Society for Pentecostal Studies, which is the official interdenominational scholarly society for the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has removed the requirement for members to sign a trinitarian statement so that Oneness Pentecostals can join.
T. D. Jakes admits that he moves in both Oneness and Trinitarian circles and he wants to play both sides of the fence. In fact, this has been so in Pentecostal circles for many years now. When the New Issue first happened in 1914 or so the Assemblies of God regarded it as a first level heresy and that it would lead folks to hell. They did not want other denominations to see Pentecostals endorsing heresy. So the Assemblies of God formulated their first doctrinal statement called the 16 Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God. It has a strong trinitarian statement included.
Basically, it is just naive to give Pentecostals and Charismatics a free ticket. Why? Because this tendency to downplay primary level heresies like the Oneness and Word of Faith teachings is widespread and universally accepted among them. There might be a remnant that still regards this sort of teaching as leading souls to hell but the vast majority of them approve of false teaching even if their own churches are not teaching those doctrines themselves.
This is one of the reasons I left the Assemblies of God in 1995 and became Reformed. Our friend, Sojourner, is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie
Daniel, I agree that T. D. Jakes is not a Christian. But the problem is that the vast majority of Charismatics and Pentecostals do not agree with you. Mark Driscoll deliberately invited Jakes so he could endorse Jakes as a Christian. That is fairly obvious from reading the transcript of the interview. Which in turn makes Driscoll a false teacher as well since he is endorsing what is obviously another religion.
Peace,
Charlie
Sojourner, love taken out of context is not love:) (Romans 3:20-28). The enemy has a false love that pretends to be agape but is really a trap to lead souls to hell. The law does command us to love. But who loves the way he or she should? The Bible answers that question: NO ONE. That is why your view is just more LAW not Gospel. The fact that you do not understand the law/gospel distinction is telling.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Sojourner, the Mormons claim to be Christians, too. But increasingly that is being compromised as well. Roger Olson, the Open Theist and Arminian, now thinks we ought to accept Mormons as "Christians". It is only "obvious" that heresy is heresy and dangerous to the soul if we have a solid Confession of Faith drawn from the most certain warrant of Scripture.
A common confession of Scripture's teaching allows the churches together to make the judgment call that Oneness Pentecostalism and Mormonism are both false religions and primary level heresies. In short, your assertion that my view is simply my own idiosyncratic opinion is way off the mark. The Reformed movement as a whole condemns both Oneness Pentecostalism and Mormonism as false religions based on their confession of faith. Of course, as I have been pointing out, when Charismatics and Pentecostals place more emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit as the most important doctrine, then the trinity and all the other essentials of the Christian faith get left by the wayside.
Charlie
Dr. James R. White, The Dividing Line: The Elephant Room
Sojourner, T.D. Jakes says that he is both Oneness and Trinitarian in that inteview. He specifically said that he does not regard Oneness as a false religion. And in fact you are playing both sides of the fence yourself since you earlier said you do not believe that a person needs to believe the trinity to be saved. I can infer that you are either confused or that you are simply using demagoguery.
Charlie
Dr. Carl Beisner has the same opinion on this issue, by the way: Beisner on the Elephant Room.
Carl Trueman must be a really unloving guy. He beats his wife! Read his comments here:
This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of `Hey, hater!' from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant's wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, `Did you do that?' to which he says `No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives'; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary.
Click here to read the rest: Do You Beat Your Wife?
@Charlie J and Daniel-
Charlie J
"The law does command us to love. But who loves the way he or she should? The Bible answers that question: NO ONE. That is why your view is just more LAW not Gospel. The fact that you do not understand the law/gospel distinction is telling."
IMHO, this FRAUGHT with problems doctrinally.
Paul was not "Reformed", by the way and neither was Christ or any of his apostles/disciples. No one is saying that you are saved by loving people. Again, you are taking my words and twisting them to try and support your viewpoint for judging the salvation of people like Driscoll and Jakes, which is not Christian at all.
What does happen to Christians is that when they accept the real Jesus (not the Jesus of Mormons, or JW's), they are born again and their minds are transformed. It is inevitable. It doesn't mean that someone becomes sinless Charlie J. You are the one that tried to paint that picture.
Here is what Paul has to say about your "works based love law" that you mentioned.
Galatians 5: 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Expecting to see the fruit of the spirit from a Christian is not legalism. It's scriptural.
Continued......
Legalism is what you and Daniel are attempting to do. Which is taking scripture and adding new criteria for salvation. Jakes and Driscoll believe in the same Jesus as you and Daniel. You are attempting to put them in the same category as Mormons?! Really? Mormons, believe that Jesus is the half-brother of Satan, and that he's from the planet Kolob. THAT's a different Jesus! Not someone disagreeing over the fine details on how one God can exist in 3 persons. There is no biblical evidence stating that God will judge based on our understanding of this. It's a fact! Pleas provide scripture if you believe otherwise. but in your flesh you want to reject people from the kingdom and make it some exclusive social club for just a few. Someone disagrees with your view like Keller and McDonald then one's an irrationalist that subscribe's to Van Til's theology and the other is reprobate.
I've seen this common pattern amongst many Reformed people. They learn of limited atonement/election and then go off the deep-end with it and become the "election police" - separating the wheat from the tares before Christ does. I guess you figure that you are helping God out. That's laughable.
Jesus already told us that it was his job to do that. 29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”
There is a reason why out each Christian denomination that I've been around, by far, Reformed have THE MOST infighting that I have ever witnessed. Even within the TGC people do not "agree" on so many issues. Keller's a liberal, Driscoll's a smash and grab macho maniac (and I agree, LOL), Platt is a mushy Calvinist, McDonald is not really "Reformed". Sheesh! This is really TELLING.
"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
Man, I hope Jesus comes back soon.... ;-)
God Bless guys.
Sojourner, so morality matters more than doctrine? So I guess Roman Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, Hindus and everyone else who "loves" is a Christian?
Thanks for clarifying.
Unfortunately Paul and the Apostles WERE Reformed because they all taught the doctrine of absolute predestination. (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).
Your distortion of the Scriptures is revealing, Sojourner. The fact is, you cannot accept that Scripture is the source of Reformed theology, not man's opinions. It is Scripture that says God is sovereign, not simply Reformed theologians:)
Charlie
Sojourner, I've already pointed out to you that the Trinity is taught in the Bible AND that the Christian churches from the earliest times ALL agreed that Scripture does require belief in the Trinity. Sabellian modalism, which is a very close approximation of what Oneness Pentecostals teach, was condemned as a heresy in the 4th century.
The proof for this is the Athanasian Creed (4th century), which flatly says that those who reject the Trinity are not saved. ALL of the Protestant churches, INCLUDING the Arminians agree that the trinity is essential to saving faith. The only ones rejecting the trinity are the radical reformers from the Anabaptist tradition. The short of it is that Pentecostals and Charismatics have more in common with the Anabaptists than with mainstream Protestant Christianity. Michael Servetus denied the Trinity and was tried and convicted of heresy in the 16th century over this same controversy.
Whether you like it or not, the Protestant faith is trinitarian and "catholic" or "universally accepted". That's a litte "c" catholic. The Protestant mainline churches recite the Apostles Creed regularly because it is a symbol of the universal church on earth. That would include Methodists, not just the Reformed. Therefore, your overgeneralization and your attempt to marginalize the Reformed churches is just not true.
You seem to think that creeds are not biblical. But that is far from the truth. The creeds are there because they are a summary of what the churches believe Scripture teaches and not the other way around. The knife cuts both ways. Your "creed" seems to be that it's ok to be a modalist heretic. That's what you believe. The word "creed" comes from the Latin verb, "I believe" or "credo".
So on what authority do you insist that the trinity is a matter of indifference and not essential, universal, catholic, and biblical doctrine??? Your own opinion? My view is based on Scripture AND the universal opinion of ALL the churches since the 4th century: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox AND Protestant.
Charlie
Quicunque vult.
WHOSOEVER will be saved : before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith.
Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled : without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the Persons : nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son : and another of the Holy Ghost.
Athanasian Creed
I would suggest that you go and listen carefully to the James White discussion of this issue!
Charlie
Of your list (Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon) I don't consider any of them Christian except for Oneness Pentecostals. The one's that I've met believe that Jesus is the son of God,and that he still lives, which qualifies them according to the bible. You've made it far too complex.
Plenty of other Christians believe in God's sovereignty. That doesn't make you Reformed it makes you a Christian. Christianity is larger than a denomination.
Sojourner, so in your opinion is it ok to tell a Mormon it's ok to be Mormon? If not, aren't you being unloving?
Do you know much about the Oneness Pentecostals? Don't you know that they are by and large very legalistic? (See CARM: Oneness Pentecostalism Matt Slick is a non-cessationist, by the way. He's one of the few Reformed non-cessationists who takes a public and vocal stand against the oneness pentecostal heresy.)
To say that the Bible is "legalistic" because it insists that God is both one God and three Persons is to deny the God of the Bible. If you don't get that I don't know what else I could say to change your mind.
Regarding the Reformed tradition, you're wrong. It is only the Reformed tradition that upholds the biblical doctrine of God's absolute predestination and sovereignty, extending even to the fall of Adam. (Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Acts 2:23; Revelation 13:8).
You should listen to James White on The Dividing Line and then get back to me. You are obviously ignoring the arguments made there and the sound bytes from Jakes.
Charlie
CARM: The Incarnation and the Two Wills of Christ
CARM: T. D. Jakes
@sojourner:
> Legalism is what you and Daniel are attempting to do. Which is taking scripture and adding new criteria for salvation. Jakes and Driscoll believe in the same Jesus as you and Daniel.
You have not answered the question I have posed to you. You have a priori assumed that Jakes believes in the same Jesus, which is a doctrinal issue which HAS to be proved, not asssumed.
If you believe that denial of the Trinity does not invalidate one's faith, then you are saying God is not necessarily a Trinity, and therefore whether one believes in or does not believe in the Trinity is irrelevant to whether one believes in the biblical Jesus. In other words, you are saying that God is not necessarily triune, which is an attack on the very nature of the Triune God Himself.
In other words, your doctrine of God is defective. I exhort you to repent of your sin of misrepresenting God.
@sojourner:
>Of your list (Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon) I don't consider any of them Christian except for Oneness Pentecostals. The one's that I've met believe that Jesus is the son of God,and that he still lives, which qualifies them according to the bible.
You obviously haven't met some of the Charismatic Roman Catholics who believe the same.
This is of course assuming that you do not ask what they mean by "Jesus," "son of God," and "that He still lives."
So your acceptance of groups who call themselves Christian is based more upon sociology than truth it seems.
As I said earlier..... I've never seen a more splintered group of bitter and mean-spirited Christians than the Reformed crowd. It's very telling. One disagreement on even minor issues and you all cry "REPENT", against one another, and even more so to outsiders! It's quite juvenile. Too many of you guys have seminary degrees, too heady, too academic. You know God via text books, old dead guys, and strange theological terminology and jargon that very few understand. Even as a physicist with advanced degrees, I know better than to go around speaking to everyone in quantum mechanics terminology. For people like you all it's more about exalting self and one's opinion over exalting Christ alone. Just my two cents. Repent, from the sin of pridefulnesss! None of you will receive a crown for your investigative work on Jakes. My point still stands and neither of you ever addressed it with scripture, because your incapable of doing so. Anyone would be. You do not fully understand the trinity. Only in part. In addition, having a complete and perfect understanding of the trinity is not necessary for salvation. These are man made rules that you've constructed similar to Pharisees, in order to protect your little elect, Reformed social club. You know it, I can discern it, God knows as well. Check your heart and your motives first. God will judge you on that, and he'll judge Jakes on his views of the trinity.
Somehow all that knowledge and education often works against our better interests.
Final post. God Bless.
@sojourner:
again, you have not answered the question. It seems that you care less who God is as long as the name "Jesus" is mentioned. If you couldn't care less for the truths of Scripture, then I worry for your soul. A God who is less than the God of the Scriptures is a "God" of one's own imagination.
>It's quite juvenile.
Au contraire, your position is the one that is juvenile. Those who are mature take their views from Scripture, whereas when questioned, you refuse to answer the question and retreat to a corner crying the religious equivalent of "bigotry" and "hate crime." Why do you not have the maturity to answer the question put so clearly to you?
>Too many of you guys have seminary degrees, too heady, too academic.
You are embracing the error that God is contrary to sound doctrine. That you have yet to prove. On the contrary, God as the Logos (Word) is supremely intellectual. Christianity is first and foremost an intellectual faith, then the experiential follows from that. A "faith" that contradicts Scripture is not Christianity, no matter how much religious jargon you use.
>You know God via text books, old dead guys, and strange theological terminology and jargon that very few understand.
Strangely enough, the Scripture support the view that only through Scriptures can you know God.
Not to mention that you are engaging in anti-intellectualism, anti-tradition and a patheological preference for the present over and above what has been historically held by the Church for the last 2000 years. You act as if you are the only one who have ever read Scripture in the last 2000 years, and understand it better than previous commenters who are all "old dead guys." The arrogance is astonishing.
>For people like you all it's more about exalting self and one's opinion over exalting Christ alon
"My" or "Our" opinion is the opinion of the Church of 2000 years. You are the one who have exalted your novel interpretation of Christianity as THE correct interpretation of Christianity as opposed to the historic catholic orthodox understanding of Christianity, as expressed in for example the Athanasian Creed.
For people like you, it's all about exalting yourself and your novel interpretation of Scripture, your opinion, over Christ alone.
>Repent, from the sin of pridefulnesss!
Sojourner, repent of your sin of arrogance! Repent of your pride in thinking you know better than the pastors and theologians of 2000 year old history of the church.
>None of you will receive a crown for your investigative work on Jakes.
As if I'm doing this for a crown. It's because we care for the Body of Christ that Jakes has to be exposed as a heretic who damns his followers to hell.
[continued]
@sojourner:
>My point still stands and neither of you ever addressed it with scripture, because your incapable of doing so.
I have, and you have not. I am awaiting your answer to my question.
>Anyone would be. You do not fully understand the trinity.
On the contrary, YOU do not understand the Trinity. We embrace the Athanasian Creed. You do not. You cannot in good conscience say that it is necessary to believe in the Trinity to be saved, as the Athanasian Creed teaches.
>These are man made rules that you've constructed similar to Pharisees, in order to protect your little elect, Reformed social club.
Strangely enough, the Reformed DID not come up with the Athanasian Creed. According to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Angelicanism, Lutheranism etc, believing the Athanasian Creed IS essential for the faith.
You are the one who is the Phraisee, making your false interpretation of the Scripture equal to the teachings of Scripture; adding your tradition to the clear teachings of the Word of God.
>You know it, I can discern it, God knows as well.
If you are truly regenerate, you know that you are in error deep in your heart. You know you are bearing false witness against the truth. I do not need to "discern" it because it is clearly taught in Scripture that those who are truly of Christ know the things of God.
I appeal to your conscience to repent of your sin against God, and against those who are Reformed. Repent of your arrogance against the teachings of the Church, as if you as one person are more knowledgeable than the apostles, their sucessors, the Church Fathers and the Reformed theologians combined.
And your most grave error is assuming that the Reformers every written word were inspired by the Holy Spirit like the Holy scriptures were ;-)
So strange coming from people who believe that "the cannon was closed". I've never understood that dichotomy???????
Mainly not answering your past questions, because I've already answered them in past posts using scripture.
Sojourner, the canon of Scripture was determined by those Protestant Reformers you so despise. They were the scholars who stood against the apocryphal books that the Council of Trent made into a second canon.
So why should we accept your opinion over the opinion of the majority of churches in the Protestant Reformation? Your comments show that you are following a "new" tradition that is out of step with the universally accepted opinion of the vast majority of churches since the 4th century. That opinion was and is that those who deliberately deny the trinity are not saved.
The same opinion holds true today. Therefore, those churches and individuals who either outright deny the trinity OR try to blend it with the sabellian modalist position are heretics. I would include Mark Driscoll in that opinion. He seems to be intent on downplaying Jakes' playing both sides of the fence.
Get off the fence:)
Charlie
Sojourner, I guess you learned physics by direct revelation from God rather than from "head knowledge"? :)
I was Pentecostal for 10 years. You have to be kidding me? Pentecostals don't divide and conquer? That's basically how the whole movement grows. That's the mentality. Church splits are a common occurrence and have been since 1906. The first couple of splits were over the issue of whether there are two "works" of grace, conversion and baptism with the Spirit, or three "works" of grace, conversion, entire sanctification, and baptism with the Spirit--both views endorsing the "initial physical evidence of speaking with unknown tongues." The next big split was over the modalist issue. In 1914 the New Issue caused the Oneness Pentecostals to form their own denominations and it forced the Assemblies of God (two works of grace view) and the Church of God (three works of grace, Wesleyan view) to formulate solid trinitarian statements of faith.
Unfortunately, Pentecostalism in general is anti-intellectual and therefore the Bible is just a "paper pope" to them much like Roman Catholicism's view. The genius of the Protestant Reformation was that Scripture was seen to be the final authority in doctrine and faith, not ecstatic experience OR church leaders or celebrities or popes. The plow boy who reads the Bible knows more than the pope or any Evangelical celebrity pastor!
The trouble is your view is to blindly follow what your leaders tell you. My view is read the Bible can compare that with the creeds and the official doctrinal statements of individuals and churches. It's called Sola Scriptura!
If you think it is "unloving" to stand for the truth, then why are you standing for what you "think" is true? (You could be wrong). Truth obviously matters!
It's irrational, illogical, and dishonest of you to argue that your view is right and loving while mine is "unloving" and "intellectual". The truth is not established by personal attacks but on logical and rational arguments for "why" your position is true. Logically speaking T.D. Jakes has condemned himself in that interview because he specifically says that he is in fellowship with oneness heretics and that he approves of their doctrine--all while "claiming" to be a trinitarian. Forgive me but I sincerely doubt the sincerity of T.D. Jakes and Mark Driscoll and James McDonald. They have an agenda. That agenda is to deceive the elect "if it were possible.
As for your claim that I did not state my position from Scripture, you know that is not true. In fact you agreed that the Bible teaches the trinitarian view and that you accept that view. At least you said that at first. After that you started becoming more and more ambiguous. That's a typical tactic of liberals and Pentecostals. Muddy the waters so your view can appear erudite and mysterious and tolerant and loving:) But is it loving to deceive folks?
Charlie
Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:64 ESV)
So Jesus is seated at the right hand of God.
How is it that two can both be God? Only the trinity can explain it. God is one:
A Psalm of David. The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." (Psalm 110:1 NKJ)
And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:56 ESV)
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4 NKJ)
The Bible teaches that God is three persons:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen. (2 Corinthians 13:14 NKJ)
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19 NKJ)
And the Bible teaches that Jesus is not just a manifestation of the Father in human flesh. He is fully God and He is God the SON:
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: (2 Peter 1:1 ESV)
And all three persons appear at "separately" or "distinctly" at Jesus baptism:
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17 ESV)
You claim that Scripture does not condemn modalism. But that does not follow from your argument. The Bible specifically defines Jesus as both human AND fully God (Colossians 1:19; 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; John 1:1, 14, 18). Those who deny THIS Jesus are not saved according to Paul:
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. 5 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:3-5 ESV)
If anyone preaches another Jesus they are preaching another gospel as well:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9 ESV)
As Daniel said earlier, "which" Jesus are you following? A vague, undefined Jesus of liberalism? Or are you following the Jesus of the Bible? The Jesus in the Bible is described as born of a woman but fully God. He is called the eternal Son of God who was with God and fully God from the beginning (John 1:1-3, 14, 18). He is in fact the Creator and He is called that not as the Father but as the Son (John 1:3).
Your idea that I cannot prove my case from Scripture is just wrong:
Frequently cited refs (sorted by frequency)
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through him and for him.
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Isa 40:28 Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Rev 4:11 "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."
Jesus is not just a human being who manifests the Father. No. He IS God. He IS God the Son, the eternal second Person of the Godhead.
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie
This is my last statement here. I think all needs to be said has been said. My apologies for going on for so long here, Daniel.
In Christ,
Charlie
@Charlies:
it's fine. I think the point has been amply made to sojourner that his view of God is seriously deficient.
Charlie, we agree on so many things. I love the doctrine of Sola Scripture, yet you continue to write "books" on my "liberal" views from assumptions based on your Pentecostal background. I pray that your past doesn't paint the lenses that you see through, such that you vilify everyone that you meet who disagrees with some of your views. I'm not Pentecostal and never have been, but did grow up in spirit-filled non-denominational environments. You made way too many assumptions and points for me to reply to, and I'm out of time and energy required to defend against your false assumptions about what I believe or who I am.
I will just say that you make many great points and I agree with the vast majority of them. Not sure why you assumed that I wouldn't.?
We simply disagree over the idea that a Oneness Pentecostal can't receive salvation. I think it's unfortunate that you both believe this, when the bible makes it quite clear that it's not a requirement.
If you care to read it,I think this article states very clearly why I often find fault with dogmatic Reformed views and thinking. You guys spend way too much time looking to pick fights with people who you disagree with, rather than spending your time seeking Christ. I think that diversion lone is ploy of the enemy.
http://arminiantoday.com/
That does not mean at all that I completely reject everything that they've veer stood for or established. That was your futile attempt to broad brushstroke my opinions.
God Bless.
Charlie, we agree on so many things. I love the doctrine of Sola Scripture, yet you continue to write "books" on my "liberal" views from assumptions based on your Pentecostal background. I pray that your past doesn't paint the lenses that you see through, such that you vilify everyone that you meet who disagrees with some of your views. I'm not Pentecostal and never have been, but did grow up in spirit-filled non-denominational environments. You made way too many assumptions and points for me to reply to, and I'm out of time and energy required to defend against your false assumptions about what I believe or who I am.
I will just say that you make many great points and I agree with the vast majority of them. Not sure why you assumed that I wouldn't.?
We simply disagree over the idea that a Oneness Pentecostal can't receive salvation. I think it's unfortunate that you both believe this, when the bible makes it quite clear that it's not a requirement.
If you care to read it,I think this article states very clearly why I often find fault with dogmatic Reformed views and thinking. You guys spend way too much time looking to pick fights with people who you disagree with, rather than spending your time seeking Christ. I think that diversion lone is ploy of the enemy.
http://arminiantoday.com/
That does not mean at all that I completely reject everything that they've veer stood for or established. That was your futile attempt to broad brushstroke my opinions.
God Bless.
@sojourner:
of couse a Onencesss Pentecostal can receive salvation, in the same way that a pagan can receive salvation. They receive salvation by repudiating their former beliefs and embracing the Christ of the Bible for their salvation.
And again, you've built your own trap and snared yourself in it, using intellect rather than the bible.
"of course a Onencesss Pentecostal can receive salvation, in the same way that a pagan can receive salvation. They receive salvation by repudiating their former beliefs and embracing the Christ of the Bible for their salvation."
Salvation is based on belief in Christ being the Son of God!
If you're argument is that simple let's replace Oneness Pentecostal with PuritanReformed and see how it sounds....
@sojourner:
of couse PuritanReformed can receive salvation, in the same way that a pagan can receive salvation. He receives salvation by repudiating his former beliefs and embracing the Christ of the Bible for his salvation.
Ok, Charlie wanted some logic from me, so here we go.... Is it possible that Puritan will die without fully understanding who Christ of the bible is? Of course!!!! We're all being constantly conformed to his image. No one ever "gets" there in full. You only see in part now. So let's say that Purtian has reached a level of 90% full knowledge of the Christ of the bible. Will you then inherit the kingdom? What is the minimum cutoff value or percentage that God has set that allows someone into the kingdom?
The bible says that we're saved by grace alone, but justified by faith alone. If it takes faith to receive salvation, how does this faith fit into your model of a perfectly correct view of who Jesus is in the trinity. Careful,here before you end up telling me that salvation is based on a man's works more so than in his faith that Jesus is the son of God.
I'm REALLY looking forward to this answer. Please use scripture to explain the minimum requirement.
@sojourner:
again, you have yet to prove anything. The FACT of the matter is that Oneness Pentecostalism does NOT believe in Jesus Christ. Their "Christ" is a figment of their own imagination.
Case closed.
There is no scripture to support your assumption that a Oneness Pentecostal can't be saved. Only God can judge someone's salvation.
They are not like Muslims, JW's, or Mormons. They believe in the Jesus of the bible. They just believe that there is only one God and that Jesus was a manifestation of that one God. I reject their idea of God, because I believe in the trinity, but am humble enough to admit that I don't fully understand the trinity in full, and all it's fine inner workings and details. I don't know why Jesus is God in the flesh, but then has to quiet the storm that his sovereign father created? I don't understand why he cries "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." I don't know why it says in Isaiah that God's will to crush his son, although his son is a part of the Godhead himself 3 in 1? I don't understand many things, and yet you do not either.
I'm so thankful that we serve a God that still saves us regardless of our flawed theology. We are saved by his grace alone through faith that he is the son of God and that he died and was resurrected on the third day. That alone is what saves a man. No more, no less.
If someone believes that Jesus is the half-brother of Satan and that he was born on some unknown planet,like Mormons do. This is cause for questioning what Jesus they really believe in. That is a different Jesus then the one clearly explained in the bible.
@sojourner:
well, I think we have heard enough from you, or rather you have persistently refuse to deal with the issue. By refusing to think using your mind, your solo scriptura (me and my Bible in the woods) approach means you refuse to see the logical implication of what you affirm, which is outright blasphemy against the Triune God by saying that God does not have to be triune in order to be still the true God.
This is my last statement to you: Repent of your compromise and anti-intellectualism! On the last day, if you have Oneness Pentecostal friends, you will be held responsible for not warning them of their dire straits and their accusing eyes will be fixed on you as they hear the pronouncement of Christ against them.
Please either begin to address the issue, or stop commenting on this post.
Sojourner, I wasn't going to say anything. But now that you've revealed that you are in fact Arminian and not Reformed as you falsely claimed, much is explained. Arminianism is a heresy because it does not accept the plain teaching of Scripture. Instead, it imposes reason on the text like "God would be unjust if...." Fill in the blank. Basically, you have more in common with atheists and other critics of God's sovereignty as it is revealed in Scripture. But the Apostle Paul already answered that objection:
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:18-21 ESV)
Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 ESV)
Arminianism is also closer to liberalism than to Scripture. Roger Olsen, the patron saint of Arminianism and Open Theism thinks "love" trumps doctrine--even when Scripture says that love and doctrine are inseparable! For example, Olsen thinks that Mormons are Christians and that preaching the Gospel to those who have never heard it on the other side of the earth is completely unnecessary. According to Olson and Arminians, natural theology/revelation in nature is enough to give "saving" knowledge of God. Unfortunately, that is also contradicted by the Apostle Paul:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:18-21 ESV)
For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Romans 10:13-14 ESV)
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:17 ESV)
Frankly, I'm appalled that you would lie about your affiliation as "Reformed". The term Reformed always refers to Calvinism. Arminianism is heresy condemned by the Synod of Dort by the Reformed churches. That indictment still stands today because Scripture testifies against it.
It seems to be a fact that Arminianism leads to liberalism since it is Arminians like yourself who have become practical unitarians--not confessional Calvinists!
By the way, when I used the term "Pentecostal" I meant the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement as a whole since for all practical purposes the two movements are now blended into one. Most Pentecostal churches no longer preach the initial physical evidence doctrine.
Charlie
Reformed Arminian Blog <<< This is the link you provided in your last comment, Sojourner.
The comment at the Arminian blog reads:
How can this be? How is it that we can substitute knowledge about God with really knowing God? The Pharisees certainly do this. Jesus spoke to them in John 5:39-40 when He said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” He goes on in John 8:47 to tell us that if we belong to God, we can hear His voice in the Scriptures and this in turn will lead to faithful and loving obedience to Jesus as Lord (John 14:15; 1 John 2:3-6). We can read the Bible all day, every single day, every single minute but if we don’t seek after Jesus, if we don’t pursue Him with all our hearts, we will be left just as dry and dead as the Pharisees where.
Odd but how can it be that Jesus points the Pharisees back to Scripture if Scripture is not essential to saving faith? And why does Jesus himself coninually quote Scripture? The Pharisees, like the Arminians, read their own reason, tradition and ideas into Scripture while Jesus and the Apostles simply took Scripture by its plain teaching. When the plow boy knows the Bible he knows more than the pope, the Pharisee, and the Arminian together:)
You cannot believe in Christ unless you believe what the Bible teaches about Him: (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9; Acts 4:11-12). To claim to have a "relationship" with Jesus Christ without having any knowledge of Scripture is to be lost (2 Timothy 3:15; 2 Peter 1:19-21; John 12:47-48).
Your plow boy in Christ,
Charlie
Foreward to Saving Faith
Sojourner, the Bible plainly says the Son is the Son of God before His incarnation:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1-2 ESV)
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 ESV)
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (John 1:18 ESV)
Your idea that Jesus is just a "son" and not the eternal Son of God, the 2nd Person of the Godhead, is heresy. It is modalism.
The Bible condemns all who deny the Son of God as the second Person of the Godhead:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. 12 Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete. (2 John 1:7-12 ESV)
Obviously you agree with the heresy of modalism judging from your last comment, Sojourner. It might even be that the "spirit-filled" non-denominational church you once belonged to was in face a oneness church. Fess up?
At any rate, you've lost all credibility here. Arguing with anti-intellectual irrationalists is like trying to reason with a Buddhist. "It's all good." Wrong.
Charlie
The Reformed Arminian Today blog noticeably leaves out the doctrine of the trinity in its statement of faith.
Charlie, ok, you win, I lose. I'm going to hell and you are perfect because you have a seminary degree and can use it to bury people with your knowledge. Congrats!
You're demeanor an attitude is not becoming of an ordained pastor. You can spew off until your blue in the face and the point still stands that this is only a blog post, and that you and I will one day be judged by God alone. Not by your reformed teology, which is a man's perspective on the mind of God. He created the whole universe yet you've found the key to reading all of his truths through Calvin. Awesome ;-)!
I feel comfortable with what I believe which is straight from scripture. Your seminary degree(s) somehow seems to have made you grow in knowledge, but not in the love of Christ. This is actually quite common.
Knowledge without understanding and wisdom has a strange way of often doing just that.
The blog post that I put up basically points to your whole problem. You're utterly convinced that you know Christ through your mind, but you have forgotten to seek him with your heart. It shows by the constant put-downs and snide remarks that you make toward me. I may have made snide remarks as well, but I have not labeled you as a heretic, a liberal/conservative, or as unregenerate.
Much of what I've experienced here is what is wrong with the church today. Too much bickering, not enough listening and an open mind and heart to hear other people's perspectives. Just constant judgement, and an affinity for being right over righteousness. I believe that God finds such behavior detestable and prideful, especially coming from a pastor. You should apologize for speaking to someone in this way. You will be held to a higher standard than I am. Social media is the culprit for much of this reprehensible behavior. You're supposedly a man of the cloth, but in private you curse other men and then in the pulpit you praise the same God with that same tongue. I just don't understand.
You think you can know God through your orthodoxy, but forget that God judges on the heart. Go back and read the book of James.
@sojourner:
your demeanor is not congruent with your profession of "love." Not to mention for the umpteenth time you REFUSE to deal with the biblical issues.
Regardless, this thread is now closed.
Post a Comment