has t d jakes actually become a trinitarian

in this article i want to assess some of the statements made by t d jakes on the elephant room, where he made the claim that he had moved away from the oneness perspective to the tinitarian perspective of God ... but the question that needs to be addessed which has been asked by many .. and needs to be considered by every christian is this .. does jakes own words betray himself as a false proclamation

the first statement that needs to be mentioned here is this one

"I began to realize that there are some things that could be said about the Father that could not be said about the Son," Jakes said. "There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and the working of the redemptive work of Christ. I'm very comfortable with that." [See the transcript of Jakes' comments at the end of this story.]

Driscoll: "Do you believe this is the perfect, inspired, final authority Word of God?" [Driscoll held up a Bible.]
Jakes: "Absolutely."
Driscoll: "So you believe there's one God, three Persons -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit? You believe Jesus was fully God, fully Man?"
Jakes: "Absolutely."
Driscoll: "You believe He died on the cross in our place for our sins?"
Jakes: "Absolutely."
Driscoll: "You believe He bodily rose from death?"
Jakes: "Absolutely."
Driscoll: "You believe that He is the judge of the living and the dead?"
Jakes: "Yes."
Driscoll: "And you believe that apart from Jesus there is no salvation?"
Jakes: "Absolutely."

RESPONSE

in this we must note that his background is one that denies the trinity and affirms the oneness veiw which is anti - biblical in nature .. what we must take note of here is that the questions asked are not the correct ones ....
as he can confirm and does that believes in the trinity now, but all the while still have a modalistic veiw in his mind .. which will become apparent

the question to ask is do you t d jakes affirm that God has revealed himself in the person of the father, the person of the son, and the person of the holy spirit .. at the same time ... they have eternally existed as three distinct persons .. and are co - equal and co eternal ... and yet share the one being of God
and do you believe that Jesus christ is the God man ... who at the same time in his earthly existence .. was both and is both to his natures .. 100 % deity and 100% humanity

here are the two most important things that can not be said of the father .. and that are only true of the son
1 -- the son alone entered into time and space as a real tangible man
2 -- the son alone is the one of died for mans sins
none of these things are ever attributed to the father , nor the spirit ... as they are alone the point of redemption that the son took upon himself
now does that mean the father and the spirit had no imput in the incarnation or the atonement .. yes they did .. they both have different functions in both acts

the questions asked by driscoll can all be answered by modalist like jakes ... with only slight twisting of the term persons into manifestation that are personal ... and this is what will happen as time will reveal


the next statements are very revealing to us

Driscoll: ... We all would agree in the nature of God there is mystery, and it's like a dimmer switch: how much certainty, how much mystery. But within that, Bishop Jakes, for you the issue between Trinitarianism and Modalism at its essence is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God three persons simultaneously existing eternally. ... And I understand, there is some mystery -- for sure. Would you say it's One God manifesting Himself in three ways, or One God in three persons?

Jakes: I believe that neither one of them totally did it for me, but I think the latter one is where I stand today.

Driscoll: One God, three Persons?

Jakes: One God, three Persons. One God, Three Persons, and here is why -- I am not crazy about the word "persons." ... My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except for the ...

Driscoll: The word "manifestation."

Jakes: Manifest instead of persons. Which you describe as modalist, and I describe it as Pauline. Let me show you what I'm saying. When I read 1 Timothy 3:16, I didn't create this. ... "And without controversy," which I think we have been bickering about something that is what Paul describes as a mystery, and I don't think we should do that. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. So God was manifest in the flesh." Now Paul was not a modalist, but he does not think that it is robbery to the divinity of God to say God was manifest in the flesh. And I think maybe it's semantics. But Paul says this before this fight was started. But He also says God "was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached until the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory." Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think that it is important that we realize that there are distinctives between the Father and the working of the Son. The Father didn't bleed, the Father didn't die -- [that happened] only in the person of Jesus Christ. Coming back for us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has with us, but only indwells us through the person of the Holy Spirit; we are baptized into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't think any of that is objectionable to any of the three of us.


RESPONSE

this section of the discussion is an important focus on what Jakes believes .. being one thing... and what he is saying, being a completely different stance to his beliefs
for example ... this statement " I am not crazy about the word "persons." ... My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except for the ... "  ... his redefinition comes through plainly

he admits the dislking of the term persons ... and says he much prefers the term manifestations .. the problem is that of God has manifested his appearence on occasion in the history of mankind .. these are called theophanies .. but this is different from the way he has existed in his own form .. as three personal distinctions ...
and this is the problem ... the term "person" does not mean a human when being used to describe the manner of his existence rather is being employed to describe the characteristics .. which are seen three distinct persons

the scriptural use of "1 Timothy 3:16" .. this is a bad place for us to start with since this is the token verse which all oneness use to prove their false idealist doctrine ... and in doing so jakes shows he does not hold to trinitarian beliefs .. but is willing to dupe the listener into his deception
the verse "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

the problem with this one verse it speaks nothing of the trinity at all .. since it is just saying God was seen in the flesh .. or was revealed through the proclamation of the gospel ... in a way this could be referring to man after redemption .. every believer has the desire to be seen in light christs work in their life by the spirit .. in fact this understaning would be very in line with the whole passage which reads
"I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that,  if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

there other more trinitarian style passages that could be used to show that he has truly become one, and this verse is not one of those .. if we follow pauls thoughts through both letters to timothy .. we see that there may be some discussion of Gods being or nature, but the major issue paul is addressing is the daily christian life being transform by sound doctrine

one verse I believe the trinity is demonstrated in is .. titus 3 :4 -7 which reads

"But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, ⁵ he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life"

the next setion of the talk is very revealing too

Jakes: Let me just make one little comment: One of the things that you said at the end, even as we talked about it before, and I've heard Jack Graham say this, too, that there is going to be one throne and there's going to be one God we can see. And I thought the more I hear everybody arguing about this, we're all saying the same thing. And we like fight about it to the death, and I just think that in the world that we're living in today, if we could just connect, and I know that there will always be distracters and there will always be people who define themselves by their differences rather than their connections, who are more comfortable with being known by what they are against than by what they are for. But when I hear you say that there's going to be one throne and one God on that throne, My soul leaps in celebration, and I hear both of us stumbling trying to explain how God does what He does like He does. I think THAT stumbling is worship. I think THAT stumbling is worship. I think the fact that we would humble ourselves and say, "Your thoughts and ways are beyond human comprehension" is what makes worship fill the room.

RESPONSE

here is the very heart of the issue are we all as Jakes claims "And I thought the more I hear everybody arguing about this, we're all saying the same thing" ... sure we may say something to same effect, but how we arrive there is two completely different routs ... the tinitarian will allow all scripture to speak for itself, while the oneness advocate will limit themselves only to what is in agreement with thier tradition, and will either redefine scripture to allow thier tradition fit, or will ignore scripture in totality

sure there is one thrown, one God ... but who is this one God that we "all" claim to believe in, worship and adore ... is the God in the scriptures who is revealed himself as a triune being, or is one that we make up to run away from the real reality of God

it is those differences that makes the faith what it is .. are to assume that T D Jakes will allow for mormons and jehovah witness' to worship his God at his place of worship ... even though they both disagree with the biblical truth in regard to who God is ?
what about the muslim, hindu and any other faith
are we not just worshipping the same God in different ways.. or are they all worshipping different gods on the path of distruction

if one has the wrong concept of God .. then they serve a false god no matter how happy they may appear to be ?

here we have a small segment of one of his speeches in this interveiw

My struggle after I was ordained and consecrated in the Oneness church was in several passages, sometimes the doctrine fits; sometimes it doesn't. And when the doctrine becomes the primary thing you force it into many places where it doesn't fit

we will end this article on an interesting note .. that helps us to see something in clear light .. above we see him taking a passage from 1 timothy 3 .. which speaks on the role of the church, and here we see jakes say "we dont want force something into a text"  .. and what we see is him doing just this thing forcing the trinity where it is not addressed
this makes him guilty of the thing he claims we should not so .. a double standard in the works

conclusion

based on the above statements and many other t d jakes related presentations i have had time to research we find the man is not Godly .. as he is of a veiw that God wants man to be happy, fulfilled, rich and so forth known as the prosperity gospel movement that is preached by mega churches ...
people such as the men like joel osteen, and women like joyce meyer who pervert the gospel truth by appealing what man wants and never tell us what God wants

and here we see JAKES is pandering to universal wanting .. he is a oneness by statements he makes, and yet want to reach new audiences by claiming to be a trinitarian -- and he uses the favourate proof text of oneness .. 1 timothy 3 :16