TD Jakes is not a Modalist - FB Conversation

Posted by a FB friend.

----------------------------------

NOT a MAN of God or a man after Gods heart.

Link.

T.D. Jakes Comes Out for ‘Gay Rights’ and ‘LGBT Churches,’ Says Position is ‘Evolving’

Megachurch leader and author T.D. Jakes says that homosexuals should attend congregations that affirm their lifestyle and that politics do not need to reflect…

CHRISTIANNEWS.NET

Me: With all due respect, it's pretty clear he's telling gays to find a church that agrees with them as opposed to them trying to change a church to their viewpoint.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul C: True Rich, but isn't that a cop-out? He's just decided that the truth of the Word of God isn't worth sharing with the gay community so send them to an "affirming" congregation to continue to hear the lies that the lifestyle is OK.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Me: Where did he decide the word of God isn't worth sharing? I don't see any comment about that. He's making comments about gays in churches.

The Left, including gays, infiltrate institutions, move into leadership, and then start changing the institutions into their own liking. We've seen this time and again. So I whole heartedly agree with Jakes. If you're gay and you don't like Bible believing churches, move on.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul C: He's told the gay community that it's best to go find a church that teaches that homosexuality is acceptable. It's sad that he has chosen to send them away instead of taking on the loving task of sharing the truth with them instead of being worried they would "take over" his congregations theology (which is in jeopardy already). If he isn't capable of sharing the truth in love with them, then he believes the TOTAL word of God is not worth sharing.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

Me: You created a Category Error. Sending gays on their way rather than letting them divide Bible-believing churches has nothing to do with the "acceptability" of sodomites.

And you don't know that he's not "capable" of sharing the truth. You are speculating about a great many things from a very simple statement.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Paul C: Rich, I'm not speculating on anything. He's abdicating his role as a pastor/preacher/teacher by sending the sinner away from the truth. Show me how he IS capable if you disagree. All evidence, from his own mouth, show's he's either incapable, or doesn't care enough about them to help them out of that darkness. He's taking the easy way out instead of sharing the hard teachings of the Bible. BTW, I go to a church where homosexuals are welcomed as long as they are there to learn about Jesus, the Gospel and what it says about the lifestyle. There is a Biblical standard in place if any of them decide to try to divide us.

It's become easy for the Church in America to close it's doors to anyone different (by suggesting they go somewhere "affirming", it's the same thing) OR the church turns to a wet noodle and accepts everyone regardless of their theology. I'm thinking if Jesus were the pastor of a church in America today he wouldn't be suggesting they go find an "affirming" congregation. Would he? Or would He love them enough to keep them right where they are, loving them, teaching them the truth and helping them make more Bible following disciples out of their other lied-to gay friends.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr · Edited

Me: He is not abdicating anything. Again, the issue is narrow, and you're taking it way beyond its scope, inferring all sorts of things. He is quite right to protect his church from wolves.
Like · Reply · 18 mins

Paul C: And I see you're inferring that he is trying to protect his church from wolves which is not what the article said.
Like · Reply · Just now

Me: A reasonable inference: "if you don’t like those convictions and values [and] you totally disagree with it, don’t try to change my house, move into your own..."

Paul C: Rich, he himself said his belief system on homosexuality, has evolved and is evolving. So I don't think he's considering them wolves anymore
Write a reply...

Paul H: Evolves just like God's word, 'cause it living and active and stuff! He can affirm gays all he wants; his is a "church" of modalist heresy.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Paul H: Point being, regardless, he is not a man of the God of the Bible.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

Me: Jakes is no longer a modalist.



T.D. Jakes Embraces Doctrine of the Trinity, Moves Away from…
CHRISTIANITYTODAY.COM|BY CHRISTIANITY TODAY
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · 2 hrs

Me: I suspect that this kind of "evolving" is good, no?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul H: He is not a trinitarian according to the article. Calling the persons of the trinity "manifestations" still falls under modalism. He has not "evolved" at all, according to this article.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Me: Um, the title of the article?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul H: I like to actually read articles people post as possible correctives to my thinking. He may have answered Driscoll's questions in a manner satisfactory to Driscoll, who obviously did not bother to have Jakes define his terms, but his affirmations are shallow...as I said, he refers to the persons as manifestations, which term in and of itself is fraught with orthodox error, and in Jakes context, a very specific one.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Me: I point out where he's no longer a modalist, and rather than accept you were wrong, you move on to the next thing.

Jakes is influential. His move toward orthodoxy is excellent news (from 5 years ago, by the way), and frankly, we ought to celebrate.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Paul H: Whatever. He is still a modalist. You didn't show me to be wrong at all.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Paul H: Potter's House belief statement on God: "There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The language of modalism.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr