1

And he doesn't affirm an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

Health and wealth "Gospel". The High Life. Can't say the Nicene Creed with a straight face.

To go from Billy Graham to this says all one needs to say about the decline of evangelicalism into mush.

2

Galations1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

3

I agree with iMonk's comment above that there are questions surrounding Jakes's affirmation of the Trinity. A clear understanding of the Trinity is an essential part of the gospel and I do not think that one can claim the mantal of evangelical without embracing the Trinity.

4

Oh my goodness!. Joe, my heart sank when I saw you post Jakes as an evangelical? If he is the face of evangelicals - then I'm not one. (I'm not sure I would be anyway-I'm of the classical reformed position/theology).

I don't mean any disrespect to you, but I had you pegged for a Sola Scriptura fellow.

Great jon iMonk, Greg, and Mel! Althought, this is ONE of the many reasons he is a false teacher.

5

T. D. Jakes has shared the platform at times with Benny Hinn, Richard Roberts, Rod Parsley, Joyce Meyer, Rodney Howard-Browne, and Roberts Liardon. [from article]

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

These people are of the most rank of all heretics to be found (maybe ever). I simply can't stomach these mockers of Christ...

6

Here's my look at Jakes' Oneness theology. I'm not as opposed to his Pentecostal background as a few of the other readers; I'm not quite ready to put him into cult status.

His Oneness theology isn't the same as Unitarian Universalist thought, which teaches that Jesus was just a man and not important for salvation. Jakes seems to teach fairly orthodox Christian thought (with a Pentecostal spin) with the exception of looking at the Godhead as three manifestations rather than three persons.

I disagree with that take, which seems to flow from the KVJ using manifest a few times two many when appear would have been better, as well as taking the two baptismal formulas to baptise "in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit" and "in Jesus' name" to mean that the name of God is Jesus.

7

The manifsestations vs. persons distinction is not a minor matter. The "manifestations" view is that God merely shows Himself in different ways--he wears different hats, so to speak. That's modalism, or Sabellianism, and it cuts to the heart of the Christian faith.

Modalism claims that there's no internal distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction only exists in His relationship to man.

The fact that the evangelical church can largely shrug its shoulders at this heresy these days says a lot about the evangelical church. If modalism isn't cultic, then there's no such thing as cultic.

8

One point of clarification. I am not at all opposed to Jakes's pentecostalism or pentecostalism in general as Mark seems to assume. It should be shouted from the housetops that Pentecostalism is very different (and very orthodox) from Oneness Pentecostalism which is not at all orthodox. It is Jakes's take on the Trinity in general that I am opposed to.

Greg

9

You gentlemen beat me to the punch. I'll have to get up earlier...

Every heresy begins with a misconception about the nature of God. Jakes will not admit to modalism, but that's what it boils down to.

Stand up, O men of God, and defend the true Gospel. I admire all of you.

10

Imonk And he doesn't affirm an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

As Dr. Byron points out in his excellent post, Jakes problem is a reliance on the KJV for his idea of the trinity. Is it bad theology? Yeah, I’d say so. But Jakes, like Billy Graham, is known for his preaching not his role as a systematic theologian.

To go from Billy Graham to this says all one needs to say about the decline of evangelicalism into mush.

While I love Dr. Graham, we should keep in mind that he isn’t exactly the most orthodox preacher either. He agrees with a form of universalism that is rather suspect and certainly not “orthodox.”

CDM: Oh my goodness!. Joe, my heart sank when I saw you post Jakes as an evangelical?

Let me first clarify that the purpose of this series is to cast some light on the more prominent evangelicals that both believers and non-believers might have heard about but do not know that well. By including them in this series I am not implying that I agree with their views or that I support what they stand for.

That being said, I am troubled when people (like my friend Puzzled, for example) try to draw a tight circle around who is and is not a genuine “evangelical.” As I see it, evangelicalism is like a family. And like any family you have your black sheep, crazy uncles, curmudgeonly grandfathers and others that you might not be thrilled to be associated with. Still, they are your family so you try to make the best of the situation.

While I won’t include anyone I know is an apostate, I am careful not to exclude someone just because they are, in my opinion, “borderline heretics.” (After all, Billy Graham could be lumped in that category too.) In fact, if I were to weed out everyone I have a disagreement with the only people I would claim to be evangelicals would be me and Jonathan Edwards.

If he is the face of evangelicals - then I'm not one. (I'm not sure I would be anyway-I'm of the classical reformed position/theology).

Classical reformed evangelicals (like me) are the best type. ; )

I don't mean any disrespect to you, but I had you pegged for a Sola Scriptura fellow.

I’m “Sola Scriptura” as far as that being all that is required for salvation. But if you mean that would exclude any meaningful religious experiences as an important part of faith, then that is not me.

As for doctrine, we should keep in mind that Jakes' view is based on a “sola scriptura” interpretation of the KJV while we Trinitarians derive our understanding from the early church fathers (esp. Augustine).

John R. The manifsestations vs. persons distinction is not a minor matter.

I completely agree. And while I don’t want to defend Jakes too adamantly, I think his view is based more on a theologically immature view of scripture than an acceptance of modalism. We hear “manifestation” and think of “oneness theology” while Jakes (as he claims) just sees it as what the KJV says.

Every heresy begins with a misconception about the nature of God.

Again I agree, but I think we need to see how Jakes’ view leads to heresy rather just assume it does. I’m no expert on his teaching so it very well may do so. But I don’t think we should automatically assume it does.

WinsomeJakes will not admit to modalism, but that's what it boils down to.

Perhaps, but I think it is more likely that Jakes just isn’t a very sound theologian.

Note to Ambra: I followed your suggestion and included an “evangelical of color” and look where it got me. Thanks! Next time just give me a name of someone I should include that way I can pass the blame to someone else. ; )

11

The sense I got from the Christian Research Journal cover story expose that was done on him a couple years ago was that Jakes is at worst a heretic and at best is theologically unsophisticated. His denominational history is mixed (part Oneness Pentacostal and I think part Baptist). He doesn't flat out deny the Trinity like his fellow Oneness Pentacostals, but he also couldn't explain it correctly to save his life (i.e. still talks about 3 "manifestations" instead of persons, which would be a purposeful restatement of the heresy of modalism if indeed he actually has any clue what he's talking about). Personally, I don't know that I would ultimately trust a pastor very much if he is so theologically shallow that he's never even taken the time to get a basic understanding of the Trinity. I argued with a relative once who said, "It doesn't matter if he knows what the Trinity is, just look how God has blessed his ministry". Yeah, He's blessed it just like He's blessed Jakes's buddies Benny Hinn, Ken Copeland, et al.

12

As a non believer (former believer?) I am constantly amazed at this trinity doctrine. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now. I once had a minister respond to my question with; "I don't understand how a black cow can eat green grass, that gives white milk that turns into yellow butter, but it happens". If believers can not give a "reasonable" explanation of this trinity, why do they consider those who do not subscribe to it as heretics? I was once a bible believing Baptist. The trinity was a part of my belief. I was given a book to read, authored by a United Pentecostal. In it he gave a very good defense against the doctrine of the trinity. His explanation made much more sense than cows, grass, milk, and butter.

"A Trinitarian believes that a virgin is the mother of the man who created her."

"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything. Just give him time to rationalize it."

13

It might sound like modalism, but Jakes says it isn't.

The language in the doctrinal statement of our ministry that refers to the Trinity of the Godhead as "manifestations" does not derive from modalism. The Apostle Paul himself used this term referring to the Godhead in 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 12:7, and 1 John 3:5-8. Peter also used the term in 1 Peter 1:20. Can this word now be heresy when it is a direct quote from the Pauline epistles and used elsewhere in the New Testament?

Pseudomodalism, maybe?

14

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:9

15

In my admittedly falliable opinion, I think it is pretty silly of any of us to rake someone else over the coals for arriving at a different way to conceptualize the Trinity.

Modalism claims that there's no internal distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction only exists in His relationship to man.

And just how does this make a difference TO US? Serious question! If God is incomprehensibly large, complex, etc.; if His ways are really higher than ours, and His thoughts higher than ours (and I believe all these things to be precisely the case, by the way), then just exactly how do we know that the three persons of the Godhead are not just three modes or presentations of the same being? Otherwise, would they not be three Gods instead of one God? The "God wearing different hats" analogy in someone's earlier post was referenced as if were a ridiculous idea, but how is it different from the three-persons-equals-one-God position, in which the word "God" might not be used to describe a Being but might refer to a committee (sp?) instead, like the word "Congress". I mean, He certainly has the multi-tasking thing down COLD, so....

I really am asking this as a clarification between the two positions, because I don't see why either position would be prohibitive to a normal, human-level-and-therefore-limited understanding of God, nor why one proponents of one interpretation of such a vaguely defined, difficult to understand concept as the Trinity should feel justified in labelling others as heretics. I could see it if it was a "Jesus didn't die on the cross" sort of argument, but it isn't; it is one of the most vague "doctrines" in all of Christianity. How does it hereticize anyone?

16

oooops, missing quote, which should have read:

"Modalism claims that there's no internal distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but that this distinction only exists in His relationship to man."

Please insert that in place of the "

17

Re: an evangelical of color

Joe, what about Tony Evans? Ain't he from your neck of the woods?
He seems at least a better choice than T.D. Jakes.

---
I think the Trinity is the easiest doctrine to get wrong; it is dangerously easy for finite minds to slip into error while "explaining" the nature of the Infinite.
Oftentimes, too, someone can believe the right thing about the Trinity while describing it with the wrong words.

Where Jakes fits into that, I don't know, but I've always understood him to be a modalist. If he personally does not claim that view, I suppose we should take him at his word. But examining what he does say about the Trinity might be the best place to start. The church fathers did not have the KJV Bible from which to "get their Trinitarian views." Perhaps we should look to their understandings as guidance on that doctrine, not how 15th century Brits (well-meaning, all) translated Greek words.

18

Lets not blame the KJV for Jakes' errors. Quite a few of us have used the KJV over the years (centuries) without the need to abandon the traditional (correct) view of the Trinity.

For the record, I am not a "KJ-only" person. I recognize some of its problems and mistakes.

However, I am tired of the KJV being blamed for lazy hermeneutics or downright heresy by man.

19

Good point, Steve.

20

Would setting up a dividing line between "aberrant" and "heretical" be helpful here?

"Aberrant" can still be considered within the pale of acceptable teaching: many admired evangelicals can be corraled here; "heretical," by its very definition, certainly cannot.

If we can draw that line, we can then ask, is Jakes' "manifestations" teaching about the Godhead, from wherever it comes, simply aberrant, or truly heretial? What separates it, in kind, from what Jehovah's Witnesses believe concerning Jesus being a created being, not the pre-existing Creator (to use just one example of a "Nature of God" doctrine clearly rejected by professing Christians)?

Apostolic Christianity says that the JW doesn't worship the same God, in essence (and I do mean essence), that the trinitarian does. The question is, does Jakes? And of more import, do his followers?

21

BTW, the JW doctrine seems to come from the same kind of mistaken understanding from a KJV reading: "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 being rendered as "first-born," understanding that to teach Christ as the first created being, instead of describing Jesus' pre-emminent involvement in the Creation, which is the orthodox teaching.

22

Winsome, actually the word "firstborn" in that verse is used in the KJV, NASB, NIV, and NKJV.

It has nothing to do with the KJV translation.

I think we can agree that anyone who attempts to define their theology from any translation, as opposed to the original languages, really has no business being in the pulpit...no matter how big one's church might be.

Especially when taking a unique view on something as substantial (and quite frankly, settled) as the Trinity.

23

I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't understand the difference between "modalism" and the "traditional" view of the Trinity. They sound like two different ways of describing the same quality of God to me. Apparently from the discussion this is not the case........why not? is what I was asking.

24

Steve, you are correct about "first-born" being in many translations, and maybe it isn't the greatest illustration of my point, so I'll parade it out naked:

1. If we're not Biblically well-read enough, we will not be able to use scripture to interpret scripture when more than one conclusion is possible.
2. If we're intellectually lazy in our Bible reading (i.,e., we don't care to do the comparison of scripture implied above), we can come to inaccurate conceptions about the nature of God.
3. Misconceptions about the nature of God lead to aberrant or heretical teaching.
4. Heretical teaching leads people away from the true God instead of toward Him.

Now: is Jakes merely aberrant, or heretical, when he denies a distinctly tri-person Godhead?

25

Joe, you really go for the non-Evangelicals to promote as Evangelicals. What is your agenda?

Jakes isn't even a *Christian*.

Let him be anathema.

26

Joe, again, you choose to take a word and term that has been in use for decades and decide to give it your own meaning, which is contrary to what they meant.

Dr. Schaeffer, whom you claim to admire, warned of this in his deathbed book _The Great Evangelical Disaster_.

Jakes is not a Christian, and he teaches the doctrines of the Nicolaitans.

I'm sorry Joe, but words mean things. You can't change them to mean whatever you want and still claim to be an honest man.

27

"An evangelical "of color"". Good night. And the heresiarch Jakes is the best Carter can do? How about St. Athanasios? Or was he not dark enough to have color? How about Archbishop Bernard Malango? Or Saint Benedict the Moor, or The Most Revd Henry Luke Orombi, Primate of Uganda, Bishop Joseph M. Kanuku, or all of these evangelical leaders in Nigeria:

The Most Revd. P. J. Akinola
The Most Revd. M. S. C. Anikwenwa
The Most Revd. E. A. Ademowo
The Most Revd. J. I. Fearon
The Most Revd. E. K. Mani
The Most Revd. E. E. Nglass
The Most Revd. A. A. Agbaje
The Most Revd. Bennett Okoro
The Most Revd. S. A. Abe
The Most Revd. J. Akinfenwa
The Rt. Revd. Nathaniel Yisa
The Rt. Revd. William Diya
The Rt. Revd. J. S. Kwasu
The Rt. Revd. N. N. Inyom
The Rt. Revd. C. O. Efobi
The Rt. Revd. E. O. Chukwuma
The Rt. Revd. C. B. Oloniyo
The Rt. Revd. Nathaniel Enuku
The Rt. Revd. Ben Kwashi
The Rt. Revd. P. A. Adebiyi
The Rt. Revd. Alfred Nwaizuzu
The Rt. Revd. Ugochukwu U. Ezuoke
The Rt. Revd. Uju Obinya
The Rt. Revd. Jonah Ilonuba
The Rt. Revd. George Bako
The Rt. Revd. M. O. Owadayo
The Rt. Revd. J. Akin Omoyajowo
The Rt. Revd. J. O. Fabuluje
The Rt. Revd. Peter Onekpe
The Rt. Revd. G. I. N. Okpala
The Rt. Revd. E. U. Iheagwam
The Rt. Revd. Gabriel H. Pepple
The Rt. Revd. E. E. Akanya
The Rt. Revd. Yusuf I. Lumu
The Rt. Revd. D. A. Yisa
The Rt. Revd. T. Samari Aduda
The Rt. Revd. Zakka L. Nyam
The Rt. Revd. B. C. B. Onyeibor
The Rt. Revd. Ali B. Lamido

The Rt. Revd. V.O. Muoghereh
The Rt. Revd. L. Ereaku
The Rt. Revd. 'Segun Okubadejo
The Rt. Revd. 'Tunji Lasebikan
The Rt. Revd. Gabriel Akinbiyi
The Rt. Revd. Cyril Okorocha
The Rt. Revd. Godson Echefu
The Rt. Revd. Olu Akinyemi
The Rt. Revd. Amos Madu
The Rt. Revd. Jacob Ajetunmobi
The Rt. Revd. Bright Ogu
The Rt. Revd. Caleb A. Maduoma
The Rt. Revd. Olubayo Obijole
The Rt. Revd. Samuel Oke
The Rt. Revd. Adolphus Amabebe
The Rt. Revd. Babatunde Adeleye
The Rt. Revd. Simon Bala
The Rt. Revd. Henry Ndukuba
The Rt. Revd. Miller Maza
The Rt. Revd. Jonah Kolo
The Rt. Revd. Jonathan Edewor
The Rt. Revd. James Oladunjoye
The Rt. Revd. Nathaniel Fasogbon
The Rt. Revd. Simon Mutum
The Rt. Revd. Ignatius Katey
The Rt. Revd. Samuel O. Sowale
The Rt. Revd. Michael O. Ipinmoye
The Rt. Revd. Nicholas D. Okoh
The Rt. Revd. Abednego A. Edionwe
The Rt. Revd. J. Ebunoluwa Ogunele
The Rt. Revd. Emmanuel Egbunu
The Rt. Revd. Ikechi Nwosu
The Rt. Revd. F. John Imaekhai
The Rt. Revd. Samuel S. Olayanju
The Rt. Revd. Peter J. Imasuen
The Rt. Revd. Michael O. Fape
The Rt. Revd David K. Bello
The Rt. Revd. Tubokosemie Abere
The Rt. Revd. Jacob O. Fasipe

28

Puzzled,

Joe, you really go for the non-Evangelicals to promote as Evangelicals. What is your agenda?

I know this might come as a surprise, but you are not the arbiter of who is and is not an "evangelical."

Dr. Schaeffer, whom you claim to admire, warned of this in his deathbed book _The Great Evangelical Disaster_.

Jake's view of scripture meets all the criteria that Schaeffer set forth in that book. Why do you claim otherwise?

Jakes is not a Christian,...

If I were you I would be careful about who you judge to be a Christian. Jesus condemned calling people "fools" so how much more must he hate when we claim taht our fellow brethern are not Christians?

...and he teaches the doctrines of the Nicolaitans.

Since no one knows what the "doctrines" taught by the Nicolaitans actually were, that is quite a claim you are making?

And the heresiarch Jakes is the best Carter can do? How about St. Athanasios? Or was he not dark enough to have color? How about Archbishop Bernard Malango? Or Saint Benedict the Moor, or The Most Revd Henry Luke Orombi, Primate of Uganda, Bishop Joseph M. Kanuku, or all of these evangelical leaders in Nigeria:

As I've said before, the purpose of this series is to provide background on modern evanglicals whose name pop up in the media. None of the Nigerian leaders you mention fit that criteria.

29

The effectiveness of his ministry also makes it clear that his motives are certainly genuine and godly. Jakes is the real deal. And evangelicalism if better for having him on our team.

Joe, Joe, Joe. . . I can't believe you wrote the above two sentences. Honestly, please tell me you had at least a little sarcasm in your fingers as you typed that.

30

TulipGirl,

I'll admit that I know more about Jakes' works than his theology. Being from the same area as he is I probably cut him more slack than he warrants because of all the good that he does in the community.

Unfortunately, I have a tendency to focus more on having the right doctrines than serving my fellow man. So I have a deep admiration for Christians who truly do what Christ commands even when they might otherwise fall short of the mark.

31

Joe,

I'll vouch for Jakes. I can find issues theologically with every last one of those you've listed (Jakes included). However, if the topic is really KNOW your evangelicals, then Jakes was surely one to mention. He's postured to have more influence right now than any other preacher. This being the case, everyone should know about him, his doctrine, theology, just as much as anyone else.

And my how I could have predicted people asking why you didn't choose Tony Evans. He's the choice black evangelical among many white Christians. This doesn't take anything away from the fact that he's a man of God, however my ability to predict this speaks to something larger.

Anyway, I'll keep that to myself...as you were soliders. I thought it was a good move Joe, don't be bothered with public thought. That's what a blog is for, to ruffle some feathers.

32

Even more controversy than Dobson!

33

Mr. Jakes is not a thinker he "emotes" using powerful emotion as his vheicle of communication. His "mail order" theology degree(s) are only worth the VISA bill that he paid for them.