Modalism holds that Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not refer to
distinct persons in the godhead, but to different modes of existence of a
single person. It teaches that in ages past God manifested himself as
the Father, during the incarnation of Christ he manifested himself as
the Son, and subsequently he manifested himself as the Holy Spirit. As
one of its key tenets it states that God cannot exist in more than one
mode at a time. Continue at Tim Challies
Scriptures teach consistently that faith comes through the proclamation of the gospel, not through good works. Christ himself was not arrested and arraigned because he was trying to restore family values or feed the poor...The mounting ire of the religious leaders toward Jesus coalesced around him making himself equal with God and forgiving sins in his own person, directly, over against the temple and its sacrificial system. Michael Horton
The purpose of this Blog is to introduce men and women all over the World to the Doctrines of Grace; the 5 Solas; Reformation Theology and the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Showing posts with label T. D. Jakes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label T. D. Jakes. Show all posts
Monday, May 12, 2014
The False Teachers: T.D. Jakes
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Young, Restless and... Nietzschean?
Over at First Thoughts, Collin Garbarino offers some very perceptive comments on the Driscoll plagiarism affair.
He makes the point that such activity receives a failing grade at his
university. I would only add that at Westminster it also involves
automatic suspension from the degree program followed by discussion with
the powers that be about whether Christian ministry is really an option
for the perpetrator.
One sentence in particular stands out: 'Ghostwriting is lying, and plagiarism is stealing, and there seems to be a lot of it going around.' No further comment is necessary, for that says it all.
For some time now I have been harping on and on about the corrupting effects of celebrity culture on conservative evangelicalism. I think I was wrong: we are not dealing these days with mere celebrities; the ethical transgressions we are witnessing would indicate that we are actually dealing with a form of evangelical Nietzscheanism whereby the leaders of the movement are, to borrow a phrase, beyond good and evil. This should have been clear when Driscoll embraced T D Jakes as a brother. Continue at Carl Trueman
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Open Letter to Mark Driscoll (2013)
Dear Pastor Mark --
I know you don't read any of the little blogs, or people who are trying
to make their own tribe, but others do, and I think it's worth writing a
brief open letter to you this week based on your epic video from this
weekend.
I think it's fantastic that you can walk away from the Gospel Coalition, and hand over the reigns to Acts29, and with no muss and no fuss start your own tribe. It's proof that you have something which most of us don't have. I'm sure there's a Greek word for it, but unfortunately I don't speak Greek.
Someone with more time on their hands might want to go through this 21-minute monologue and find all the ingrown hairs and blemishes, but sadly: I'm on a tight schedule this week. I'm writing today about the funniest parts of this video. In your attempts here to get tribes to talk to each other, you have somehow done two things so well that they deserve a mention.
The first is this: you are fantastic at making much of yourself. You are the master of the humblebrag now that the meme is dead and the ship has sailed. Like a self-aware version of Ari Gold from Entourage, you drop all the names you know to demonstrate your position -- but dutifully, you're not like any of them. T.D. Jakes didn't hardly even know you when he met you, for pete's sake. And thankfully: you're nothing like the homeschooled fundies who can't make a tribe for themselves, who act drunk even though they would never touch the stuff. You're a tribal leader.
If anyone knows how to salvage his own reputation from the doctrinal and moral pratfalls and frankly-insulting egoisms for which you are actually well-known, it's you -- and it's funny to watch you do it as you get older and your audience stays the same age. Continue at Frank Turk
I think it's fantastic that you can walk away from the Gospel Coalition, and hand over the reigns to Acts29, and with no muss and no fuss start your own tribe. It's proof that you have something which most of us don't have. I'm sure there's a Greek word for it, but unfortunately I don't speak Greek.
Someone with more time on their hands might want to go through this 21-minute monologue and find all the ingrown hairs and blemishes, but sadly: I'm on a tight schedule this week. I'm writing today about the funniest parts of this video. In your attempts here to get tribes to talk to each other, you have somehow done two things so well that they deserve a mention.
The first is this: you are fantastic at making much of yourself. You are the master of the humblebrag now that the meme is dead and the ship has sailed. Like a self-aware version of Ari Gold from Entourage, you drop all the names you know to demonstrate your position -- but dutifully, you're not like any of them. T.D. Jakes didn't hardly even know you when he met you, for pete's sake. And thankfully: you're nothing like the homeschooled fundies who can't make a tribe for themselves, who act drunk even though they would never touch the stuff. You're a tribal leader.
If anyone knows how to salvage his own reputation from the doctrinal and moral pratfalls and frankly-insulting egoisms for which you are actually well-known, it's you -- and it's funny to watch you do it as you get older and your audience stays the same age. Continue at Frank Turk
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Any Place for the God of Job?
The last twenty-four hours have seen widespread reporting of
the latest TGC 'kerfuffle,' this time over Mark Driscoll's comments
about Joel Osteen. I guess I am becoming rather jaded, but I am
surprised there is surprise: he is the man, after all, who gave T. D.
Jakes a clean bill of health last year.
More interesting, however, is the hint that some unnamed modern reformed types make too much of suffering. The apparent connection Pastor Driscoll makes between this and a world which apparently over-uses antidepressants is interesting and no doubt worthy of discussion. For me, it triggered a chain of related thoughts in my mind. Do we make too much of suffering? Is depression sinful? Is it always the result of personal sin? Or poor preaching? Or defective theology and unbalanced homiletic emphases? I am convinced that this is not so. Once one moves in that direction, one is positing a tight and necessary connection between personal issues and specific suffering. That is not biblical and is pastorally very dangerous. Yes, suffering can sometimes be that way: the man who cheats on his wife and loses his family suffers as a direct result of his personal sin. But is the depressed person necessarily suffering because of some specific sin? The Bible, I believe, teaches that this is not so.
Preaching through Job recently, I was very struck by the Lord's final intervention. Job has suffered incredibly throughout the book; and we, the readers, know that none of this is his fault. It is the result of the battle between God and the Accuser and, if anything, Job's suffering is thus the result of his devotion to the Lord, which Satan wishes to test.
More interesting, however, is the hint that some unnamed modern reformed types make too much of suffering. The apparent connection Pastor Driscoll makes between this and a world which apparently over-uses antidepressants is interesting and no doubt worthy of discussion. For me, it triggered a chain of related thoughts in my mind. Do we make too much of suffering? Is depression sinful? Is it always the result of personal sin? Or poor preaching? Or defective theology and unbalanced homiletic emphases? I am convinced that this is not so. Once one moves in that direction, one is positing a tight and necessary connection between personal issues and specific suffering. That is not biblical and is pastorally very dangerous. Yes, suffering can sometimes be that way: the man who cheats on his wife and loses his family suffers as a direct result of his personal sin. But is the depressed person necessarily suffering because of some specific sin? The Bible, I believe, teaches that this is not so.
Preaching through Job recently, I was very struck by the Lord's final intervention. Job has suffered incredibly throughout the book; and we, the readers, know that none of this is his fault. It is the result of the battle between God and the Accuser and, if anything, Job's suffering is thus the result of his devotion to the Lord, which Satan wishes to test.
And by the end of Job's last big speech (Job 31) he is
depressed, and with good reason. The man has lost everything. Continue at Carl Trueman
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Warnings of False Teaching
2. Matthew 24:4 – 12: And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take
heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I
am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours
of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to
pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and
kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences,
and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of
sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill
you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then
shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one
another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
3. Matthew 24:24 – 27: For there shall arise false Christs, and false
prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it
were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told
you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the
desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it
not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto
the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Continue at Manfred
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Pachydermal Post-Mortem
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! Continue at Tom Chantry
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! Continue at Tom Chantry
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Putting a Face on Destruction
In all of our discussions, we might forget that the theology we’re
debating has a human face. On the other end of our words, our blogs,
and our preaching are people. Listening people. People who believe and
trust us. People who–tremble at this–take our teaching seriously and
act on it. There may be only a few people in our homes that listen to
us, or there may be several dozen in our churches, or there may be an
untold number across the globe tuning in through some electronic media.
But make no mistake about it, if a tree falls in the woods it does make a sound even if you don’t immediately see anyone around to hear it. They’re there and they’re listening.
A couple of days ago my wife posed a question to me. Standing over
the kitchen counter she asked, “Do you think anyone has really
illustrated what the problem is with Jakes’ teaching?” She explained
that she was quite aware of the many theological discussions at work.
But she was looking for someone to actually illustrate the problems
stemming from the teaching of Jakes and others like him. I pondered
that for a moment and realized she was correct. We didn’t have a
picture of Jakes’ effect on real lives. That’s why I call her “Kristie
the Wise.”
So, perhaps it would be wise for us to stop for a moment to remember
the very real people who sit under the false teaching of people like
T.D. Jakes. We need to put a face on the destruction caused by
heterodoxy (“prosperity gospel”) and heresy (modalism). To that end, I
want to share with you an email I received from a brother after ER2. He
wrote with a concern very similar to my wife’s. He wanted to share his
story as an illustration. I offered to share it anonymously, but he
wanted to leave his name in it–Sean. In his words, he wanted to “put a
face to it.”
Here’s Sean’s brief account: Read it all at Thabiti Anyabwile
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Herding the Elephants
With all the digital ink that’s been spilled surrounding The Elephant
Room 2, it’s been difficult (and a bit wearisome!) trying to keep up
with everything. I thought that I would give it my best shot to corral
some of the most helpful, and some of the most telling, commentary on
the whole situation into a single spot.
Because of the scope of the event, this post will be quite lengthy.
Nevertheless, I hope it will be a benefit to those interested in the
issues.
In Anticipation
- Pretty soon after MacDonald came out endorsing “manifestations” as classical Trinitarian language (which comments have since been revised), Carl Trueman got the ball rolling by asking, “Is Nicene Christianity Important?” Surely not a sign of good things to come.
- A few days later The Cripplegate’s own Nathan Busenitz wrote about the history of the modalist heresy and the history of Jakes’ involvement with modalism.
- Challies followed up the next day with a round-up of where the issues stood at that point. He asked poignant questions that unfortunately would have to be answered in the negative: “Will these men be willing to ask him very difficult, very nuanced, very penetrating questions? … And I don’t mean for the other participants to ask a question that essentially says, ‘You’re not a modalist, right?’ but an honest, searching, penetrating series of questions that will address this concern head-on and will not stop until it is settled. Jakes has given us legitimate cause to be concerned, cause enough to go no further until answers are given. Until that question is settled, nothing else really matters.” Continue at Mike Riccardi
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Discernment Gap: Showing a Lack of Passion for God's Honor and Glory
Reading the commentary on the Elephant Room 2
events, and in particular, the alleged rehabilitation (repentance?) of
TD Jakes has truly been brought me sadness. Sure, I know that very few
Evangelicals, even scholars, have much experience with modalists and
Oneness advocates, but still, the general ease with which many have been
taken in by such a shallow and brief discussion does not speak well of
the depth of understanding of many today. It also speaks loudly to the
fact that many in Evangelicalism disconnect the honor and glory of God
from the truth He has revealed about Himself. That is, they do not see
that to worship and honor God demands from us our utmost effort to
accurately hear and to follow what He has revealed about Himself,
primarily in Jesus Christ, and the holy Scriptures. To take lightly
God's self-revelation is an affront to the divine majesty, and would not
be the action of a heart that is consumed with passion for its Lord.
The true source of a passion for sound doctrine comes first and foremost
from a heart that has singular attention to the glory and honor of the
object of its passion. Those who "argue doctrine" simply for the sake
of ego or self-gratification do so to their own destruction. Sound
doctrine isn't about personalities or men, it is about truth that
transcends our brief time on earth.
Let's remember some of Jakes' words from ER2. Keeping in mind his statement of faith, which continues to use the modalistic language of "manifestations," and keeping in mind that Jakes does not baptize in the Trinitarian formula (he baptizes in Jesus name only---something oddly ignored by the tribunal who seemed to grant to themselves the ability to proclaim Trinitarian orthodoxy at ER2), let's consider his words. When asked if God manifests Himself in three ways, or exists in three divine Persons, he said that "neither one of them totally get it for me." Now there is a ringing profession of Trinitarianism if I ever heard it. Please, why are so many quick to pass over this direct statement that the historic profession of faith just doesn't quite "totally get it" for Bishop Jakes? Does that really sound like someone who has seen the error of their ways and is ready to abjure error for a sound profession of faith in the truth? Or does it sound like someone who really thinks he is in a position to pick and choose what is comfortable for him given his goals and aims? Continue at James White
Let's remember some of Jakes' words from ER2. Keeping in mind his statement of faith, which continues to use the modalistic language of "manifestations," and keeping in mind that Jakes does not baptize in the Trinitarian formula (he baptizes in Jesus name only---something oddly ignored by the tribunal who seemed to grant to themselves the ability to proclaim Trinitarian orthodoxy at ER2), let's consider his words. When asked if God manifests Himself in three ways, or exists in three divine Persons, he said that "neither one of them totally get it for me." Now there is a ringing profession of Trinitarianism if I ever heard it. Please, why are so many quick to pass over this direct statement that the historic profession of faith just doesn't quite "totally get it" for Bishop Jakes? Does that really sound like someone who has seen the error of their ways and is ready to abjure error for a sound profession of faith in the truth? Or does it sound like someone who really thinks he is in a position to pick and choose what is comfortable for him given his goals and aims? Continue at James White
See Also: Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room
AND - Voddie Baucham and Shepherd’s Conference
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The Elephant in the Room
This past week a firestorm erupted over the recent “Elephant Room
2.” The controversy centers around the decision to invite Bishop T.D.
Jakes to participate in the event. The central questions in the debate
are 1) whether or not Bishop Jakes holds to the historic, orthodox
doctrine of the Trinity, 2) whether it was appropriate to invite (and
feature) him without first having clarified his position on this
cardinal doctrine, and 3) whether he cleared up the matter.
I was scheduled to speak at Harvest Bible Chapel on the weekend
following ER2 which raised significant questions about my stance on the
matter. While I do not consider it my responsibility to comment on
every controversy, I do recognize my duty to clarify matters with which I
am involved directly, and/or those that impact the congregation I am
called to shepherd. Hence, my explanation now.
My Invitation to ER2
In October of 2011, I was invited to participate in The Elephant Room
2. The invitation followed Mark Dever’s decision to pull out. James
MacDonald called me and asked me to take his place. He also informed me
of the controversy at that time surrounding the invitation to Jakes and
Dever’s decision to pull out, and that Crawford Loritts had agreed to
fill in. I knew James MacDonald only indirectly, and I had only
recently heard of the Elephant Room.
Initially, it sounded like a very good idea to “pin Jakes down” on
the Trinity. My area of emphasis in my theological training is
Evangelism/Apologetics. Moreover, I addressed Jakes’s modalism in my
first book in 2004, so I am well aware of the issues in question, and
believed I could make a contribution. Also, to my delight, James
indicated that Jakes had abandoned Oneness Pentecostalism, rejected
Modalism, and, he believed, Jakes would make that clear at ER2. Continue at Voddie Baucham
See Also: Book Review: T.D. Jakes: Various Works
Saturday, January 28, 2012
T. D. Jakes and the Elephant Room
Questions After the Elephant Room
A Special “Elephant Room 2” Edition of Five to Live By
After the Circus Parade
T.D. Jakes Not Modalist? An Update from the Elephant Room
Comments Open and Closed
My Observations from The Elephant Room 2
Final Thoughts: The Elephant Room 2
Bishop TD Jakes on Oneness
T.D. Jakes, the Trinity, and Truth
ELEPHANT ROOM 2: MAY WE NOW REGARD T.D. JAKES AS TRINITARIAN AND ORTHODOX?
NO COMPROMISE RADIO: CARL TRUEMAN ON THE ELEPHANT ROOM
Coupla-Five Additional Thoughts on the Events of the Week
On asking better questions...
Do You Beat Your Wife?
Report from The Elephant Room Round 2
Attention, Elephant Room Security Personnel...
ER2 and the Ugly Details
On Heretics and Helpfulness: Relating to Those Outside of Orthodoxy
Modalist Heretic T.D. Jakes at Elephant Room- Does Jakes now Affirm the Trinity?
DR. JAMES WHITE TWITTER MINI-COMMENTARY ON T.D. JAKES IN ELEPHANT ROOM2
Quick-Hit Thoughts on ER2
Trevin Wax Offers a Fair Critique of ER2
If only T. D. Jakes was asked…
IMAGE: Mike Corley
Thursday, January 26, 2012
James MacDonald, Modalist and Word-Faith Preacher T. D. Jakes
Today's sally is brought to you courtesy of James MacDonald. You'll forgive me for letting you do your own research for links and specifics; we at Pyro (but not we alone) have been pretty much on top of the situation, and sometimes ahead of the curve. Two of my favorite Tree Falling in the Forest posts were on the topic (this and this).
But anyway, James MacDonald decided to feature well-known
modalist and word-faith preacher T. D. Jakes as a "Christian leader" on
his Elephant Room show. A firestorm of very appropriate concern and
criticism arose. MacDonald responded alternately by chest-thumping,
backtracking, then more chest-thumping. Many wondered how this guy could
be associated with The Gospel Coalition while seeming to be relatively
unconcerned about, you know, the gospel.
As usual, Phil Johnson put it best: "The collective leadership of TGC are going to have to decide which is more important: the Gospel, or the Coalition."
Well no, it turns out, they won't.
In a solution that solves nothing, James MacDonald has resigned from TGC leadership, as that leadership has acknowledged. In making this acknowledgement, however, they only compliment the departing brother, and make no direct reference to his hosting a heretic as a Christian leader. So that problem is unsolved.
What does MacDonald himself say? Oh, this and that, about what you might expect. He's making his priorities pretty clear to everyone, I daresay, and I hope the effect is salutary.
My focus is this bit from MacDonald's post: Read the rest at Dan Phillips
Well no, it turns out, they won't.
In a solution that solves nothing, James MacDonald has resigned from TGC leadership, as that leadership has acknowledged. In making this acknowledgement, however, they only compliment the departing brother, and make no direct reference to his hosting a heretic as a Christian leader. So that problem is unsolved.
What does MacDonald himself say? Oh, this and that, about what you might expect. He's making his priorities pretty clear to everyone, I daresay, and I hope the effect is salutary.
My focus is this bit from MacDonald's post: Read the rest at Dan Phillips
Saturday, November 12, 2011
James MacDonald and T. D. Jakes - the Elephant Room
In the earlier post, MacDonald acknowledged his own inconsistency: he knew he should not have "used strong language" to scold others for being harsh in their criticism of the Elephant Room strategy. But in yesterday's post and video, MacDonald casts off restraint and reverts to angry-sounding rhetoric.
Despite their starkly contrasting styles, both statements have one thing in common: MacDonald wishes those with concerns about what he is doing would just shut up. He says it euphemistically: "We are asking that those interested in what we are doing allow the conversations to take place before making final conclusions about their wisdom or helpfulness." But clearly, that plea applies to critics, not to MacDonald himself or to those who support his strategy.
There are multiple layers of irony in that. MacDonald purports to be
championing fearless dialogue with people he says he doesn't necessarily
agree with. But there's a distinct and clearly discernible direction to
the drift of the "dialogue." It is painfully obvious that MacDonald is
not so keen to listen and learn when someone more conservative than he
wants to share a perspective. Keep Reading >>>
Monday, October 31, 2011
The Elephant in the Elephant Room
One of the
more recent entries to the conservative Christian conference line-up is
the Elephant Room, the brainchild of James MacDonald. The idea was to
bring Christian leaders together for some brotherly sparing over
“elephant-in-the-room” issues. Pleased with the results of the first
conference in March 2011, they’re prepared for the second in January
2012. This Elephant Room “Round 2” is being promoted like a prize fight:
“Your ringside seat awaits,” and “You know the rules…No wavering. No
Sidestepping. No excuses.”

MacDonald recently lit up the blogosphere when he invited T.D. Jakes to join ER2. Does he really intend to extend the boundaries of Christian brotherhood to a well-known anti-Trinitarian modalist, prosperity preacher? MacDonald received a fair bit of well-deserved criticism and, rather than rethinking his decision, he dug in his heels and defended it. He doesn’t think Jakes is still a modalist. Jakes is still a’ comin’ to ER2.
(Stir up a little controversy, you get instant publicity and free promotion. You gotta admit, it’s kinda clever.)
I’ve very much appreciated the thoughtful criticisms posted by Thabiti Anyabwile, Carl Trueman, and Phil Johnson. At some point, you should read those posts; they are instructive on many levels.
But I’d like to go back to Round 1 of the Elephant Room and the video Mark Driscoll posted on his website. That particular session was about the place of culture in the church, specifically asking whether or not it was a good idea for Perry Noble to open his 2010 Easter service with AC/DC’s blasphemous song, “Highway to Hell.” (No, I’m not kidding.) Evidently, that’s how Perry and his peeps “engage the culture.” Keep Reading >>>
IMAGE
MacDonald recently lit up the blogosphere when he invited T.D. Jakes to join ER2. Does he really intend to extend the boundaries of Christian brotherhood to a well-known anti-Trinitarian modalist, prosperity preacher? MacDonald received a fair bit of well-deserved criticism and, rather than rethinking his decision, he dug in his heels and defended it. He doesn’t think Jakes is still a modalist. Jakes is still a’ comin’ to ER2.
(Stir up a little controversy, you get instant publicity and free promotion. You gotta admit, it’s kinda clever.)
I’ve very much appreciated the thoughtful criticisms posted by Thabiti Anyabwile, Carl Trueman, and Phil Johnson. At some point, you should read those posts; they are instructive on many levels.
But I’d like to go back to Round 1 of the Elephant Room and the video Mark Driscoll posted on his website. That particular session was about the place of culture in the church, specifically asking whether or not it was a good idea for Perry Noble to open his 2010 Easter service with AC/DC’s blasphemous song, “Highway to Hell.” (No, I’m not kidding.) Evidently, that’s how Perry and his peeps “engage the culture.” Keep Reading >>>
IMAGE
Labels:
AC/DC,
Anti-Trinitarian,
Controversy,
Criticism,
Elephant,
Elephant Room,
James MacDonald,
Mark Driscoll,
Modalism,
Perry Noble,
Prosperity Gospel,
T. D. Jakes,
Travis Allen,
Trinity
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Open Letter to D.A. Carson & Tim Keller
Dear Dr. Carson & Dr. Keller --
Recently, you have both penned a detailed statement about the nature of the Gospel Coalition, and about its duties or relationship to its readers and also its council members. I found this essay instructive, and useful, and clarifying in the context it was coming from, but in my view, it misses the point of the concerns of almost all the critics of the dust-up over the Elephant Room. I wanted to offer to you an outsider's perspective on what just happened and why it is not enough merely to say what you have said so far. Keep Reading >>>
As
I begin to write this, I do so with a personal sense of indebtedness to
both of you. I am not merely grateful for your books and lectures and
sermons which have taught me so much: I am grateful for the spirit with
which you have done it all. That is to say: while I am well-known
through a reputation of being quite a pill for the sake of the Gospel,
you both are known as fatherly men who have a graciousness I am certain I
lack, and it is that spirit from which I learn much all the time.
Recently, you have both penned a detailed statement about the nature of the Gospel Coalition, and about its duties or relationship to its readers and also its council members. I found this essay instructive, and useful, and clarifying in the context it was coming from, but in my view, it misses the point of the concerns of almost all the critics of the dust-up over the Elephant Room. I wanted to offer to you an outsider's perspective on what just happened and why it is not enough merely to say what you have said so far. Keep Reading >>>
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Open Letter to James MacDonald
Dear Pastor MacDonald,
First, allow me to greet you in the name of our common Master, the Lord Jesus.
I am writing to you as a fellow pastor - the pastor of a smaller church.
While I hope that you do not consider me a lesser brother because of
the smallness of my church, what I ought rather to say is that I do not
consider you an unworthy brother because of the largeness of yours. I
am not one of the small-church critics who holds the opinion that large
churches are universally evil. Rather, I believe that if it is God’s
will a church like yours can do much good for the cause of the gospel.
Some mega-church pastors care little for the gospel. That sort of man
would probably stop reading my letter as soon as he read that my church
is small. In such a man’s eyes the great gospel can only be served by
great men with great vision and wisdom and great results - meaning great
turn-out each Sunday. Keep Reading...
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Evangelical Freakshow
Carl Trueman has for ages been writing eloquent critiques about American evangelicalism, pointing out the folly of our big-conference market-driven culture, and the cults of celebrity we have spawned and now revel in.
The past two weeks have furnished plenty of proof that his concerns are
not utterly far-fetched, and it's no surprise that Dr. Trueman himself has noticed this.
If you haven't read "Fixing the Indemnity," go read it. Trueman is one of those rare, candid voices of relentless sanity in the madhouse of the religious blogosphere. Here's a sample:
Exactly!
Trueman goes on to describe how the prevailing style among our youngest American evangelical celebrities is a cheap knockoff of Comedy-Club culture. Who can disagree with that? By their own admission Chris Rock rather than Lloyd-Jones embodies the style they have sought to imitate. Trueman stops short of calling these jesters clowns. (He's nicer than me.) Keep Reading...
If you haven't read "Fixing the Indemnity," go read it. Trueman is one of those rare, candid voices of relentless sanity in the madhouse of the religious blogosphere. Here's a sample:
"To be blunt: why so much noise about Jakes when Furtick and Noble have already apparently been established in this Elephant Room circle for some time? Frankly, they hardly seem any closer to Paul's description of what an elder or overseer should be than the Bishop. Why all the hoohah and handwringing now about TD?"
Exactly!
Trueman goes on to describe how the prevailing style among our youngest American evangelical celebrities is a cheap knockoff of Comedy-Club culture. Who can disagree with that? By their own admission Chris Rock rather than Lloyd-Jones embodies the style they have sought to imitate. Trueman stops short of calling these jesters clowns. (He's nicer than me.) Keep Reading...
Monday, October 3, 2011
Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room
In 2007, the Lord granted me the privilege of publishing The Decline of African-American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity (IVP).
The book was a labor of sorrow and love–sorrow because of how sharp
and deep theological decline has been since the first writing African
Americans of the late 1700s and early 1800s, and love because I ache to
see my kinsmen according to the flesh brought into the gracious realms
of God’s salvation. For me, the book was an attempt to (a) accurately
trace the history of African-American theology using available primary
source material, and (b) fulfill a pastoral obligation to advance the
gospel and refute error (Titus 1:9).
Because the book “breaks rank” and “the party line,” I expected to be
alone against an avalanche of criticism and angry protest. But the
Lord has a people who have not bowed the knee to the baals of
theological heresy, a people who want to know the truth and who
instinctively if not explicitly knew something had gone wrong in the
African-American church. Jesus’ sheep hear and know His voice, and they
follow Him. Instead of an avalanche of criticism, I’ve pretty much
heard a chorus of “Finally” and “It’s about time!”
Labels:
Apostasy,
Collateral Damage,
Elephant Room,
Evangelical,
Fundamental Doctrines,
Heresies,
Heretics,
Modalism,
Orthodoxy,
Reformed Doctrine,
T. D. Jakes,
Thabiti Anyabwile,
Trinity
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Playing Nice With Heretics
Today Tim Challies has an item about James MacDonald's decision to invite T. D. Jakes
to participate at Elephant Room 2. Some of Tim's commenters think it's a
fine idea for MacDonald to extend a cordial welcome to someone whose
teaching is highly suspect so that he can define and defend himself.
Mark Driscoll expressed a similar opinion in his blogpost yesterday.
He sees the Jakes invitation as an opportunity for men who differ on
fundamental doctrines to "speak to one another face-to-face rather than
about one another blog-to-blog and tweet-to-tweet."
That all
sounds very nice and cordial, and it appeals to values that are highly
prized nowadays, but is it a biblical way to respond to heresy? Can you
imagine Paul proposing a friendly sharing of the platform with the
heretics who were troubling the Galatian churches? How different would
the apostle John's advice in his second epistle have been (not to
mention his legendary encounter with Cerinthus) if he had embraced the values of our more "enlightened" age.
Anyway, here are my thoughts, as posted in the combox over at Challies: Read it HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

