SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Trinity and TD Jakes

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

That was a VERY good sum up of the whole thread.

I've never personally experienced 'true revival'. But i have experienced God moving mightily during services, but they (the people) always seemed to fizzle out after them. (Within like 2 weeks, not always immediatly).

 2005/6/16 17:10









 Re:

"Adherents of this doctrine are taught that a person cannot be saved unless this person first forsakes his belief in the Trinity and is rebaptized "in the Name of Jesus," according to an interpretation of several scriptures, most notably Acts 2:38."

wowza, that sounds really outta wack. (About Oneness Pentacostals)

and this "According to Oneness Theology, this one God does not have three Persons but rather is exclusively God the Father."


Umm...look at this "The Oneness movement dates back to the early 20th century, in the waning days of the Azusa Street Revival, however it claims it's roots and origin had it's beginning on the "Day of Pentecost" in the Upper Room in Jerusalem as recorded in the Book of Acts."

I thought this revival was Genuine from the Holy Spirit? So, then maybe God can use 'Oneness' people.

 2005/6/16 17:19
couch
Member



Joined: 2003/10/29
Posts: 62
College Station, TX

 Re:

YeshuaismyGd,

Perhaps the Oneness doctrine arose out of the Azusa Street Revival, but notice how it said "at the end". The end of a revival is always interesting to note, what exactly happened to allow the revival to fade away.

Many times the leaders of the revival become filled with pride or sin enters the camp in various ways, and unfortunate things begin to happen. To those truly seeking God, He reveals to them what they are to do and many leave and take the revelation of the majesty and vision of Christ elsewhere.

An example of this is Michael Brown who started the Fire School of Ministry after the Brownsville Revival. After becoming more and more displeased with how the genuine working of the Spirit had depleted into a display of human ability, He left, filled with the fire of God that was there in the early stages of the move of God there.

He felt led to start a school to teach the principles of repentance, holiness, zeal for the lost, missions, and worship in North Carolina. Bob Gladstone, Rita Springer, and others now teach at this school where many awesome things are happening to disciple young people in the ways of God.

This is mere speculation, but its' possible that towards the end of the revival, as man was starting to think He was the reason for "the Glory" (like Lucifer, who as a "jewel" in heaven thought that he himself was brilliant, when in fact it was the resonating glory of Christ reflecting around him) the revival began to fade and men in the deceitfulness of their own hearts started creating new doctrines for themselves.

This could be how that doctrine came about, if it is true that it can be traced to Azusa for an origin. It definitely didn't come from the upper room or at Pentecost.


_________________
Ryan Couch

 2005/6/16 18:08Profile









 Re:

Thanks

Quote:

couch wrote:
An example of this is Michael Brown who started the Fire School of Ministry after the Brownsville Revival. After becoming more and more displeased with how the genuine working of the Spirit had depleted into a display of human ability, He left, filled with the fire of God that was there in the early stages of the move of God there.

He felt led to start a school to teach the principles of repentance, holiness, zeal for the lost, missions, and worship in North Carolina. Bob Gladstone, Rita Springer, and others now teach at this school where many awesome things are happening to disciple young people in the ways of God.




Are you saying that Michael Brown and Rita Springer are not being led by the Spirit of God? Or 'stealing God glory'? Cause i dont understand your statement about them.

Thanks for clearing up the Oneness/TD Jakes thing.

 2005/6/16 18:56
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re:

Quote:
The full description of this ancient heresy is Sabellian Modalism. I thought I would introduce the extra word for folks wanting to research things further.



I think this is misleading. Even the UPCI (which I disagree with on many things) distances themselves from Sabellianism and Modalism. I collect quite a few books and happen to have several books by David K. Bernard (their main theologian). He makes a distinction between what they believe and Sabellianism and Modalism. And in my humble assessment of his writing, I don't think they are the same. There are important distictions.

Now this is not an endorsement of what they DO believe. But just wanted to point out that this can be misleading if we are going to lump all oneness pentecostals into this category.

I think on BOTH sides we would do well to stay with the Bible and refrain from explanations that we cannot find CLEAR Biblical teaching for.

RT

 2005/6/17 5:42Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

RT,

What are the fundamental differences of the author you spoke of and is there a consensus in the UPC camp on this topic? In talking with UPC folk I have worked with they tend to state that God the Father [i]became[/i] God the Son [i]became[/i] God the Holy Spirit (Father in Creation, Son in redemption and Holy Spirit in regeneration). They do not have a good working knowledge of the issues other than their attempt to hold to the 'oneness' of God based upon the Shema. I posted a previous answer to this called "One Yachid or One Echad." The word denoted plural unity.

For those who are not aware this entire doctrine sprang up in their camp as a result of of R.E McAlister's 'new' doctrine which he suggested to folk that the reason why the Apostles baptised in the name of the "LORD-JESUS-CHRIST" was because that it was a 'code word' for the Trinity (Father-Son-Holy Spirit). This happened in around 1910-1915. [i]Error begets error[/i]. A man named Frank Ewert took up this doctrine and a tent and the beginnings of Oneness Pentecostalism were sown. He became one of the leading theologians of the "Oneness" Pentecostals as he adopted a 'version' of the Modalist view of the Trinity based upon their misunderstanding of why the Apostles baptised the people in the name of the Lord Jesus. This is VERY VERY important today because the new 'repentance' movement that is coming on in certain camps hold many views dangerously close to UPC. It is my opinion that the reason why the Apostles are said to have baptised in the "name of the Lord Jesus" was to make a distinction between His baptism and John Baptist's baptism. It is beyond this thread at this point to deal with all that, but the ROOT of what TD Jakes and all UPC and Oneness folk hold in terms of the non-Trinitarian doctrine stems from a misunderstand of baptism in water. Error begets error. Early on these people went around spreading this 'new' doctrine even rebaptizing folk who had been baptized under the Trinitarian formula. It bacame a very [i]Christocentric[/i] movement in which a new significance was added to the name LORD.

To make a long story short, the 4th counsel of the Assemblies of God met to deal with this heresy in 1916. Sadly, this forced the Assemblies to finally break down and forge a 'doctrinal statement.' This doctrinal statement essentially split off 25 percent of the near 600 ministers at that time. They went out over the next 30 years and formed various organization, etc that would eventually come together under the UPCI (United Pentecostal Church Incorporated) and PAW and other smaller ones.

The second major error after a misunderstanding of water baptism that I believe led to this heresy is their misunderstanding of the word 'person'. You simply cannot take a modern understanding of the word 'person' into a Trinitarian debate. The complexity of the issues cannot be simplified like that. And as with so many other attempts to 'simplify the Gospel' fundamental truths get lost and the door to heresy opens. They deny the distinct 'personhood' of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It may be a stretch to say that they believe that God has three 'personalities'- but this is not a Trinitarian view. This is schizophrenia and cannot describe God.

The [i[difference[/i] between UPC or Oneness and Sabellianism is that it affirms all three 'manifestations' simultaneously and not chronologically or in linear revelation. While dealing with the issue you will find that the language of the UPC is very similar to that of a Trinitarian. I was once fooled talking to a Oneness Pentecostal thinking our doctrines were the same. You MUST learn to scale the language barrier and know what meanings that a person is pouring into their words. Define your terms. look out for a statement such as "three manifestations" instead of "three persons."

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/17 8:43Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

I was reading Henry Soltau on the Tabernacle, priesthood and offerings when I came across an interesting comment. the early assemblies of the Brethren were torn apart by a controversy that arose over the nature of Christ. It is poignant to read Soltau in this context... having spoken of the blue of the veil as typifying the heavenly and hence divine, and the red as typifying the man he speaks of the purple which is the blending of both...In contemplating Christ, it is well ever to remember the first syllable of His name, as given in Isaiah 9:6 "WONDERFUL" and part of this marvel is, that in Him are combined the deep thoughts and counsels of God, with the feelings and affections of man. In Him there is no incongruity; in the days of His flesh, and on the cross itself, He was 'the same', the "I am", the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today and for ever. He could say, whilst on earth, "the Son which is in the bosom of the Father." When speaking to Nicodemus, in that memorable meeting by night, He said, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." And subsequently, when some of His disciples murmured at the difficulties raised in their carnal minds by His words of life, His answer was - "Doth this offend you? What, and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?" (John 6:6,62) Such words as these , from the lips of the Son of God, should silence our fleshly reasonings, and cause us to bow down and worship, instead of attempting to fathom that which is unfathomable. Vain of our own conceit, we try, with our puny resources, so sound the depths; and fancy, when we have run out our little line, that we have reached the bottom. We cut and square systems of divinity, and stamp, with our impramatur, as othodox, the theology of this or that divine; and all the while, lose sight of HIM, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Man can applaud his fellow; for, in so doing, he praises himself. He can approve the sayings of another; for, thereby, he constitutes himself a judge. And thus, in the divinity of the day, we shall find that creeds, confessions of faith, and writings of the Fathers, really assume the place of the Word of God: and orthodoxy consists, not in holding what God says, but in subscribing to articles drawn up my fallible man."
The analogy of the sounding line is a good one. (Some of you will know this is where Mark Twain got his nom-de-plume.) To ascertain the depth beneath the keel of a boat a heavy weight would be attached to a line. The line had knots in it at 6 feet intervals (known as fathoms). The linesman, and Mark Twain was one in his youth, would 'fathom' the depth of water by observing the moment that the weight touched the bottom and counting the knots in the line, each space representing a fathom. They would call out the depths, Mark One - one fathom, Mark Twain - two fathoms and so. (This is what they were doing in Acts 27:28) The 'lines' were long and the Acts 27 line measured 90 feet of water beneath their keel.

Soltua imagines people measuring the 'nature' of God with a 'sounding line'. When they come to the end of their line they conclude that such is the 'measure' of God. Soltua,says, they have only come to the end of their measuring capacity; they have not measured God!

One of the thorny terms in theology of God's nature is 'persons'. What is a person? and when we have defined it can we then apply that word separately to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The answer would seem to be 'yes' but we need to remind ourselves that 'person' is a human measure of nature, and as Soltau says 'our little line' has run out. In a sense when we attribute personhood to the Father, Son and Spirit we are saying only that 'at the very least 'He' is equal to human personhood in attribute and capacity. He is capable of separate self consciousness so the Father can speak to Son and Son to Spirit. This is but the edges of His nature. Soltau is right, the man whose theology does not cause him to bow down and worship is a waste of space. I fear he is right too in commenting that "Man can applaud his fellow; for, in so doing, he praises himself. He can approve the sayings of another; for, thereby, he constitutes himself a judge. " There is room for a lot of pride in the exlusions of the theologians; whether amateur or professional.

I am a Trinitarian, but I note that no man was every thrown out of a local church for faulty theology in Bible times; that penalty was reserved for those who lived faulty lives.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/6/20 11:01Profile
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re:

Hi Ron,

Quote:
I am a Trinitarian, but I note that no man was every thrown out of a local church for faulty theology in Bible times; that penalty was reserved for those who lived faulty lives.



This is true, but isn't it also true that if a faulty theology is followed to it's naturall conclusion it will lead to a faulty life?

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2005/6/20 11:14Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Good wisdom there Ron.

I had a thought yesterday and wondered if it could hold water. I will phrase it as a question;

"Will God still back the words with His unction when He is being misrepresented?" Which begs another question, "How accurate do our understandings of God have to be in order for God to 'anoint' the ministry?" (please excuse the way I use the word 'anoint', but for lack of a better term)

I base the thought on this passage:

[i]But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.[/i] (I Corinthians 4:19-20)


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/20 11:46Profile
disciplejosh
Member



Joined: 2003/6/13
Posts: 210
Southern California

 Re:

Robert,

Just a thought as to the thread of thought here and the point/question you just asked...

Quote:
"Will God still back the words with His unction when He is being misrepresented?"


This, I think, depends upon the heart and the motive of the person declaring or expressing the words.
Moses misrepresented God knowingly. The consequences were serious.
Others misrepresent God ignorantly, from a humble heart of faith and a desire to be used of God.
God knows and searches the heart, the mind, the soul and the spirit of a man.
The unction that is from the Holy One is given as He sees fit to give. Of course, our Lord instructs us not to give what is holy to the dogs, and certainly He will not do the same.
The heart of man, my heart, your hearts, dear brothers and sisters, that is the object to consider...for from it spring forth the issues of life.
Quote:
"How accurate do our understandings of God have to be in order for God to 'anoint' the ministry?"


Now that's a question, brother!
How accurate are your understandings of God? How accurate are mine? Or Ron's? Or Mike's? Or Chanin's? Or Jeremy's? Or Rahman's? Or Greg's? Or Yolanda's? Or Ed's?
What a mulit-faceted, many varigated thing is man's understanding or grasp or comprehension of God. How finite are my thoughts of You, O God. How shallow, how much on the perimiter are they...
My heart longs to swim and dive deep into the vastness that is God. I am reminded of a quote in Tozer's 'Pursuit of God'...
"Shoreless Ocean who can sound Thee?
Thine own eternity is round Thee,
Majesty Divine."

Maybe it is not so much the depth or comprehension of our understanding of our God (not to negate the need for knowledge and understanding as Solomon spares no space in Proverbs exhorting us to get understanding and knowledge with "all of our getting"), but the heat and fervency, the passion and the overwhelming crush of ardent desire that fills our hearts, souls, and minds, that spurs each of us on in the pursuit...to know Him intimately, passionately, personally.


_________________
Josh

 2005/6/20 12:30Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy