See also:

T.D. JAKES HAS TIES TO “RABBI” RALPH MESSER

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: T.D. JAKES AND PAULA WHITE

T.D. JAKES’ SPIRITUAL DAUGHTER PAULA WHITE TEACHING WORD FAITH POSITIVE CONFESSION 6-26-2011

Print this entry

By Tom Chantry, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, used with permission.
This is a repost of an original article on CRBC Pastoral blog

So.

A few weeks ago there was a conference. Way back when the participants were announced, concerns were voiced about one of them being a modalistic heretic and word-of-faith shill. Those who expressed this concern were dismissed as haters who never want to listen to a man before they decide what he believes. They were told that it was wrong to oppose his being called a “brother” because, after all, he’s an American. Nevertheless, they insisted that since everyone knows what “brother” means in a Christian context this was still something of a problem. The purpose statement was adjusted accordingly; the invitation list was not.

The conference went on as scheduled. Twenty-six minutes were set aside to discuss the Trinity, which is twenty-six more than were reserved to address the prosperity gospel. Most of those minutes were spent mocking the very idea of theological clarity. The heretic answered “yes” to a list of easy questions – all the while reserving the right to clarify his answers with the old heretical terminology – and then his two purportedly orthodox questioners declared his answers sufficient and proceeded to explain that what the church needs now is love sweet love.

As bad as the conference was, it proved tame in comparison to the defense offered after the fact. When Christendom failed to confirm the proclamation of orthodoxy which had been made, the host of the conference, together with a few of his friends, said: Hey, you’re all racists – except those of you who happen to be black, you’re sell-outs.

While you let that sink in, contemplate this: we’re the haters!

Are you stunned? Taken by surprise? Are you left breathlessly asking, “Wh…wha…what just happened?” How could men whom we thought were trustworthy and doctrinally sound have perpetrated such a crime upon the church? How did it ever come to this? Why would they choose this particularly destructive course of action? I realize that as soon as that last question is asked, some will say that we are wrong to judge motives. This would be true if we were guessing, but in this case no guesswork is required. We’ll just stick to the documented evidence.

In order to explain this sad, ugly train-wreck, let me take you back to the beginning and ask – again – a question which has thus far been ignored. When my attention was first directed to the Elephant Room, I noticed an odd detail in the Purpose Statement – and yes, this is one of the bits that never got edited out. The curious words were, “Fidelity and fruitfulness, both matter.”

Now as soon as I saw that I began to wonder about it. It’s a catchy, alliterative statement, but it seems to suggest that fidelity and fruitfulness don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand. If you aren’t careful, your pursuit of the one might drive out the other. In other words this is a matter of balance: don’t love fidelity too much, lest you lose fruitfulness, and vice versa. Now in order for that to be true, either “fruitfulness” or “fidelity” must be defined in some extra-biblical way. Biblical fruit always results from biblical fidelity. Any sort of fruit which even could be in opposition to true fidelity is not real fruit.

I went so far as to ask James MacDonald what “fruitfulness” means in an Open Letter. I wrote:

The Elephant Room Purpose Statement speaks of fidelity and fruitfulness; do you understand “fruitfulness” to be something judged by the size of a congregation, or does that concept mean more? Are fidelity and fruitfulness opposing poles between which we must find “a new center,” or is fruitfulness defined and determined by fidelity?

To be fair, that question appeared in a longer post calling into question the youth ministry at Harvest Bible Chapel, a ministry which I know (I’m going to use the word biblically now) by its fruit. What happened next was that dozens of employees of Harvest and its satellites created blogger profiles and swamped the comment thread with assertions that I was not telling the truth. (So no, I wasn’t surprised when Ken Silva revealed that HBC sends out talking-points memos!) In the midst of the ensuing firestorm, the question was never answered. What exactly are the parameters of “fruitfulness”?

In the absence of any attempt to define terms, I was left to speculate that “fruitful” was being used to describe anyone with an astonishingly huge church. This conclusion was not reached in a vacuum; the guest-list at the Elephant Room II seemed to bear it out. “Fruit” appeared to mean “followers.” If you are a massive, multi-site ministerial mogul, you’re quite “fruitful.”

Now that the conference has played out we may ask two questions.

First, was this understanding of what James MacDonald means by “fruitful” born out in the Elephant Room? And second, how far does this misconception go toward explaining the entire debacle? The transcript of the event supplies us with the answers to both questions.

Let’s begin here:

Driscoll: [to Jakes] I want to say a couple of things. Thank you for joining us. You don’t have to be there. You were on the cover of Time magazine. You have options of where you go.

MacDonald: This isn’t your biggest gig ever?

Driscoll: It takes a lot of courage and humility to put yourself in an unscripted situation and to be outside of your normal crowd. And the fact you showed up to dinner last night, I was shocked. I was like, “T.D. Jakes is coming for dinner?” I loved you. I enjoyed you. I really appreciated hearing the story of your context, your family. And I walked away going, “I appreciate meeting and knowing and enjoying that man.” Thank you for being gracious; thank you for being courageous; thank you for being humble. [emphasis added]

Now the end of that may have been laying it on a bit thick, but to some degree I understand what Driscoll and MacDonald were saying. Jakes didn’t have to come. However, in light of what MacDonald saidlater in the day – words that are suggestive, at least, of the possibility that his primary means of testing orthodoxy is to hang out with big-name preachers and see whether he enjoys their company – given that, it was a little disconcerting all the same. But there was more:

MacDonald: Just, that was crazy! I’ve just got to say, I am so weary of people thinking they know – they don’t know! I think you honor us and you humble us, a man of your stature and commitment to the gospel and fruitfulness would come and sit with us in this room, let you and me ask him what he believes? Like he’s getting baptized or something? We got a one-A battery [indicates self], a two-A battery [indicates Driscoll] and a whole…

Driscoll: A nuclear power plant?

MacDonald: Thank you. I just want to say this, I think you’ve honored us, and you’ve shown incredible humility, and I want to be in the world where I believe that Jesus Christ stands. [emphasis added]

This is the money quote. Much attention has been paid to it, and for good reason. MacDonald’s enthusiasm here follows Jakes assertion of anemic, minimalist theological bullet-points which in no way revised his previous statements. What interests me, though, is the reason why MacDonald is so excited.

He mentions three things about Jakes here. First, his “stature.” That’s right, Jakes was on the cover of Time, and MacDonald is thrilled to have him there – as though somehow his stature in the eyes of the world renders him exempt from theological questioning. Second, his “commitment to the gospel.” This is an intriguing category to bring up, given that absolutely no attention was paid to the preaching of T.D. Jakes during the Elephant Room. One wonders exactly how Jakes’ pleas for seed offerings demonstrate “commitment to the gospel.” But then, finally, MacDonald returns to one of his favorite words: “fruitfulness.”

The meaning of this is at last fleshed out for us. When it comes to fruitfulness, Macdonald and Driscoll are to Jakes as a couple of small batteries are to a nuclear power plant. I think I’m on solid ground when I speculate that MacDonald isn’t presuming to talk about fruits of holiness or fruits of repentance here. There are only two things he can reasonably be assumed to mean: personal income or size of ministry – and we should charitably assume he means the latter. In fact, his summation of this session demonstrates exactly that:

I’d just like to reiterate the theme that you’ve talked about, the theme that you’ve talked about, and here’s a couple of things. 6000 churches in North America close their doors every year. 3500 Americans leave the church every day. I don’t mean leave the church to go across town to the other church. I mean, “I’m done with this.” Alright? Less than 20% of Americans attend church regularly. Only 15% of churches in the US are growing numerically. Only 15%, and only 2% of those are growing by conversion. We have a massive problem. The church of Jesus Christ in North America is hemorrhaging. It is in a freefall. We will be – and some of these successful churches can cause us to be confused about the true state of things. Steven Furtick’s baptizing a lot of people; that’s not going on in a lot of places. The church is hemorrhaging massively; it’s in a freefall. We need to wake up and figure out that the constant negative, destructive rhetoric is hurting the church; it’s not helping it. [emphasis added]

So there you have it. Everyone needs to shut up about needless stuff like doctrinal precision because the church is shrinking. Thank goodness for fruitful guys like Steven Furtick! It’s all about the numbers. Only those with massive ministries can possibly be big enough and fruitful enough to admonish the likes of MacDonald and his co-host, Mark Driscoll. Think I’m being unfair? Consider what Driscoll saidhe learned from the Elephant Room:

I did not grow up in an evangelical church. I was saved at 19 and planted a church at 25, which was too early, as I was not ready. The church I pastor is the only church of which I’ve ever been a member. Mars Hill has grown by 5,000 in a recent two-week time period, and we are now 15,000 people a week!

I say that not to brag, but to show how wonderfully complex it is to try and steward so much of God’s grace and so many people. Nothing changes until the leader changes, and I have a lot to learn. While I can and do learn a lot theologically from my tribe, the truth is there are not many evangelistically fruitful churches in my tribe and there are not any churches larger than ours I can learn from. So, I have to go outside of my theological tribe to learn certain things.

Go away, little people. You’re not fruitful enough to tell me about certain things.

Astounding, isn’t it? But then, even more than MacDonald, Driscoll is not known for his reserve. If he thinks something absolutely outrageous, he’ll eventually come right out and say it.

So now we understand “fruitful” – it means you win lots of converts. Two quick observations are in order if we would evaluate this biblically. First, you can search high and low for this usage of “fruit” in Scripture. The Bible talks about the fruit of the Spirit, the fruit of righteousness, and fruit in keeping with repentance, but never about the fruit of enormous ecclesiastical empires.

Second, the Bible expressly warns us against assuming that large numbers are indicative of true fruitfulness. In the Parable of the Sower Jesus warned that only some apparent converts will ever produce fruit – many will fall away at the first trial while others will be choked by worldliness. No sooner had He explained this parable than He told the Parable of the Weeds, in which we learn that genuine fruitful Christians are not always easily distinguishable from false, hypocritical children of the world.

It would seem, then, that Scripture warns us to have a sober caution about large numbers. This is a warning which Driscoll and MacDonald simply ignore. MacDonald speaks of Jakes’ “commitment to the gospel” without inquiring at all into what the man actually preaches. Such questions seem to be immaterial; apparently you just don’t ask how “a nuclear power plant” produces all that energy.

The conclusion is clear: whatever MacDonald once was, however Driscoll presents himself – these men have become obsessed with large numbers. Having enormous congregations themselves, they will not admit any other criteria for the evaluation of ministries. They are not willing to listen to the reproof and admonition of anyone with a smaller ministry. They are willing to embrace a rank heretic and snake-oil salesmen and to cover his doctrinal nakedness with the cloak of evangelical respectability, provided only that they get to sit on stage with someone – anyone, it would appear – who has a larger church than their own.

So, what happened? Simply put: this elephant died from an acute case of idolatry – specifically the very modern form of idolatry which worships crowds, energy, and supposed influence. Its rotting carcass is a cautionary tale to us all: be careful not to love success more than truth.

That misplaced love is not only unwise; it runs headlong against all of Scripture’s warnings. It is not only uncharitable; it demonstrates a heartless disregard for the confused souls who have been misled by false teaching. It is not only distressing; it is disqualifying. These men should no longer be considered faithful ministers of the gospel. They simply cannot be trusted.

The original appears complete with a comments section for you to join the discussion right here.

See also:

CLEANING UP AFTER THE ELEPHANTS? JAMES MACDONALD TAKES TO THE AIRWAVES

T.D. JAKES HAS TIES TO “RABBI” RALPH MESSER

PAULA WHITE LESS THAN TRUTHFUL REGARDING “RABBI” RALPH MESSER

Print this entry

See also:

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: T.D. JAKES AND PAULA WHITE

PAULA WHITE LESS THAN TRUTHFUL REGARDING “RABBI” RALPH MESSER

T.D. JAKES HAS TIES TO “RABBI” RALPH MESSER

Print this entry

Circa 1997 the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult within the Emerging Church aka the Emergent Church began spreading the cancer of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism into the mainstream.

One of the results is a growing syncretism and a sappy sentimentality passing as the genuine robust Christian faith. An effete faith advanced by women in men’s pants.

Frankly, I think it’s a delusion these men are receiving where they become convinced it’s God’s will for us to set aside doctrinal differences in order to bring the visible church together. As I see it, that’s the underlying philosophy of the Elephant Room 2 that detonated a couple of weeks ago.

By now you’re likely aware that ER2 has now mainstreamed T.D. Jakes, who essentially said in ER2 that he was a trinitarian who chooses to express it in the language of a modalist. Then it’s even grown worse; seems if we don’t accept Jakes as a Christian brother, well, apparently it’s because we’re racist.

You can find more detail and the link to the video in James MacDonald, Elephant Room 2, And The Race Card? One of the things being missed as ER2 shockwaves hit The Gospel Coalition, Harvest Bible Chapel, and Acts 29 Network is the horrible baggage T.D. Jakes now arrives with within evangelicalism.

Here I’ll show you part of it. You may remember a while back I told you Megachurch Pastors Joel Osteen And T.D. Jakes Unite And Why You Should Care. There I explained how this came about when:

Jakes called Osteen, hoping to get Lakewood to host a men’s conference. A quick tour turned into an all-day session… Their new bond led Osteen to invite Jakes to preach.
(Online source)

In addition, Jakes’ recent Woman Thou Art Loosed 2011 conference, featuring pastrixes Paula White, Cindy Trimm, and Sheryl Brady, was hosted by the Lakewood Church of fellow Word Faith prosperity preacher Joel Osteen. All of these people are well known within Word Faith circles and regulars on TBN.

As I close this out, for now, AM special correspondent Erin Benziger tells us in her Cleaning Up After the Elephants? MacDonald Takes to the Airwaves about a recent offensive the ER2 curator has launched. Benziger reports on an interesting twist now concerning T.D. Jakes and James MacDonald.

She brings out that while MacDonald was on Chris Fabry Live:

Fabry brought up the oft-neglected (by MacDonald, anyway) elephant of T.D. Jakes’ prosperity gospel. In this part of the discussion, James MacDonald indicated that a private conversation had taken place (among whom, we do not know, though it is obvious that it was at least allegedly between MacDonald and Jakes).

During this conversation, says MacDonald, T.D. Jakes expressed that he would “not currently accept the designation of prosperity or Word of Faith as an accurate description of what he believes. [...] As of two weeks ago [Jakes] would not accept these terms in a private conversation as an accurate description of what he believes.” (Online source) 

Here’s what too many are missing: None of the prosperity preachers will accept that description either. I talked about this nearly seven years ago in Joel Osteen: Once Upon A Time… where I pointed out that once upon a time in the world Osteen lives in, it seems there was a man who just couldn’t understand:

Why anyone would call me a prosperity preacher?

So, I put in some of his teaching on that topic, and told him we call you that because that’s what you are. You know, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If you really want the truth, note the two preachers chosen in the MSNBC news clip below:

I know I certainly had nothing to do with Chuck Scarborough picking Jakes and Osteen for his Jesus Is The Product piece. No one forced the two to align as I showed you above. And take a look at 2012 International Pastors & Leadership Conference to be put on by T.D. Jakes this coming May 3-5:

(Online source)

The featured speaker is Jakes’ new friend and fellow Word Faith prosperity preacher Joel Osteen:

(Online source)

I don’t know about you, but this sure doesn’t look like any repentance of WF by T.D. Jakes to me…

See also:

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: T.D. JAKES AND PAULA WHITE

FELLOW EVANGELEPHANTS MARK DRISCOLL AND JAMES MACDONALD REBUKE T.D. JAKES ON THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL

A REVIEW OF T.D. JAKES’ CODE ORANGE REVIVAL SERMON

Print this entry

Voddie Baucham: The sort of injection of race into [Elephant Room 2]; and intentional use of race in this regard is sinful.

James White:  How has that happened, as you see it?

Baucham: (pause) In a number of ways; not least of which, is (pause) these kinds of discussions that are taking place and using black people (pause) to (pause) justify what happened with T.D. Jakes in that room.

White: Mmm.

Baucham: It is appalling. It is absolutely appalling (pause) to sit behind young black pastors in order to justify what happened [at ER2]. Especially when you sit and watch that video. And I watched the second part of the video today—

White: Mm-hmm.

Baucham: And one of the things that just made me almost want to weep, is that one of the brothers in the video—today was the part of the video where James [MacDonald] was asking them, you know, “How do you think he [Jakes] did on the Trinity?”

White: Right.

Baucham: And irony of ironies, these guys thought he did well on the Trinity; they thought he was orthodox on the Trinity—and one of them even pointed to the fact that he referenced 1 Timothy 3:16. And he alluded to the fact that really helped him understand Jakes better. When those of us who have dealt with modalism (White: Mm-hmm.) from an apologetics perspective (White: Mm-hmm.) knows that, that was actually the smoking gun.

White: Yeah!

Baucham: That was not something that should have made brothers sit in that room and go, “Wow, I never thought about that.” It should ahve been something that make brothers sitting in that room go, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, he just went back to it [modalism].

White: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Baucham: You know?

White: Yeah.

Baucham: “He just went back to it.” It’s so ironic that we, you know, move away from these issues of first importance; and by the way, one of the other problems is that the real issue. Let’s just say that the brother—let’s say the brother’s trinitarian. Ok? Let’s say he’s confused; let’s say, you know—as brilliant as he is—all the things he’s been able to write—all the, you know, as advanced as he’s been able to become in all of these areas of his life. By the way I— (laughs). This is another thing that’s ironic, is that—one of the most racist things that you can do—is actually say that black people get a pass (pause) on theology, and they get a pass on, you know, things like—I don’t know—Titus 1:9 and the duties and responsibilities of a pastor, as it relates to his doctrine and theology, simply because they’re black. And because of the way that they were raised; and the context that hey were raised in. But that is the height of disrespect. But let’s just go ahead and say that, he’s trinitarian; he’s moved away from modalism, he’s orthodox in his view of the Trinity. He just, you know, doesn’t really know how to express it well. That brings up two questions. Number one: If that’s the case and you respect him, then take care of that in private. Help him, and disciple him. But number two: What about the Word of Faith, prosperity gospel?

White: Mm-hmm.

Baucham: Which is poison. Poison; and particularly poisonous in the black community.(pause)

White: So, now what I’m hearing from you right now, interestingly enough, the issue—see—the first place that I saw race brought up was in the Loritts’ blog, when it talked about “white middle-aged reformed guys.” And, I’m hearing you saying, you’re seeing it—in its fullest expression—in essence, the misuse of three black pastors as a mechanism of defense for what took place [in ER2]. And yet it’s interesting—a lot of folks in listening to that have heard statements that sounded like some of those pastors—I think specifically Bryan Loritts—were basically saying, “Well, I think there are some black pastors out there that want to have a wider audience, and so they’re sort of ganging up on Bishop Jakes.” So, it sounds like there’s multiple different streams coming all together and creating a massive amount of confusion; depending on how we’re listening and how we understand what the motivations were behind the person speaking.

Baucham. Yeah. This is wrong on so many levels. It is absolute—it’s poison; it’s like a cancer. And it has metastasized now. And this is just the latest expression; and it’s grieveous. What’s ironic is—that in the midst of all of this—the guy who comes out smelling like a rose (pause White: laughs)—is T.D. Jakes.

White: (laughs) T.D. Jakes. That’s true, that’s true. (laughs again) Yeah, you’re probably right. He’s—there’s no two ways about it. Even though, I would like to think that—on the positive level—people have been caused to think about modalism a little bit. It is discouraging (clears throat) to recognize that those who actually know modalism best have the quietest voices in this situation. And those—the loudest voices—in other words the biggest platforms, did not show themselves to be overly insightful as to—not only what modalism is—and how modalists speak, but making direct application to the Christian life, the Gospel—the reasons—the importance of why modalism totally undercuts the sacrificial work of Christ, and the worship of the Church, and all the rest of these things. There just doesn’t seem to have been—to be almost anybody—who has a really big platform that has brought that kind of thing to the fore. Now you had mentioned specifically though—a lot of people have mentioned to me—let’s put it this way, a lot of people had mentioned to me that they interpreted some of the things that were said in the interview—especially the first part of the interview—as being directed at pretty well-known individuals. That’s not really the case, is it?

Baucham: No, I don’t think it was… What I am here to address—what I do think is absolutely crucial—is that the Body [of Christ] is being divided over this [race] issue. And the Body is being divided over a man [T.D. Jakes] who is one of the most poisonous influences in the [visible] church today.

White: Now, you’ve been speaking about this for a long time. Help our listeners to understand.

Baucham: Yes.

White: Why would you say something like that; because so many people  look at him and they see success, they see—he’s been on the cover of Time magazine, for crying out loud. I’m—is Time still being published? It might be, I don’t know. (Baucham laughs) Who really knows anymore—but, you know, here’s the very picture of success and prominence and all the rest of this stuff, and yet here you’re talking about a “poisonous influence.” Why would that be?

Baucham: Two things. One, the doctrine of the Trinity. And I don’t mean by that, that he’s influencing people because he’s out there teaching publicly on the Trinity.

White: Right.

Baucham: There are clips of him, you know, teaching on the Trinity—but those things are few and far between. He’s smart enough to not build his empire on that issue. I mean, he knows that. He’s smart enough not to do that. You gotta go and search for those things that he’s taught on the Trinity. But [the issue's] his absolute perversion of the Gospel. The Word of Faith movement, the prosperity gospel, is a poison. It is a cancer. It is destroying people. It is absolutely destroying lives. It is another gospel. It is to be condemned. And it was not even addressed in this whole process. And [T.D. Jakes] is the chief purveyor. I mean, he is the godfather. Again, you know, there’s been a sort of meteoric rise of, you know, smilin’ Joel here in Houston. But T.D. Jakes—T.D. Jakes is the godfather as it relates to, you know, Word faith teachers, and so on and so forth. It breaks my heart that this is being allowed, and that he is basically given entre into whole nuther layer of evangelicalism.

White: Hmm.

Baucham: Besides that, my wife is from Dallas—I made this point in—in my blog piece. My wife is from Dallas. I have friends in Dallas; I preach in Dallas a lot. [I] know pastors in Dallas, churches in Dallas. I have seen, firsthand, the influence that T.D. Jakes has had over the last decade since he came to Dallas. He has not made evangelicalism in Dallas more thoughtful, more theological, more Biblical, more Gospel-centered. That has not been his impact. His impact has been quite the opposite, in fact. (29:30-40:06, Online source)

See also:

VODDIE BAUCHAM ACCUSES ER2 DEFENDERS OF CULT-LIKE ‘ETHNIC GNOSTICISM’

T.D. JAKES IN THE ELEPHANT ROOM II, SESSION 4 TRANSCRIPT

T.D. JAKES IS HERETICAL CONCERNING MODALISM WHETHER HE BELIEVES IT OR NOT

Print this entry

by Tom Chantry

Trevin Wax did wonderful work yesterday summarizing the Elephant Room. If you want a complete transcript of the Jakes/Trinity discussion: here you go.

The audio/video is available (for now) here. The transcription is mine. (Insomnia is a wonderful thing.) This picks up after a brief introduction about Driscoll’s recent book, as they turn to Jakes.

Republished with permission. The original appears with a comments section right here.

See also:

T.D. JAKES IS HERETICAL CONCERNING MODALISM WHETHER HE BELIEVES IT OR NOT

T.D. JAKES’ BAD THEOLOGY ISN’T LIMITED TO THE TRINITY

DUNG DROPPINGS IN THE ELEPHANT ROOM: T.D. JAKES—JESUS IS THE PRODUCT

Print this entry

But a month later, a man I really didn’t know bought this domain, developed this website and literally gave it to me because he believed God wanted me to have “an Internet pulpit.”

It was never the plan of our church leadership to be on the Internet.

Six plus years later, the state of the visible church is so far down this New Downgrade No-Controversy that I am among the missionaries the Lord is sending to Christendom in this developing mission field of online apologetics and discernment ministry.

The truth be told, I miss my interactions with Mormon Missionaries. Like the day I had four of them in my living room; we had such a great discussion—for hours. The Lord be praised, they left knowing the truth; they heard the Gospel. You may say, “This is interesting, but what does this have to do with Marjoe Gortner?”

Unfortunately, more than you’re likely going to want to know. I point you now to AM special correspondent Daniel Neades of BetterThanSacrifice.org and his short post The story of Marjoe – sometimes, preachers really are out to fleece the sheep.

Neades informs us:

Marjoe Gortner was a child preacher who earned millions of dollars for his parents, beginning in the late 1940s. After a break from his ‘ministry’, he found himself short of money in his early twenties and so resumed preaching.

Until struck by a crisis of conscience in the late 1960s, Marjoe continued to deceive many in the church and relieve them of their money. He then allowed a documentary film crew unlimited access to his final revival tour, giving them backstage interviews where he explained how he and others deceived the flock. The video below is the resulting must-see documentary, with a startling relevance for today’s church. The film won the 1972 Academy Award for best documentary.

Of course, Christians today would never be so gullible. Would they?… (Online source)

You can see the documentary right within Neades’ The story of Marjoe – sometimes, preachers really are out to fleece the sheep. In closing this, for now, I want to zero in on Neades’ insightful question:

Of course, Christians today would never be so gullible. Would they?

Does fleecing the flock go on today taking in gullible Christians with spiritual snake oil? Well, let’s first consider that Marjoe Gortner’s “ministry” was a product created by his parents:

When Gortner was three, his father Vernon Gortner, a third generation minister, noticed his son’s talent for mimicry and overall fearlessness of strangers and public settings. His parents claimed he had received a vision from God during a bath.

They began training him to deliver sermons, complete with dramatic gestures and emphatic lunges. By the time he was four, his parents arranged for him to perform a marriage ceremony for a film crew from Paramount studios, referring to him as “the youngest ordained minister in history.” (Online source)

Perhaps it even looked a little like the below:

As far as fleecing flocks today; I offer into evidence the following from Word Faith propserity preacher T.D. Jakes pitching for the Trinity Broadcasting Network. I say, this is exactly what you’ll see him doing:

See also:

T.D. JAKES IS HERETICAL CONCERNING MODALISM WHETHER HE BELIEVES IT OR NOT

EVANGELEPHANT MARK DRISCOLL TELLS ER2 “BROTHER” T.D. JAKES AND US MODALISM IS HERESY

FELLOW EVANGELEPHANTS MARK DRISCOLL AND JAMES MACDONALD REBUKE T.D. JAKES ON THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL

Print this entry

By Apprising Ministries special correspondent Rob Willmann of Rendering Truth.com
This is a repost of an original article on Renduring Truth

TD Jakes’ bad theology isn’t limited to the Trinity.

Over the past few days the Christian blogosphere has exploded with posts, comments, and articles about TD Jake’s supposed change in his theological stance concerning the nature of God.

According to his supporters from the Elephant Room he’s gone from a Oneness Pentecostal-based modalist view of God with God being expressed in 3 separate manifestations, to a now orthodox biblical stance of God being eternally co-existent as 3 distinct persons yet one God.

I don’t agree with his supporters.

Daniel Neades blog BetterThanSacrifice.org summarizes much of what’s gone on in the past week. Daniel posted the following in his article “Elephant Room 2: may we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and orthodox?”:

Notice that the error of modalism is not that it denies God’s working distinctively as Father, Son and Holy Spirit – modalism expressly affirms this – but rather, that it denies the existence of three distinct Persons within the Godhead.

Daniel goes on later in the article to state the Athanasian Creed, which could have been a perfect way to determine whether TD Jakes was orthodox. Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald (the two men asking questions of Jakes in the conference) could have asked TD Jakes to affirm his understanding, belief in, and preaching of these central truths by asking him to affirm the Athanasian creed.

However, that’s not what happened.

In a conference that was billed as a place where hard-hitting questions were expected, where differing views could stand toe-to-toe and really dig into the understanding of different theologies, TD Jakes was given a pass.

The moderators (Driscoll and MacDonald) lobbed slow-toss softballs to TD Jakes, and allowed him to hit these out of the park. TD Jakes even went so far as to requalify his statements about the Trinity in such a way as to straddle the fence. His fellow Oneness Pentecostal friends must be happy. Read Daniel’s article above for more on the exchange that took place.

My concern goes deeper. I began asking myself these questions:

If TD Jakes was wrong on the Trinity, what else could he be wrong on? Are there other core areas of doctrine where Jakes falls short?

Wouldn’t you know it, he fails to preach the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s right. He FAILS when it comes to the Gospel.

The following excerpt is from a well-documented article on Jakes by G. Richard Foster titled ‘“GET READY” FOR T.D. JAKES – THE VELCRO BISHOP WITH ANOTHER GOSPEL’

Essentially, Jakes fumbles the Gospel in his book, ‘The Harvest’. In this book on pp. 46-47 Jakes confuses salvation and sanctification. Here’s the quote from the article:

He then goes on to propose the strangest Gospel to come down the pike in a while.

Jakes’ view can be called a two-tiered salvation or a two-step salvation or perhaps a progressive graduated salvation. His imaginary salvation is based on a distortion of John 1:12-13. It goes as follow:

“Scripture teaches that receiving Christ as your personal Savior does not necessarily make you a son of God, but if you choose to do so, the power (authority) and right to do so is present. … Just being saved does not make you a son of God, …only those who are willing to be led by the Spirit actually realize and manifest the sonship of God.”37

So in Jakes’ view being a son is not something you are, it is only something you can opt to manifest. His teaching is more at home with that of the late cult leader Herbert W. Armstrong, than with orthodoxy.38

Jakes does not realize how nonsensical he sounds when he says one can be saved and not be a son of God. Does he not realize that the terms are interchangeable and that one really means the other? Being “saved” and “being a son of God” are one in the same. The moment we exercise faith in Jesus and accept Him, we are sons. “For you are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ,” Galatians 3:26 declares.

Jakes confounds and distorts the salvation process by making a distinction between accepting Jesus as Savior and being a son of God. He says that these are different states arrived at in different ways. The Bible does not recognize Jakes’ false dichotomy.

The truth of Scripture regarding the riches of our salvation is summarized by Thomas R. Edgar:

“Every person who believes in Jesus Christ has their sins forgiven and is immediately justified. The Holy Spirit indwells every believer immediately upon salvation. Every believer has access to God in prayer and has other believers available for fellowship, edification, and counsel. Every Christian has all of this immediately upon justification.”39

If we were to believe Jakes, we would have to believe that receiving Christ and being saved are one thing (doing very little if anything for you, except for being a first step) and being a son of God is something entirely different that you can choose or not choose to become. So you can be “saved” but not really saved. When you decide to be led by the Spirit you then manifest son-ship.

Romans 8:1 indicates, however, that walking in the Spirit is something you can and will do because you are already a son of God. Walking in the Spirit is a privilege and the manifestation of sons. Jakes totally misunderstands and confuses salvation and sanctification.”

So Jakes believes that being saved DOESN’T make me a son of God?

HUH?

I would ask Jakes to read this from Scripture:

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

So to those of you within orthodox Christianity, and ESPECIALLY the folks from the Elephant Room conference, why are you so eager to welcome TD Jakes into the fold?

Ask yourself these questions:

1. Has Jakes repented and publicly stated he’s changed his view on the Gospel?
2. Has Jakes removed the sale of his book from Amazon since it clearly confuses salvation and sanctification?
3. Why did it take a pay-per-view event like this for Jakes to come clean if he has changed his view on the Trinity?
4. Why didn’t he come forward publicly about his new ‘Trinitarian’ stance when he prayerfully realized he was in error?
5. IF Questions 1 and 2 are answered with a ‘No.’, then should I support TD Jakes? Should I welcome him into the church universal as a orthodox, biblical teacher?

I think it should be obvious by now that if TD Jakes was wrong on the Trinity, wrong on the Gospel, and such a huge proponent of the prosperity gospel (which is not THE Gospel, but is instead a false one), then there is no excuse for Driscoll and MacDonald welcoming TD Jakes into the evangelical fold.

I smell a wolf.

The original appears complete with a comments section for you to join the discussion right here.

See also:

T.D. JAKES IS HERETICAL CONCERNING MODALISM WHETHER HE BELIEVES IT OR NOT

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: T.D. JAKES AND PAULA WHITE

DUNG DROPPINGS IN THE ELEPHANT ROOM: T.D. JAKES—JESUS IS THE PRODUCT

Print this entry

A true and accurate knowledge of the Trinity is a blessing in and of itself.

Any revelation of God’s truth is an act of grace, of course, but the Trinity brings to us a blessing far beyond the worth normally assigned by believers today.

Why? Because, upon reflection, we discover that the Trinity is the highest revelation God has made of himself to His people.

It is the capstone, the summit, the brightest star in the firmament of divine truths.

As I will assert more than once in this work, God revealed this truth about himself most clearly, and most irrefutably, in the Incarnation itself, when Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, took on human flesh and walked among us.

That one act revealed the Trinity to us in a way that no amount of verbal revelation could ever communicate. God has been pleased to reveal to us that He exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since God feels it is important to know, we should likewise.

And since God went through a great deal of trouble to make it clear to us, we should see the Trinity as a precious possession, at the very top of the many things God has revealed to us that we otherwise would never have known.

When Paul wrote to the Colossians, he indicated that he was praying for them. He did not pray that they would obtain big houses and fancy chariots. He prayed that they would be blessed by God in the spiritual realm with spiritual wealth.

Note his words: That their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:2-3)

How is one “rich” spiritually? One is rich spiritually who has a “full assurance of understanding.” How many people today can honestly claim to have a true understanding of God’s nature so as to have “full assurance”? Or do most of us muddle along with something far less than what God would have for us?

A person who has such spiritual wealth, seen in a full assurance of understanding, has a “true knowledge” of God’s mystery, that is, Christ himself. The goal of the Christian life, including the goal of Christian study and scholarship, is always the same: Jesus Christ, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

Do we long for a “true knowledge” of Christ? When we sing, “Lord, I want to know you,” do we really mean it, and then take advantage of the ways He has given us to attain this “true knowledge” of Him?

To know Christ truly is to know the Trinity, for God has not revealed himself in such a way as to allow us to have true and balanced knowledge of the Father outside of such knowledge of the Son, all of which comes to us through the Spirit.

A person who wants to “know Jesus” must, due to the nature of God’s revelation, know Him as He is related to the Father and the Spirit. We must know, understand, and love the Trinity to be fully and completely Christian.

This is why we say the Trinity is the greatest of God’s revealed truths.[1]

Dr. James White

___________________________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] James R. White. Forgotten Trinity, The (p. 14- 15). Kindle Edition.

See also:

T.D. JAKES IS HERETICAL CONCERNING MODALISM WHETHER HE BELIEVES IT OR NOT

KEEPING YOU APPRISED OF: THE HOLY TRINITY

THE CARDINAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

Print this entry

HT: Sola Sisters

See also:

ELEPHANT ROOM 2: THE EMERGENCE OF PACHYDERMISM

T.D. JAKES IS HERETICAL CONCERNING MODALISM WHETHER HE BELIEVES IT OR NOT

FELLOW EVANGELEPHANTS MARK DRISCOLL AND JAMES MACDONALD REBUKE T.D. JAKES ON THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL

Print this entry