Reviewing the Comments of TD Jakes in the Elephant Room

Mark Driscoll’s Questions to T. D. Jakes and the Elephant Room Context

Do you believe this is the perfect, inspired, final authority Word of God?

Absolutely.

So you believe there's one God, three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. You believe Jesus was fully God, fully man.

Absolutely.

You believe he died on the cross, in our place, for our sins. Absolutely. You believe he bodily rose from death. Absolutely. You believe that he is the judge of the living and the dead.

Yes.

And you believe that apart from Jesus, there's no salvation.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Well, that's all we need, right? According to many today, that is all we need. That was Mark Driscoll asking Bishop T .D. Jakes those important questions. Now, the one thing he didn't say yes to was, do you believe God exists in three persons?

Maybe he nodded his head or something, I don't know. But there was previous discussion. We'll get to that in just a moment. We'll get to that in just a moment. But for many people today, that's all you need.

That's it. There's no question any longer. Everything that has been said, Bishop Jakes admitted that he had an experience of Christ in a oneness church. Not a UPCI church, but a oneness church. There are a number of them.

And yet, he agreed to everything that Mark Driscoll said. So, that should be it. And all of us haters just need to stop our hating, and we need to hold hands, and all should be well, right? Well, if that's all you had to go on, if there hadn't been, that's, looking at here, that's 13 minutes into the sound clip that is now circulating around from the Elephant Room 2, from two days ago now, I guess.

From the same time period, it would be nice to ask Chris Roseborough about it, but he was threatened with arrest if he didn't leave, so that's a little bit odd. But be that as it may, there was, things said before this, there were a lot of things, many things said before this, and so if you're willing to just ignore all those things, then that should be enough.

But people who are concerned about truth have other questions. For example, if Bishop Jakes is saying that today he believes that God exists in three persons, then even as he admits, there are oneness people who would view him as a heretic for saying that, right?

Whatever it is he means by that. And I think he's probably referring to UPCI folks at that point. But if you believe, if you come to believe the Trinity, does that require you to identify as false those views that deny the Trinity?

Evidently, for the Elephant Room, it does not. And that is one of the biggest problems we're facing today, folks. If you're listening today, it's because you're interested in these things, and hopefully not just because you want to, you know, be involved in disputations and stuff.

You know, Todd Friel called me shortly after the whole thing started, and he was ready to start the, whatever the last crusade we had was, let's say it was number 12, ready to start number 13. I mean, he's ready to go, and maybe he's right.

But I'll be perfectly honest with you, I wasn't, you know, I didn't even have the date on my calendar. I just started seeing things on Twitter, oh, that Elephant Room thing. I'm not focused on this stuff.

If you listened to the last dividing line, you know exactly what I'm focused on. I'm focused on witnessing the gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth about who Jesus is, and the entirety of the doctrine of the Trinity to Muslims.

And of course, in defense of Reformed theology, there's lots of things that I'm focused on. But this is, honestly, Mark Driscoll and James McDonald and these folks, just, they don't represent me. They're not a part of my, you know, that's why I don't get invited to the big things, you know, because I just, I don't have any interest.

That's not where I am. But in listening to this, and in seeing that today there are some big names going, that's good enough. Bishop Jakes is a Trinitarian, we just need to embrace him along those lines.

Eh, you know, that word-face stuff that he does, the prosperity gospel and all that stuff,.

You know.

But, you know, we can all hold hands, we agree on the Trinity now.

Do we?

One of the things that concerns me is, even if that were the case, even if that's where he is, could someone please explain to me how you can actually be a Trinitarian, but view that sort of like, well, saying this, and this is a true statement.

I was once a premillennialist. I'm now an amillennialist. Now, there are some premillennialists that if you were once an amillennialist and became a premillennialist, if you did not condemn all amillennialists to hell, that means you're not really a premillennialist.

There are a few people like that, I suppose. But the fact of the matter is, that is a change in eschatological perspective, I believe based upon a more consistent interpretation and hermeneutic of the scriptures.

But there are people like Squirrel and Channel who remains confused on these issues. And we still love him. I mean, how can you dislike a squirrel? But, you know, it's a matter where people disagree with one another within squirrel.

Growls.

Yeah, I've never heard a squirrel growl either. But it's within, it's an in-house debate. Is the Trinity really an in-house debate? Is this a matter of perspective? Is this something that's, well, I'm comfortable now with saying persons.

I prefer manifestations. But I'm comfortable with that. Is the Trinity, are the core doctrines of the faith up for that kind of non-definition? Do I say, well, you know, God's just, God's just so mysterious.

He's so mysterious. Oh, Shamgar. Well, see, Shamgar and Squirrel, they look the same. So, sorry.

Squirrel was laughing.

Shamgar was growling. Sorry about that. Anyway, watching the channel is somewhat distracting. Are the core issues really just, you know, I'm now comfortable. I've moved from oneness to a comfortable Trinitarianism.

But, you know, I don't think oneness is wrong. I mean, there's value in the manifestations idea too, see. Now, we've all seen this happening with the gospel. I mean, there's an entire spectrum of people who believe that the gospel is sort of a, you know, it's a thing on the side there.

We can have disagreements about it. Does anybody really know? I mean, come on. All of this comes down to basically saying, you know what, we don't know what we believe. No, no, it's just all mystery. I mean, can you imagine if a believing Muslim walked into the elephant room, if he was actually allowed in.

You know, he had his ticket and he was allowed in. And, excuse me, gentlemen, but could you tell me really what you believe about who Jesus is? Well, you know, it's a mystery. And we, you know, we're never really going to figure out.

It's just a mystery. That's what's really concerning to me about this. But there's much more about it that should be concerning to us. Let's start with this. Let's start with some history, shall we? Let's start with some history.

T. D. Jakes’ Earlier Oneness Language and the Question of Repentance

Bishop Jakes, this was not the first time he's ever spoken. No, I know a lot of, especially of my Reformed brothers and sisters, have never heard T .D. Jakes speak.

Never.

A few times. In fact, I'll be honest with you. The last time I heard T .D. Jakes speak was a couple of years ago. I was packing for a trip. I think I was going back to St. Louis, so it would have been first weekend of December.

And I just happened to be flipping the channels. I went and stopped on, I never mentioned the channel, but it's between 20 and 22. And here was T .D. Jakes and he was preaching on suffering. And I was blown away.

He was talking about the sovereignty of God and being conformed to Christ. I was like, who's this guy? This cannot be T .D. Jakes. But then I've heard sermons that basically completely contradicted that, so it sort of depends on where he is.

Now, I'm going to suggest something, especially to some of the big name scholars that I have heard, that I've been told anyways, have basically said, you know what? What he said in the elephant room was enough.

He's Trinitarian. There needs to be an explanation about what he has said in the past. And the relationship that has to what he said in the elephant room and was not challenged on. That's the problem.

So, let's start with this one. Here's T .D. Jakes and I guess one of the things he does in some of his sermons is he has a woman read the Bible and then he sort of does a running commentary on it. Let's listen to T .D. Jakes.

And, well, you'll see.

Yeah, that was an excellent quotation.

I tweeted earlier this morning if you want to hear more of that. I took that from the March 16, 2002, Dividing Line, Eddie DelCour and Simon Escobedo go into much more depth than we will have time to go into today in examining a number of these citations.

Notice John 14, 10. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? Becomes I am the Father. The entire Greek term and disappears. And he talks about Yahwistic terminology. Terminology about Yahweh with I am.

The problem is Ego Aimee doesn't appear there. It's just Ego. Hati ego ento patri kai ha patri en emoi esten. So, it's actually not one of those places where John uses I am terminology. But there you have Bishop Jakes.

Now, I don't know exactly how long ago that was. And maybe Bishop Jakes has changed his view. That would be good, but if someone had once taught that, then you would expect them to say I once taught error on this and I no longer teach that.

That's not something I believe any longer. You would hope that that would be the case. Let's listen to some more of what T .D. Jakes has had to say in the past.

Manifesting in a multiplicity of ways. One God. Now, you don't divide all of those manifestations into different Gods. The God of bread. The God of quail. The God of water. The God of tree. The God of cloud.

The God of fire. In many different ways. God is multi-faceted.

Manifold.

Many shades. Back to Ephesians. Is it 1 Timothy? 1 Timothy 3 .16, is it? Okay, good. And without controversy.

Now, I want you to notice something. Where is he going? This is the same time period as the other stuff. He's going to 1 Timothy 3 .16. 1 Timothy 3 .16. And he's talking about one God being manifested.

This is the great mystery now. Without controversy. Great is the mystery of Godliness. For God was manifested in the flesh.

So, evidently, 1 Timothy 3 .16. As it's found in the King James Version of the Bible. Because, as most of you are aware, there is a major textual variant there. And, unless the rest of the folks in the elephant room are using the King James, the New King James.

Their Bibles say, he who is manifest in the flesh. Or, he who is revealed in the flesh. But, Bishop Jakes, there is quoting from the King James Version of the Bible. And, there it is, God was manifest in the flesh.

So, that was connected in Jakes' oneness teaching. Because, clearly, the previous clip was a oneness perspective. When you can change, the Father is in me, to I am in the Father, to I am the Father. That is his oneness period.

Well, he's quoting 1 Timothy 3 .16 in his oneness period. If there is a oneness period. There you go. Let's try this one more time. Now, let's listen to one more. Also, from around that same time period.

Where he's not preaching. He's on a radio program. Or, some context to where he's answering questions. So, you don't have all the audience noise. Which is sort of nice.

The term Trinity is not a biblical term to begin with. It's a theological description for something that is so beyond human comprehension.

Okay, so years and years ago. Bishop Jakes, when he talks about the Trinity, says it's not a biblical term. And, God's beyond our comprehension.

Then, I'm not sure that we can totally hold God to a numerical system. The Lord said, Behold, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one.

There, he seems to think that the Trinity is a numerical system. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I guess, threeness versus oneness. But, he's affirming the oneness of God. Which, to a oneness person, is Unitarianism.

And, beside him, there is no other. When God got ready to make a man that looked like him, he didn't make three. He made one man. However, that one man had three parts. He was body, soul, and spirit. We have one God.

But, he is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration. It's very important that we understand that.

Okay, so, did you catch that? We have one God. Three different manifestations. In fact, let's listen to this one more time. Get this down. Because, again, this is from back then.

We have one God. But, he is Father in creation.

Father in creation.

Son in redemption.

Son in redemption.

And, Holy Spirit in regeneration. It's very important that we understand that.

Okay, so, there is where Bishop Jakes was. That was his perspective. That's where he was coming from. And, what we're being asked to believe by many people today, such as Mark Driscoll and James McDonald.

The Trinity, Modalism, and Why the Distinction Matters

Yeah, someone in Puritan Fan and Channel just said, the Son didn't create.

Exactly.

That's one of the main problems here. That's why I tweeted yesterday, if there had just been somebody on that panel that cared enough. And, I really believe it's a matter of caring enough. It's not that they don't know.

James McDonald has a DMIN from Phoenix Seminary and a master's degree from Trinity. Mark Driscoll has a master's degree from Western Seminary. Now, interestingly enough, they both have degrees from places where a very sub-biblical gospel prevails, unfortunately.

One has a master's degree. One has a DMIN. Phoenix Seminary and Western, lots and lots of anti-lordship, no repentance, blah, blah, blah. Silliness exists. Not only relevant to this, but it might be.

Now, I would love to have listened live to a decent feed of the discussion. But, that was not provided. But, only a few hours after someone did post on YouTube from one of the satellite churches that watched it a recording they had made.

So, you've got to listen carefully. But, let's listen to exactly what was said in the elephant room with that background now. With that background,.

Let's listen.

And,.

If you're a person who does not think that we should be discerning, if you're a person who does not think that we should concern ourselves about background issues, we shouldn't worry about what Bishop Jakes has said in the past.

And, in fact, we really shouldn't worry about this, well, whether you believe in persons or manifest, do we really know? I want to suggest to you that the attitude expressed, especially by Mark Driscoll, says very clearly to me that Athanasius was a fool.

Athanasius was a fool. In fact, Athanasius was sinful. Athanasius, not unwillingly, he willingly did this, but in an improper way divided the body of Christ. He was willing to make such strong distinctions that he was willing to be kicked out of his church five times because of his unwillingness to just allow for other perspectives and to allow that, you know what, God's mysterious.

There's mystery here. Athanasius should have allowed for mystery, evidently. Here's what was said. Let's listen carefully and let's see if we can make some connections with what Bishop Jakes has already said.

It's not that different from his because I didn't get the fifth part and I'm not as far as you are.

Methodist.

My mother was Baptist. My father's family was Methodist as far back as I can remember. I was raised in the Baptist Church and I was raised.

In church,.

But I really didn't have a real committed experience with Christ until my father died. When my father died, I had a real experience with Christ and a real conversion to Christ and I had it in a oneness church.

So, you can have a true conversion to Christ under the preaching of the oneness gospel and in the worship of the oneness view of God. That's what Bishop Jakes is saying is if you accept his perspective.

Then.

That gospel and that view of God is sufficiently.

True.

To be salvific just so you make sure you're following and understanding.

My oneness.

Meaning.

For those who don't know all the theological terms. Well, it would be like it was not a UPC church. In spite of the blogs it was not a UPC church but somewhat similar Jesus only modalism.

Okay, so it wasn't UPCI it's now UPCI. Back then it was UPC but it's not the St. Louis group the very strong holiness group. It is Jesus only modalism which would mean baptism in the name of Jesus only not baptism in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and the belief that God is manifest in three ways.

But what that means. Some of you listening today are listening only because and you've never listened to this program before. If you go back to the archives of this program which are available we stream this program 24 -7 doesn't mean I do it 24 -7 but we stream all the way back to 1998.

On the way through we spent hours and hours and hours.

Reviewing.

Debates by Mr. Roger Perkins who is a oneness advocate carefully analyzing exactly what he was saying in preparation for the debate that I did against him in Brisbane, Australia back in late October. I have debated oneness folks in many different venues.

I did a debate in 1999 part of which is available on YouTube which is very well known amongst oneness people. Against Dr. Sabin. I know a little something about oneness theology.

And.

I was just chatting with Richard Baselis pastor in Palmdale, California. He is going to be doing a give and take with a former oneness person who's been converted out of oneness. There is a language that exists amongst oneness people and when you understand what they're saying you can detect it.

Many people including great scholars of the faith don't spend any time.

Studying.

Cults and isms and so they can be easily taken in by their language because they don't know what the language is. So it's important to note that in looking at how people are examining things and how people are dealing with things.

Alright.

So just listen carefully.

Which is still a theological term. That's why I didn't use it because it's still a theological term. But Christians believe in Jesus Christ believe in God coming back again all the same things that you do Pentecostal Christians but then how they describe and explain the Godhead in the traditional oneness.

Sense.

So you have traditional Trinitarians traditional oneness and they describe it differently. I would suggest that it's more than just a description and in fact I would say that most oneness people would say it's more than just a description which by the way may be why Bishop Jake says that he's considered heretical by people in like UPCI churches because there is this middle group where basically you just sort of throw up your hands and say well I don't know.

There's this mystery. It could be this it could be that.

You know.

We just.

The Bible.

And this is really one of the points here folks. What they're saying is the Bible is not clear enough to actually make a decision it's just not there. And a large number.

Of scholars.

Would agree with that but of course they also would not agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God so they don't look for harmony they split up into parts. And if you split the Bible up into parts.

Sure.

Coming up with a meaningful coherent message from it's impossible. If that's where you want to go just go all the way and I think that's where this elephant room stuff leads is to a fundamental. Well it is a downgrade controversy.

It really is.

Similar to what happened in England it is a downgrade controversy.

And.

That's what you're always fighting. Every generation has to fight. Downgrade. There's nothing new there. There's nothing new there at all.

But just.

Keep that in mind.

And I was in that church and raised in that church for a number of years and my problem with it as I began to go on as I began to develop my ministry I started preaching from that church from that book and that sort of thing but I'm also informed by the infiltration of my Baptist experience and my Methodist experience so I ended up.

Like.

Method-Bapti-Costal in a way.

Method-Bapti-Costal.

Okay.

So.

Is he saying.

That he has.

He's come up with his own view it's sort of a mixture of things.

Is you know.

I can understand.

That.

If you're talking about arguing fine points of eschatology or something like that. But is the Trinity something where you can pull from a little bit here and pull from a little bit there and just come up with something new.

Remember.

We're talking about the very revealed identity of God himself.

Is that something.

We can just go.

Well.

There's different parts and pieces you can just it's like you can put together.

Different ways.

It's a Rubik's Cube.

You know.

So I'm kind of like a mixed breed sitting up here.

Okay.

And I'm beginning to find out that it's easy to throw rocks at people that you don't know.

May I suggest.

That.

As soon as you start doing this.

I want to throw rocks.

At folks you are once again showing a tremendous amount of disrespect to the history of the church and to those who've come before us.

Who.

Some of whom were willing to die for these issues.

And.

Were willing to be driven out of their churches and were willing to give their lives in the sense of the entirety of their ministries to the defense of something.

They thought.

Was absolutely definitional and important. That is really what we're being told here.

Is that.

You know what if you look back.

At the history of Christianity there was a lot of really.

Of people.

Who did really dumb things and one of the things they did was they actually thought that the truth on this subject.

Excludes variation from it.

They were just wrong evidently.

But the more you really get to know them and see Christ work in their lives regardless of their belief system you begin to try to be a bridge builder.

So you want to be a bridge builder and that's why you have the ecumenical movement and that's why.

You have people.

Trying to build bridges to Mormonism.

And.

You have the the silliness.

Of.

Chrislam and you have the inroads of postmodern thinking that cannot handle that there is objective truth in certain areas that cannot be manipulated.

And.

And turned into something other than what it is. I think you need to recognize that Driscoll despite the fact he'll take on Justin Briarley now. Look I love Justin.

But Justin was.

A little cheeky in that interview.

By the way.

That last question about his wife I was surprised with Justin I actually listened.

To that.

And I had enough balance and fairness to say yeah.

You know.

Driscoll wasn't completely off in everything he said.

I'm not saying.

That he was right about everything either.

But okay.

He goes after Justin Briarley on his egalitarianism.

And I would go.

After Justin. Justin doesn't want to debate me on that and he would say that but maybe because I'm just a nasty yank.

But.

He'll go after. Justin Briarley on complementarianism versus egalitarianism.

But now.

We're sitting here and we're talking the trinity and he will not challenge on anywhere.

Near.

The level.

That he.

Doesn't.

Challenge.

Justin Briarley.

Hello?

Can someone.

See.

Imbalance here? Can someone.

See a lack.

Of.

Balance and proper perspective? I think so. Does that mean like the Aryans? Folks when we talk about modalism we are talking.

About the.

Earliest heresy.

Ever dealt with.

By the church.

Do you know.

That was a hundred years before.

Nicaea?

Okay.

75 years the century before Nicaea the eastern church in particular had to deal with this concept.

And it was rejected.

From.

The start.

So yeah it's been hundreds.

Actually it's been almost thousands.

That this.

Has been an issue.

No question.

About that.

But.

When did modern man become so brilliant that everything that has already been settled in the past can just be.

Brought up.

And put back on the table.

Again?

He who stands.

In the middle of the world gets his.

Bible sets as I began.

To progress I began.

To understand that some of the dogma that I was taught was very dogmatic and very narrow and really not the best description of how I now understand the Godhead.

Now did you.

Catch that? Did you catch that? Let me replay that because this is vitally important.

We are called.

As the body.

Of Christ.

To reconcile wherever possible.

Alright but before we.

Oop.

I guess I didn't go far enough back. Very small screen.

Here.

This movement was very dogmatic and very narrow and really not the best description of how I now understand the Godhead.

Really not the best description of how I now understand the Godhead. Really not the best description? I mean that's.

Again.

This raises the very same.

Question.

That I have in regards to the gospel for many.

People.

And that is.

When you.

Encounter Rome's gospel. Is that just not the very best description? Is the Roman Mass just not the best description.

Of the.

Sacrifice of Christ? Are the solas just a little better description than the non-solas?

Is it just a.

Little bit too dogmatic? Just a little bit too narrow?

If we could just.

Widen it out.

Just a little bit? This is not how someone speaks who has come to understand.

The absolute.

Necessity of recognizing.

That the Son.

As the.

Son.

Has eternally existed. This is someone who is seeking.

To.

Be ecumenical.

And to.

Allow for all sorts of different views. That's why I don't think this is a.

Rehabilitation.

Of oneness. The oneness folks would find this to be.

Offensive.

Anybody.

Who believes in objective truth should find this to be offensive.

Reconciliation, Unity, and the Need for Biblical Truth

I still did not want to switch teams and start throwing rocks back across the street. Much of what we do today is teach people to take sides. But I believe we're called as the body.

Of Christ.

To reconcile wherever possible.

Reconcile in regards to personal sin not compromise in regards to revelational.

Truth.

People hear this and.

They.

Grab hold.

Of the.

Emotion.

But don't realize the words are being used in a completely foreign.