Sola Sisters

False Teachings About Hearing Audible Words From God Taking Even Deeper Root in Today's Church

2012-02-15T10:44:00.004-05:00

Article by Amanda Bowers (Hears His Voice blog)

I received the following comment from a reader on my recent Note of Repentance:

"At the Passion 2012 conference, Beth Moore, John Piper, Louie Giglio and company taught/led an entire sports arena (45,000 college aged students) in (attempting to 'hear' God's voice). My son's friends in attendance of this conference told of a young girl standing outside the arena crying her eyes out because she had not heard the audible voice of God as they had instructed. Others tried to comfort her but were also distraught at not hearing a thing.

This is what Louie Giglio announced during a session that had them upset:

“How many of you heard the voice of God speak specifically, clearly, directly, and personally, to you? Can you just put a hand up? I’d like you to share it. Can you put a hand up for a minute?

Just want you to look around; that’s people saying, “God Almighty (pause) the Maker of heaven (pause) the one Who’s sitting on the only throne (pause) that’s not under threat (long pause, audience cheers)—He spoke to me. He spoke to me.”

“God spoke to me.” (long pause) Don’t let the voice of the darkness, tell you that you are not (pause) worth (pause) that God would not speak to you. (pause) Don’t let him tell you, you don’t matter. (pause) God spoke to you.”

They felt they must not be "good enough Christians" for God to speak to them. Thank you for warning others of this heresy. These children are diligently opening themselves to a potentially demonic spirit to hear God's audible voice. Please pray for them and for all the others who raised their hands..."

Pietism

The issue at hand with the current push to "hear God speak" outside of His already revealed, complete, and written Word is that it creates confusion, hurt, and sets up a system of pietism within the body of Christ. This idea that Christians can and should hear "audible words from God" is a dangerous teaching that has become deeply rooted in evangelicalism. And unfortunately, it is through books like Experiencing God and Hearing God's Voice, authored by widely respected Southern Baptist pastor Henry Blackaby, that these false and dangerous teachings have entered into the church. Please understand this is precisely why I am repenting from endorsing the teachings of Beth Moore and Henry Blackaby. As well intentioned as they might be, they are leading people down a dangerous path of subjectivity and confusion. When in fact, in the gospel of Luke we read:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1: 1-2, my emphasis)

Clearly, Luke is telling Theophilus, it seemed good to him, just as the patriarchs wrote down the eyewitness accounts of the events from the beginning of time, and just as they were ministers of the word and delivered them to the Israelites, that he also desired to write down the things they witnessed about Christ in an orderly account. Why? So that Theophilus may have certainty concerning the things that he was taught. Doesn't it seem to you, that God has done a most gracious thing in giving us the Holy Scriptures? Giving us a more sure account of His progressive revelation that was final and complete in His Son, Jesus Christ, as it plainly states in Hebrews 1:1-2:

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." (my emphasis)

Peter admonishes us to understand that the things they have written are not mere men's thoughts or cleverly devised fables when he sates:

"And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:19-21

This begs the question, if the prophecies of Scripture that the apostles wrote and spoke about were not "produced by the will of man" but were spoken "from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit", what exactly is it that we are listening for from God today? Are we listening for prophecy? If so, are we claiming to be on the same ground as the apostles and are these prophecies occurring as we are carried along by the Spirit? Shouldn't someone be writing them down in the back of their Bibles? Wouldn't God want the entire body of Christ to know when He speaks? Are there things missing from the Word that we must have in order to live a godly life? The Scriptures answer that question too:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

More specifically, I want to know how Mr. Giglio, et al. would counsel this young lady and her friends? What are your answers to her distraught feeling that she is, in fact, not worthy of hearing God's voice? What Biblical ground and by what authority do you make the claims to these young people that God will speak to them in such a fashion?

Here is what Mr. Blackaby's says to those who do not hear God's voice:

"There is nothing more important in life than understanding when God is speaking to you. If you are disoriented to God's voice, your life is dangerously vulnerable. The Bible indicates conclusively that God does speak to people and that he does guide them to his will. The problem of not hearing from God never lies with God. He does communicate his will. It is not a matter of us searching in vain for God's hidden will. He readily reveals it to those who show themselves obedient to do it. If you do not hear God's voice, could it be your heart is not ready to respond to what he says? Are you clinging to sin or holding out against what you already know of his will? No matter what the reason for the silence, there is a remedy: repent and return to God. Allow God to soften your heart so you are ready to hear his voice and to respond in obedience. Continue seeking and listening until you have heard him speak to you in his unmistakable voice. When he does, it will change your life." Henry T. Blackaby; Richard Blackaby. Hearing God's Voice (Kindle Locations 3100-3104). Kindle Edition, (my emphasis)

Mr. Blackaby, the question one has to ask is this: does this mean that you are sinless? Does this now mean that since you are regularly and actively hearing God speak, you have special access to God that His other children don't have because of sin in their life? I understand that Scripture does teach that sin and rebellion will bring chastisement to God's children. We all understand that. Scripture says that God doesn't hear our prayers when we sin and rebel, but where does it "indicate conclusively" that we won't "hear God speak"? A true child of God abhors sin in their life and will respond under the heavy burden of conviction and chastisement. Torturing God's little ones by teaching them that if they aren't "hearing Gods voice" it is because their "heart is not ready to respond" and that they need to "repent and return to God" is not Biblical.

Just to be clear that Mr. Blackaby is not talking only about the illumination of the Word by the Spirit of God, but is actually encouraging us that if we aren't actually hearing God's voice speaking to us, then it is perhaps because we are in sin and need to repent, read what he says in response to the following question:

Question: "When you talk about "hearing from God," I picture God speaking in an audible voice. Does that ever happen?

Answer: When we talk about God speaking in this book, we are referring to any way God communicates with people. Neither of us has ever heard God speak audibly. However, God has clearly communicated his will to us many, many times. God is sovereign. He can choose to speak to us any way he chooses, and that includes speaking audibly. However, God also relates to us in ways that build our faith. If God spoke out loud every time he wanted our attention, we would not need to concentrate on him, nor would we require faith. Just as we are forced to listen carefully when someone speaks softly, so by God speaking to us in many ways, we are forced to pay close attention to what he is communicating. People are usually fascinated by the spectacular. They seek the miraculous. We ought not to seek the spectacular when we listen to God. Rather, we should be pleased that God communicates with us in any way he chooses'.Keep your heart open to all the ways God wants to communicate with you.

Henry T. Blackaby; Richard Blackaby. Hearing God's Voice (Kindle Locations 3044-3050). Kindle Edition (my emphasis).

Let me clarify that, while I agree with Mr. Blackaby that God is sovereign and He can choose to speak to us "any way he chooses," it is clear from His Word that in these latter days He has chosen to reveal Himself through the written Word:

"For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Romans 15:4

I'm all for rightly dividing the Word of truth and calling men to repent and receive the grace of God for forgiveness of sins. That is a call that will "change your life." There is an inner call to repentance that all God's children hear when the Word of God is rightly preached, but that call is mediated through the preaching and teaching of the Word and it is conviction of sin and the revealing of Christ in a manner that opens the eyes of the blind to understand the Word of truth. This is a miracle of the Spirit. God does mediate His truth to us via the teaching and preaching and study of His Word and we who "hear His voice" understand and respond to His Word.

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." Romans 10: 16-17

If that were all that is being taught here, then I could understand it, but it is not. This is going beyond the understanding of Biblical truth and the application of it to our lives. This is the seeking of revelations for specific directions to our lives. This is an encouragement to empty and/or quiet (be still) your mind in order to receive or hear "His voice." God gives us wisdom via the study of His Word and He gives us guidelines and principles and He does lead us providentially, but He is not a magic eight ball that we can ask a question, shake, and get an answer if we are "still" and "listen" in "silence."

Below is the Passion 2012 clip where Louie Giglio is exhorting the audience to "listen" for God's voice:

And in the clip below, Todd Friel of Wretched Radio does an excellent job helping us better understand why this whole event was, at best, a big confusing mess, and at worst, flat out wrong! I will note, that he references that Desiring God ministries did have an article with instructions on the practice of Lectio Divina at the Desiring God website, but that article has since been removed and you can read the reason why by going here.

Additional Resources

A Note of Repentance For Those To Whom I Taught or Endorsed Henry Blackaby and Beth Moore

Hello, My Name Is Amanda, and I Was a False Teacher

How Pietism Deceives Christians (The Errors of Elitist Teachings in the Church)

We're Really Not Out To "Get" John Piper and Beth Moore

John Piper Encouraging Lectio Divina

Lectio Divina and "Hearing God's Voice"

John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist Church Endorsing Books by Contemplative Spirituality Mystics Dallas Willard and Richard Foster

Beth Moore and John Piper Lead "Lectio Divina Lite" Prayer at Passion 2012 Conference

Just Do Something: How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc. - by Kevin DeYoung

Just Do Something - by Kevin DeYoung (audio)

On John Piper and Lectio Divina

Biblical Silence vs. Mystical Silence

Secular Interview About What Mysticism Is - BBC Radio Program

What Is Mysticism? (Sola Sisters Article)

What Is Mysticism? (3-Part Series by Dr. Gary Gilley) - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5

Testimony of a Former Mystic

The Discerning of Spirits

2012-02-15T09:54:00.000-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack, reprinted from Apprising Ministries

Pastor John MacArthur
Discerning of spirits(v.10)—Satan is the great deceiver (John 8:44) and his demons counterfeit God’s message and work. Christians with the gift of discernment have the God-given ability to recognize lying spirits and to identify deceptive and erroneous doctrine (see Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1).
Paul illustrated the use of this gift in Acts 16:16-18, as Peter had exercised it in Acts 5:3. When it was not being exercised in the Corinthian church, grave distortion of the truth occurred (see v. 3; 14:29).
Though its operation has changed since apostolic times (because of the completion of Scripture) it is still essential to have people in the church who are discerning. They are the guardians, the watchmen who protect the church from demonic lies, false doctrines, perverted cults, and fleshly elements. As it requires diligent study of the Word to exercise gifts of knowledge, wisdom, preaching, and teaching, so it does with discernment. [1]
An important gift for the protection of the church is that of discernment, the distinguishing of spirits. The basic meaning of distinguishing has to do with separating out for examination and judging in order to determine what is genuine and what is spurious. Satan is the great deceiver, “the father of lies” (John 8:44), and ever since the Fall he and his demons have counterfeited God’s message and God’s work. All Christians should judge carefully what they hear and read and “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1).
That is what the God-fearing and “noble-minded” Jews of Berea did when they first heard the gospel from Paul (Acts 17:11). They tested Paul’s word against what they knew of God’s Word, and because the two words matched they believed that what he preached was from God and not from demons. That is what every believer should do with every message that claims to be from God. No preacher or teacher of the gospel should resent having what he says judged against Scripture.
Those to whom God has given the gift of discernment have a special ability to recognize lying spirits, and this gift is the Spirit’s watchdog. Some ideas that are given as scriptural and that on the surface seem scriptural actually are clever counterfeits that would deceive most believers. Those with the gift of discernment are the Holy Sprit’s inspectors, His counterfeit experts to whom He gives special insight and understanding. The gift was especially valuable in the early church because the New Testament had not been completed. Because of the difficulty and expense of copying, for many years after its completion the Bible was not widely available. The Holy Spirit’s discerners were the church’s protectors.
The gift of discernment is also especially valuable when the church and the gospel are considered acceptable in society. When Christianity is persecuted, counterfeit teachers usually are scarce, because the price for being identified with the gospel is too high. They are much more likely to appear in times and in places where Christianity is considered respectable or at least is tolerated. In parts of the world today, evangelicalism is popular and often profitable. All sorts of teachers, preachers, writers, and counselors claim to be evangelical and biblical.
Although any thinking person realizes that all the ideas cannot be biblical, simply because many of them are so contradictory of each other, it is not always easy to know which are true and which are not. Most often they are a mixture. Counterfeit teachers used by Satan usually have some truth in what they say. Unfortunately, many basically sound teachers sometimes undiscerningly pick up ideas from psychology, philosophy, or popular thinking that seem biblical but are not. It is the ministry of those with the gift of discernment to help separate the wheat from the chaff.
The Corinthian believers who had that gift either were not using it or were being ignored. Otherwise the perverted ideas and practices that Paul deals with in this letter could not have flourished as they did. Discernment is the gift, along with prophecy, that the Apostle urges the Corinthians to use in relation to judging the use and interpretation of tongues. Those with discernment are to judge even those who prophesy (1 Cor. 14:29).
Obviously, the gift of discernment is valuable to the church in assisting Christians to settle disputes among themselves rather than going to court. That seems to be the gift needed by the person Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 6, the “wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren” (v. 5).
Even praise of the gospel can be deceitful and misleading. When Paul and Silas began to minister in Philippi, Luke reports that “a certain slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortunetelling. Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, ‘These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation’ ” (Acts 16:16-17). What the girl said not only was true but seemed to be favorable to the gospel and to those who were proclaiming it.
But the purpose and motivation of what she said was exactly the opposite. The demons who controlled her meant to attract the people and, gaining their trust, then ridicule and undercut God’s Word and the work of His ministers. In that case Paul could not judge by what was said, because the girl’s words were true. He knew she was a demonic instrument only because the Holy Spirit revealed the false spirit that controlled her.
False teaching can be judged by comparing it with Scripture, but false spirits can be judged only by the true Spirit’s gift of discernment. That gift may be called the Spirit’s gift on gifts, because God uses it to reveal to His church whether or not a manifestation of the other gifts is of Him. All imitation of the gifts is not demonic. Much of it is simply the work of the flesh, carnal Christians trying to serve the Lord in their own power and for their own benefit and glory. Summarizing, it can be said that the gift of discernment is given to tell if the other gifts are of the Holy Spirit, if they are merely natural imitations, or if they are demonic counterfeits.
I believe God still empowers some of His people to unmask false prophets and carnal hypocrites. He gives them insight to expose imitations and deceptions that most Christians would take as genuine. The gift of discernment, however, can easily deteriorate into a critical, proud, and self-righteous spirit. It can be judgmental instead of corrective when it is imitated in the flesh. But rightly used it is a great protection to God’s people.[2]
John MacArthur

_________________________________________________________
End notes:

[1] John MacArthur. 1 Corinthians (MacArthur Bible Studies) (Kindle Locations 1144-1150). Kindle Edition.

[2] John MacArthur, MacArthur’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996], 1 Corinthians 12:11.

"People don’t often go heretical all at once....."

2012-02-14T17:59:00.000-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

“People don’t often go heretical all at once. It is gradual. And they do not do so intentionally most of the time. They slip into it through shoddiness and laziness in handling the word of truth.… All it takes to start the road to heresy is a craving for something new and different, a flashy new idea, along with a little laziness or carelessness or lack of precision in handling the truth of God. All around us today are startling reminders of doctrinal slippage and outright failure. In case after case someone who should have known the truth of God better failed in upholding that truth.”

- Robert Thomas, Precision as God’s Will for My Life
Pamphlet, The Master’s Seminary, 1989.

An Open Letter of Repentance To All Whom I Have Taught or Endorsed The Teachings of Henry Blackaby or Beth Moore

2012-02-09T13:35:00.003-05:00

Article by Amanda Bowers (Hears His Voice blog)

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. James 3:1

Dear Sisters in Christ,

It is with regret and repentance in my heart that I am sending this letter to you. As you know over the past four years I participated in leading and facilitating several Bible studies including specifically authors Beth Moore and Henry Blackaby. This was a great privilege and opportunity, and it was something I enjoyed greatly as I fellowshipped with each of you desired to grow together in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by the study of His Word.

However, as it has pleased our Lord to reveal to me over the past six months and while I never intended to ever misuse the Word or take it out of context in any way so as to mislead or harm anyone, and while I am not saying that was the intent of the above teachers I mentioned, I have come to realize that my lack of full understanding of God’s Word, in particular with regard to the closure of the Canon of Scripture and also my irresponsibility in not fully evaluating the above teachers before agreeing to promote or endorse them by leading studies, it is quite possible that I have misled some of you. For this I sincerely ask your forgiveness and I repent. I have stepped down from teaching at this time as I desire to not take lightly the great privilege and honor it is to teach the Word of God and I recognize that I have much more to learn.

Now as to specifics for what I am referring to, it has come to my knowledge that the above teachers, while I have no intention of judging their hearts or motives, have misused God’s Word and/or aligned themselves up with others who have done so.

Regarding Beth Moore, through a series of circumstances this summer (you can read about it here), I became acquainted with a movement known as, “Spiritual Formation” and in this movement in particular I became aware of a type of prayer being promoted known as “Contemplative Prayer” (also goes by the title “listening prayer” and “centering prayer” also may hear the term “God’s whispers” or listening for that “still small voice”) This type of prayer is touted as being handed down to us by what are known as the “Desert Fathers” which is used to describe many of the monks and priests of the first centuries. While on the surface this prayer seems to be about contemplating our Lord as we pray which would be Biblical, it is in fact a prayer that endorses the notion that in order to really “connect with God’ one must “empty or quiet their minds of all thought” in order to “hear God speak to us”. Many of the proponents of Contemplative prayer go so far as to say that we should learn from those who practice this type of prayer in the eastern religions, such as Hindus and Zen Buddhists. Well, sadly, NO WHERE in Scripture are we ever taught to “empty our minds”. Sure, we are told to “Be still and know that I am God” which is the most popular verse of Scripture used to endorse this prayer, a careful study of Psalm 46:10 reveals that the psalmist is referring to our anxiety and not being anxious about our lives as God is in charge. This passage is not an instruction in prayer at all. In fact, if we study scripture we know that Jesus told us numerous times to be watchful in prayer because we have an enemy that seeks to destroy us. We are told to “renew our minds” by the Word of God, not to empty them.

Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving. Colossians 4:2
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 1 Peter 5:8
Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. Luke 12:37
Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Matthew 26:41

One of the leading proponents of Contemplative prayer is a man named Richard Foster. The most dangerous aspect of this teaching and the movement known as “Spiritual Formation” is that there is a blurring of lines between Christianity and other religions. In fact, Mr. Foster, makes no apologies on his ministry website, Renovare, he states the following:

“Renovaré is a nonprofit Christian organization headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, and active worldwide. We seek to resource, fuel, model, and advocate more intentional living and spiritual formation among Christians and those wanting a deeper connection with God. A foundational presence in the spiritual formation movement for over 20 years, Renovaré is Christian in commitment, ecumenical in breadth, and international in scope.
In his very popular book, Celebration of Discipline, Richard Foster describes an experience of “contemplative prayer” in this way:

“In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body. Look back so that you can see yourself lying in the grass and reassure your body that you will return momentarily. Imagine your spiritual self, alive and vibrant, rising up through the clouds and into the stratosphere. . . Go deeper and deeper into outer space until there is nothing except the warm presence of the eternal Creator. Rest in His presence. Listen quietly, anticipating the unanticipated. Note carefully any instruction given. With time and experience you will be able to distinguish readily between mere human thought that may bubble up to the conscious mind and the True Spirit which inwardly moves upon the heart. (Foster: 27, 28)”

Sisters, that is NOT biblical prayer! That is called Astral Projection by the New Age movement.
I hope you notice right away that no one but Christians who have been born again by the Spirit can have a “deeper connection with God”. Mr. Foster is endorsing that ANYONE who desires a deeper connection with God can achieve this connection practicing the many “spiritual disciplines” he endorses which include “contemplative prayer” and other extra biblical means.

What does this have to do with Beth Moore? Ms. Moore participated in and endorsed contemplative prayer with Richard Foster in a 2006 video called “Be Still,” (and yes, I viewed it myself). She unashamedly endorsed contemplative prayer as a means by which we can hear God in our lives and have a deeper connection to God. She also quotes other contemplatives in many of her studies (including one I taught some of you called, “When Godly People Do Ungodly Things”), including Roman Catholic mystics Basil Pennington and Brennan Manning.

Here are some online references that speak more about Beth’s participation and endorsement in this unbiblical form of prayer.

A Word on Beth Moore

Breaking Free From Beth Moore

A Beth Moore Exposé

And here are articles explaining the dangers of mysticism, and why mysticism is unbiblical:

What Is Mysticism?

Are You Bowing To the Golden Calf of Mysticism?

I also highly recommend this video done by former Roman Catholic Priest Richard Bennett who was born again years ago and is warning people about this very type of teaching.

I can provide you much more evidence that Richard Foster who is a Quaker and sadly he is widely accepted as offering Christians much to learn regarding prayer, is not handling the Word of God correctly and in fact, promotes that ANYONE desiring a closer relationship with God can have it. ANYONE: regardless if they are Christian or not. (In fact, I began writing a blog to share what God has shown me over the past few months, and you are welcome to go there for more information.)

There is a dangerous movement coming into many evangelical churches and if I were to write to you all that I have learned this past six months, this letter would be even longer. But I am happy to share more with any of you who desire to know and I sincerely hope you will at least consider giving an ear to what I have to say as one who loves the Lord and loves you as my sisters. You can email me at jcdisciple07@gmail.com. I will send you as much material as you want documenting my concerns over Richard Foster and the endorsement of him by Beth Moore and others in the evangelical world. And again, I sincerely ask your forgiveness for my not being more cautious myself as to who I endorse or align myself with in teaching. We are told in the Word several times that when false teachers, as Foster is one, are discovered we are not to promote them, but to flee from their teaching and expose them. By endorsing him and being in his video, Beth Moore is lending a full endorsement to him.

Just so you know, I did contact Living Proof Ministries with my concerns, but received no reply. Several others online have indicated that she has been contacted and either has not contacted them back or has maintained that she stands behind her promotion and participation in the Be Still video of 2006.

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. Romans 16:17-18, my emphasis

I want to also thank a few of you who, during the time that I was leading “When Godly People Do Ungodly Things,” were alert that something wasn’t quite right and came to me about Beth Moore and her teachings. At that time my discernment skills were not as sharp as they should have been, but your questioning planted a seed that the Lord later used to deliver me from her bad teaching and I hope now to set that straight for you and any others who may have been led astray by me. Again, I am truly sorry.

Now, as to Mr. Blackaby, my concern with him is similar but hinges more on the endorsement that God is still speaking to us and giving us revelations today. Let me be clear here that, while I do not disagree that the Holy Spirit guides us by conviction of sin, bringing to our remembrance passages of Scripture that we have studied, and pointing always to Jesus, I do not believe that the prophetic gifts and visions are still occurring today, Scripture and church history has taught and confirmed via numerous trials over various heresies that these gifts were poured out during the days of the Apostles to verify they were from God and for the writing down of the canon of Scripture, but as the canon was closed, these charismatic gifts ceased. Again we are not taught in scripture to sit in silence and empty our minds in an attempt to “listen to God”

In his book, Hearing God’s Voice, Mr. Blackaby even states this,

“There is nothing more important in life than understanding when God is speaking to you. If you are disoriented to God’s voice, your life is dangerously vulnerable. The Bible indicates conclusively that God does speak to people and that he does guide them in his will. The problem of not hearing from God never lies with God. He does communicate his will. It is not a matter of us searching in vain for God’s hidden will. He readily reveals it to those who show themselves obedient to do it. If you do not hear God’s voice, could it be your heart is not ready to respond to what he says?”

This is pretty typical of Blackaby’s teaching. Indicating that if you don’t “hear God speaking to you” it is a problem with you and probably because you are sinning or unwilling to obey. Well, what if you have searched and confessed every sin you know to do so, and still don’t “hear” God? Who of us is ever completely free from sin? Why do we continue to seek to “hear God” when He has already given us a written revelation for our lives.

It was this teaching that tormented my soul, kept me paralyzed as to how to serve God many times, and caused a class system in thinking that some Christians are just more “holy” than others. Friends, this is simply NOT TRUE. Your heavenly Father loves You dearly and He has given you a closed cannon of Scripture to study and obey. We pray to God using words as He instructed in the Lord’s Prayer, then by the Holy Spirit, does answer our prayers and providentially does guide us, but He uses the Word to do so and He never instructs us that if we aren’t “hearing Him speak” it is because we aren’t righteous enough or haven’t learned the proper techniques to sit in silence and “hear Him”.

Again, I reiterate, I am not at all saying that Ms. Moore or Mr. Blackaby are intentionally misleading folks any more than I was intentionally misleading you. I believe they have the best of intentions in their teaching, but the bottom line is we are instructed in scripture to test everything and to be Bereans and take it back to scripture to see if it is so.

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. Acts 17:10-12

For some other references to help you understand my concerns over Mr. Blackaby I refer you here:

Experiencing God Book Review (Gary Gilley)

Unbiblical Teachings on Prayer and Experiencing God (Bob DeWaay)

When Ms. Moore promotes contemplative prayer and silence which is akin to eastern mystical mediation and when Mr. Blackaby threatens Christians that if they aren’t “hearing God” it is because they don’t have a right relationship with God and haven’t rightly learned how to read the signs of circumstances, people, and random Bible reading, they both mislead Christians into a more mystical experiential driven walk with God rather than one built upon solid Bible understanding an Biblical decision making.

I offer a few more articles and videos at the end of this letter for you to read to understand more than I can express in this short letter. If you do not use the internet or have access, please contact me. I am happy to print out these articles and mail them to you. Essentially, this is an issue over what was termed by the Reformers of the protestant Reformation, Sola Scriptura. It means Scripture Alone. It was a fundamental issue that the Reformers stood upon when protesting the Roman Catholic Teaching that men need additional teaching and experiences outside of Scripture in order to fully know how to be saved, how to know Christ, and how to know what He wants for their lives. The Reformers staunchly defended the idea that Scripture is all that is necessary for faith and living. Basing this upon the Scriptures that tell us,

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, my emphasis

I want to add that, historically, Baptists have been the ones to stand firmly against the charismatic false teachings that tried to enter the church. I really don’t know what is happening today, but many have sadly been led astray from this foundational truth and are compromising the Word by promoting eastern mysticism as a valuable tool for Christians.

Again, I want to say. I am NOT SAYING the Holy Spirit doesn’t lead us and guide us into God’s providential will. Not at all! In fact, I truly believe that God is Sovereign and nothing happens that isn’t according to His decree and Sovereign will. What I am saying, however, is that in our prayer life we are never taught to sit in silence to "summon" God to reveal to us through inner hunches His will for our lives. We are never taught that we can’t make decisions until we know what God is “saying to us” or “revealing” to us. God has already “revealed” His will for every believer in His written Word. The canon has been closed and all we need is to study it in context, obey what we are told which includes renewing our minds and not being conformed to this world, so that by this renewal of our mind and knowledge of the Word, as we go through our lives, the Holy Spirit will guide us and bring to our remembrance Scripture in order to enable us to make wise decisions. But to seek to “hear Him” in some mystical fashion, and worse, to threaten Christians that if they aren’t “experiencing God” in this manner it is likely because of sin or unwillingness to obey, is at best a misrepresentation of the correct way to pray, and at worse tormenting to the soul of a genuine believer longing to follow Christ.

I love you, dear sisters, and I hope you understand my heart is only to warn you and apologize for not being more discerning in the past. I recognize these are heavy topics and may take you completely by surprise. I only pray, that you will understand my heart is only desirous of honoring our Lord and His Word and in loving my sisters by not refraining to speak the truth in love.

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 1 Corinthians 16:13

In His Name and For His Glory Alone,

Amanda Bowers

Additional Resources

Hello, My Name Is Amanda, and I Was a False Teacher

Just Do Something: How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc.

What is Contemplative prayer?

http://youtu.be/3fOkxORTWHs

http://youtu.be/RaccrwYGOsA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipnC5uXEeUc

Who is Richard Foster and what is Spiritual formation?

http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/104/
http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/114/
http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/why-i-believe-richard-foster-is-a-false-teacher-reason-2-denies-total-depravity-and-salvation-by-grace-alone/
http://hearshisvoice.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/151/
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue112.htm

Hello, My Name Is Amanda, and I Was a False Teacher

2012-02-09T12:39:00.001-05:00

Article by Amanda Bowers (Hears His Voice blog)

(I’ve shared in another note my repentance over being a false teacher. You can read about it here.)

Beth Moore...the Mystic?

I’m no perfect one. I’ve been taught error and I have taught error. Hi, I am Amanda Bowers and I was a False Teacher. I took lightly the grave responsibility that comes with feeding sheep. I let my emotions and my own deceitful heart lead me, rather than the Word of God. Now, I thought I was letting the Word of God lead me, but I wasn’t. Honestly, there were even times when the Holy Spirit was bringing conviction that I wasn’t preparing and studying enough…but being a natural with words and feeling sure I was understanding these things given the strong experiences I was having…I barreled right past those warning signs. I even had well meaning friends trying to warn me about Beth Moore, but I dismissed it. I found blogs online telling me she was not properly exegeting the Scripture, but I thought, “Nah. These people are kind of hateful. They are mean. I won’t listen to them.”

Many of you may be thinking the same about me now or others who are trying to sound the alarm that the American church is headed toward apostasy. Please, dear brothers and sisters. Don’t worry about rejecting me. But please, don’t reject Christ! I love you too much for that. Please examine the teachings of every beloved teacher against the sound Word, no matter who they are.

Finally, the Lord just had to plunge me into the deep end of Universalism and Spiritual Formation at a Charlotte Mason homeschool conference to wake me up (you can read about that here).

When I was a child, false teaching kept me awake at night. I had grievous sins as a child and young adult. Too dark to share in a public fashion, but regardless, as the Word says, we all have sinned greatly before the Lord. Growing up in a church telling me that I had to be perfect or I could lose my salvation and that I needed the “second blessing” was detrimental to me. Crying and fearful, I went to the altar thousands of times. By my mid twenties, I was exhausted trying to keep myself saved and I had given up. You would still be told I was a Christian if you asked, but I was living for myself and not God!

In 2001, at a desperate point in life when my own ability to control my life and circumstances had reached an all time low, when 9-11 occurred and the world seemed to be falling apart, I had that fear come back to me. What if He returns? Will I be ready?

One day after weeks of praying and searching for truth and not understanding the Word, I cried out the most blasphemous prayer. It was no sinner's prayer. I said, “God, if you are real you need to show me the truth or get out of my life and leave me alone, I can not live this way any longer.” Knowing the sovereignty and severity of God, it is only a testimony to His long suffering and mercy toward me that He answered my prayer in the way that was best for my soul, and not in the way I deserved.

Showing me Hebrews 10:12:

“But this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOREVER, sat down on the right hand of God;” (my emphasis)

For the first time in all my life, the Holy Spirit illuminated this truth to me, that Christ had finished his work, and that I was merely to repent and believe on this to be saved.

This is no martyrdom statement. It is just a fact! I committed serious and grave sins against my God, and sadly, I often still do; however, with His help I press toward the goal of that upward call. With my brother, Paul, I can say I am the chief of sinners, but like Paul, I will no longer live for myself. I will live for the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word.

I firmly believe it is the duty of every Christian who understands the free grace of God to fight tooth and nail to preserve it. It is a most hateful thing to cover sin and and to cover the truth in the name of unity. For it torments the children of God and it damns men’s souls to hell.

My conscience is held captive to the Word of God! Here I stand! I can do no other!

Additional Resources

A Note of Repentance For Those To Whom I Taught or Endorsed Henry Blackaby and Beth Moore

Cleaning Up After the Elephants? MacDonald Takes to the Airwaves

2012-02-08T20:36:00.000-05:00

Article by Erin Benziger, Do Not Be Surprised

James MacDonald has been making the radio rounds this week as he speaks to the Elephant Room 2 controversy surrounding T.D. Jakes. On Monday, he was a featured guest on Chris Fabry Live, an afternoon talk show that can be heard on Moody radio stations across the country. Audio of that show is available here. Tuesday morning, MacDonald appeared on Moody's local Chicago morning show, The Morning Ride, to speak briefly with host Mark Elfstrand. The full audio of that interview can be heard here.

As is to be expected, the topic of T.D. Jakes largely dominated these discussions. Between these two interviews, there is a lot that could be addressed, and so the intent of this post is not to embark on a minute-by-minute critique, but to simply alert the reader to a few rather interesting comments made during these two conversations. Please note that quotations made herein of these radio interviews may not be verbatim. The reader is encouraged, then, to listen to the interviews for him or herself.

Tuesday morning's discussion was quick and to the point. Not too many minutes in, we can hear MacDonald unquestioningly state, "I don't believe he's [Jakes] a modalist." This conclusion, according to MacDonald, is based upon Jakes' answers to Driscoll's questions in the Elephant Room 2. MacDonald says, "[Jakes] didn't get an A+ on the exam, but he didn't get a B either." Let's look again at part of the ER2 conversation between Driscoll and Jakes.

Driscoll: We all would agree that in the nature of God there is mystery, and it’s like a dimmer switch: how much certainty, how much mystery. But within that, Bishop Jakes, for you the issue between Trinitarianism and Modalism at its essence is is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God three persons simultaneously existing eternally – so, your best What is your understanding now? And I understand, there is some mystery – for sure. Would you say its One God manifesting Himself in three ways, or One God in three persons?

Jakes: I believe that neither one of them totally did it for me, but the latter one is where I stand today.

Driscoll: One God Three Persons?

Jakes: One God – Three Persons. One God – Three Persons, and here is why…there… I am not crazy about the word persons this is…most people who follow me know that that is really. My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except the word…

Driscoll: “manifestations”

Jakes: Manifest instead of persons. Which you describe as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. When I read…let me show you what I’m talking about…when I read I Timothy 3:16 – I didn’t create this, Paul did: “And without controversy” which I think we have…we have been bickering about something which Paul describes as a mystery, and I don’t think we should do that. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. For God was manifest in the flesh.” Now Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it is robbery to the divinity of God to think God was manifest in the flesh. And I think maybe it’s semantics, because [garbled], but Paul says this before this fight was started. But He also says he “was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, believed in the world, and received up into glory.” Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think that it is important that we realize that there are distinctives between the Father and the working of the Son. the Father didn’t bleed, the Father didn’t die, only a different person in Jesus Christ…is coming back for us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is with us, but only indwells us through the person of the Holy Spirit; we are baptized into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think any of that is objectionable to any of the three of us. So that is consistent with my belief system. I’m with you. I have been with you. I teach/preach that all the time. There are many people within and outside quote unquote denominations labeled Oneness that would describe that the same way. There are some that would not. But when we get to know people by their labels, then comes all the baggage of how we define that label. And we miss…it’s almost like the stereotypical ideologies we have about races. We have ideas about denominations and movements. The reason I’m proud of what you said earlier about people who have dual affiliations: We are taught in society that if we disagree with any movement, we leave. We sever. Oh, you said something I disagree with we fall out and then we walk away. I still have fellowship, associations, relationship, and positions within and without Trinitarian and Onenness movements. Because I believe that until we bridge the gap between our thinking and humble both sides and say, “We are both attempting to describe a God we love, that we serve, and that we have not seen. And that we are viewing Him through the context of the Scriptures, but that with a glass darkly.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when all that I know and understand, be it very orthodox, is still through a glass darkly? and then face to face – None of our books about the Godhead or anything else will be on sale in heaven. You know why? Because we’re only authorities down here, with our little kingdoms in this world. I think it’s important that we realize that our God is beyond our intellect. And if you can define Him and completely describe Him and say you are the end-all definition of who God is, then He ceases to be God. Because the reason Paul says it is a mystery, is that we deify the fact that God does things that don’t fit our formulas. And because people’s formulas and understandings of a description of an unbiblical God did doesn’t make them demonic. (Online Source)

It seems that James MacDonald still has not realized that he may very well have been duped by Jakes, who is a careful and skilled communicator. Yes, he affirmed "3 persons," but still prefers to use the language of the modalists. Jakes' use of 1 Timothy 3:16 especially ought to cause us to wonder if he has truly abandoned his Oneness roots, as this is a common "go to" verse for the Modalist argument. If you haven't already taken the time to listen to this discussion between James White and Voddie Baucham on this particular topic, I suggest you do so. It will shed a great deal of light on what precisely T.D. Jakes was saying in his response.

In his appearance on Chris Fabry Live, MacDonald expanded a bit on his acceptance of Jakes - or of anyone - who doesn't hold to the precise doctrine to which MacDonald himself may adhere. He declared that the Trinity is a "non-negotiable," and that it is "central" and a "key pillar" of Christianity. Yet, he continued, he does not feel it "necessary to hold people to a creedal preciseness about their Trinitarianism to see that person as a Christian." MacDonald stated something similar to this in the past, so it is clear that his position has not changed. Yet, the Trinitarian nature of God is just that - an undeniable fact of His nature, and while none of us will fully grasp this side of Heaven how the Trinity exists as the Bible says it does, the bottom line is that the Bible is still quite clear on the subject. This isn't about "creedal preciseness" (though, creeds such as the Athanasian Creed were developed based on biblical truth), it is about accepting - or rejecting - what God has revealed in His Word.

Nevertheless, for James MacDonald, it all comes down in the end to his continued claim that ER2 "isn't about the issues." Instead, according to MacDonald in both of these interviews on Moody radio, the whole purpose was to "model how to talk to people we disagree with." Hm...really? Then why does it seem that there is actually very little disagreement between the various participants of the Elephant Room? Toward the end of his Tuesday morning interview, MacDonald stated that "most of the critique is coming from people who weren't there, at any of the 70 locations..." Well, Pastor MacDonald, in case you have forgotten, some of us did want to be there. But I digress.

At about 35 minutes into the interview with Chris Fabry, the subject of race was brought into the discussion. It was quite interesting to hear MacDonald state that "ethnicity was not part of the subject, and I [MacDonald] think that trying to make it part of the subject is troubling." What is troubling here is the complete backward nature of that statement. While many initially were critical and questioning of Jakes' inclusion in this event, the concerns ultimately had nothing to do with T.D. Jakes' race. The issue has always been the attack of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Race was not truly brought into this controversy until a blog post (that has since been removed) was written by Bryan Loritts. The issue of race was brought even more boldly to the forefront when James MacDonald posted this video, wherein some very disconcerting and, quite frankly, some seemingly racist comments were made:

So, whether James MacDonald likes it or not, it appears as though it was his camp that unnecessarily dragged the "race card" into this situation. Nevertheless, if James MacDonald doesn't want race to be the issue, and none of the critics of ER2 ever felt that race was the issue, then let us move on.

Not long after this subject was addressed between Fabry and MacDonald, 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." MacDonald continued and stated that Jakes' "ministry will have to bear that out." Indeed it will. After all, the prosperity preaching gig is quite lucrative and it is undoubtedly not abandoned lightly. And it is most certainly not forsaken without repentance. But then, when T.D. Jakes states that he would not describe himself as a prosperity preacher, is that to be viewed as an acknowledgement that he was at one time, but now has turned from such lies? Or is it merely someone rejecting a less-than-desirable title for himself?

If T.D. Jakes truly desires to no longer preach an aberrant prosperity gospel, then may we assume that he will soon be denouncing and apologizing for the teachings contained in footage such as this?

And if Jakes has turned from his Word-Faith leanings, then it is curious that, just a week prior to the Elephant Room, he delivered a more-than-mildly Word-Faith-esque sermon at Code Orange Revival. If the reader is unfamiliar with this, I suggest visiting this careful critique of Jakes' COR sermon, written by Daniel Neades at the Better Than Sacrifice blog. Yet, James MacDonald claims that he "learned a ton" from this sermon delivered by Jakes. Perhaps this explains why MacDonald could be content with Jakes simply "not accepting" the designation of being a Word of Faith or prosperity preacher.

For those who have long respected and looked to James MacDonald for biblical teaching, it would be helpful to know just how strong his confrontation, or conversation, with Jakes was regarding Jakes' Word of Faith heresy. To simply be content with someone rejecting a title is a rather unfortunately weak position, especially when the evidence of that designation is 20+ years strong. If indeed Jakes has turned from his Word of Faith heresy, it would be edifying to the Church to see a public repentance and renunciation of it, considering that Jakes' ministry has been so public - and so detrimental - for so many years.

James MacDonald did make one comment in his Tuesday morning interview with which some might agree. He stated, "a lot of this [the critique] is rooted in fear." Agreed, but not with the same motivation and meaning behind the statement as MacDonald would claim. Yes, Pastor MacDonald, perhaps fear is a motivator of some of the critiques: fear that the Word of God is no longer being held with the same power and authority within the visible church; fear that the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith are being swept under the rug in favor of joining hands and espousing "love and unity;" fear that some of American Christianity's most influential leaders have chosen the path of compromise. Fear that perhaps we have begun to place our fear of men over and above our fear of God.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-10)

John Piper Comments About "Reverend" Lauren Winner

2012-02-08T09:37:00.004-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack (Sola Sisters) & Marcia Montenegro (Christian Answers For the New Age)

Qualifications of Elders
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." (Titus 1:5-9, my emphasis)

Dr. John Piper
Pastor, Bethlehem Baptist Church

Dr. John Piper, respected author and pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, as befitting his role as undershepherd over his church and fulfilling his 1 Peter 5:1-4 and Titus 1:5-9 responsibilities, recently warned his church body about a new emergent author named Lauren Winner who teaches classes with Emergent Church Movement leaders Tony Jones and Phyllis Tickle. (Although Jones and Tickle are considered mainstream evangelicals in today's church, Jones and Tickle are both way outside of orthodoxy as far as what they believe, teach and confess. Documentation to that effect is linked at the bottom of this post.) Dr. Piper also gave a sternly worded rebuke to Lauren Winner herself, who, in rebellion to God's clear command for women not to have authority over men, is an ordained "Reverend" at St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Durham, NC.

Oh, wait a second. That's not what happened. No, instead, Dr. Piper recommended a book by author (and "Reverend"?) Lauren Winner. Here is the recommendation:

That question must be asked: What is a Christian in today's world to make of such things?

Additional Resources

Dr. John Piper Recommends a Book By Emerging Contemplative Author Lauren Winner

Tony Jones Worships A Demon

Tony Jones, the Emerging Church and "Progressive" Christianity

Tony Jones and Why He's Divisive

Who Is Phyllis Tickle?

Phyllis Tickle: Emerging Church Has a Dominating Influence Over Protestantism

Phyllis Tickle Openly Challenges The Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura

Phyllis Tickle Tickles Itching Ears (2 Tim 4:3-4)

To Wycliffe, SIL, And Foundations: Is the Gospel an Offense, and Dare We Change It?

2012-02-07T11:35:00.001-05:00

Article by Rob Willmann (Shepherds Heart Bible Study)

In the WND article ‘Wycliffe defends changing titles for God‘, Bible publisher Wycliffe defends and deflects it’s decision to change the wording in Bibles that are translated for Muslim speaking countries. Wycliffe, Frontiers, and SIL have been putting out bible translations that minimize or outright omit the familial titles that are plain in Scripture (ie: God the Father, God the Son). This has been documented extensively and can be found in many online sources. Especially difficult for Wycliffe to explain away are the testimonies of missionaries themselves who have these translations in their hands.

Wycliffe responded with a Response to “Son of God” Accusations.

What is the problem you ask?

Simply put, it appears that Wycliffe may be disingenuous with their answer.

The Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ is being swept aside so that Muslims will not be ‘offended’ at these concepts. In essence, a type of syncretism between the Islamic and Christian worldviews is being promoted.

Syncretism is defined as the combination of different forms of belief or practice. And that’s certainly what’s happening, even if Wycliffe denies it. Missionaries in the field have seen this happening first-hand:

Did you catch that? Missionaries are having problems in the field because when they reach out to a village with the true Christianity, they are finding people who have already heard the syncretized message of Islam and Christianity being compatible.

Friends this makes me weep! Has Christianity sunk so low that we are not able to stand up and simply DECLARE what Scripture declares, come what may?

Didn’t Jesus teach us:

(Luke 12:8-9) “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

Recently Mark Dever (Together for the Gospel) stated:

“One part of clarity sometimes missed by earnest evangelists, however, is the willingness to offend. Clarity with the claims of Christ certainly will include the translation of the Gospel into words that our hearer understands, but it doesn’t necessarily mean translating it into words that our hearer will like. Too often advocates of relevant evangelism verge over into being advocates of irrelevant non-evangelism. A gospel which in no way offends the sinner has not been understood.”
(Online Source)

While we should never be offensive for the sake of being offensive, the Scriptures themselves teach us that God’s Word IS offensive to those who are perishing:

(1Corinthians 1:21-24) For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Here’s another video on the same issue:

Consider this man’s words from the video:

… and children, they know that in the house, father is praying in the name of Jesus and in the daytime he is seeing, ‘Oh, father is going to the mosque!’… So these children – what are they to think?

What are they to think indeed! By blending the teachings and customs of Muslims with the teachings and customs of Christianity, these new missionaries are planting strange vine-slips in God’s garden, and we know where that leads:

(Isaiah 17:10-11) For you have forgotten the God of your salvation And have not remembered the rock of your refuge. Therefore you plant delightful plants And set them with vine slips of a strange god. In the day that you plant it you carefully fence it in, And in the morning you bring your seed to blossom; But the harvest will be a heap In a day of sickliness and incurable pain.

An additional critique of these translations is found here. Here’s a short quote:

The contextualized paraphrase of the New Testament which pursues the goal of making it friendly to Muslims is a lamentable and hazardous wager. The harm to be caused by it will far outweigh any argued benefit. You certainly won’t wish to have a verse-by-verse, even chapter-by-chapter critical analysis of this new text and the abundance of its explanatory footnotes. I shall briefly refer to a few of the astounding deviations of the renditions in Matthew, of which the main consideration is to be Muslim-friendly and make it acceptable to them. In these alarming times political Islam has forced the whole world to keep step with its own agenda. It is deplorable to see its influence reach even to the inspired Christian text of the New Testament which was circulating six centuries prior to the appearance of this religion now in vogue. According to what I hear, the representatives of Frontiers have employed Muslims to produce this paraphrased Turkish version. I won’t hesitate to say that the aim of such people is not to promote the message and uniqueness of Christ, but to serve the line of their own religion. The group involved in this paraphrased translation is seeking suitable ways to appeal to the feelings of their targeted audience. (Online Source)

Where does it lead? It leads to a Christ-less Christianity, which is NOT Christianity. It leads to a Gospel that doesn’t transform. I keep thinking of all of the early evangelists and martyrs who followed God onto foreign soil where they were killed for the sake of the Gospel. The men who are contextualizing the Gospel to such an extent that there’s no real difference between a Muslim and a Christian are not furthering the Kingdom. Jesus said:

(Matthew 23:15)”Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Oh would that faithful men would rise up and preach the Gospel, not edit it to make it palatable for men.

Additional Resources

Update: Wycliffe Changes their Statement on Bible Translations for Muslims

Jay Smith’s Assessment of Insider Movements, C5 Missions Strategies
Contextualization and the Ethics of Translation

Towards a Faithful Witness (pdf)

Yoga Alliance Shows Its Hindu Teeth

2012-02-06T11:54:00.001-05:00

Article by Marcia Montenegro, Christian Answers for the New Age (CANA)

(For fuller information on the aspects of Yoga, such as pranayama, the asanas, kundalini, and other areas, please see the CANA website articles on Yoga. Links are below under “CANA Resources.”)

I am being contacted by more and more Christians who are seeing Yoga in the church, sometimes as “Christian Yoga,” sometimes under a name like “Mind Body Spirit” or a more innocuous name. The bottom line is that whoever is teaching these Yoga classes has likely been trained and tested in accordance with standards set by a larger Yoga organization, like the Yoga Alliance.

Those teachers who pass the test can register with The Yoga Alliance. On its website, the Yoga Alliance states that in 1999, the Alliance “established a national Yoga Teachers' Registry to recognize and promote teachers with training that meets our minimum standards. Teachers who meet these standards are eligible to register as Registered Yoga Teachers (RYT®s). In 2005, in conjunction with enhanced and revised standards for registration, we began recognizing and registering teachers with significant teaching experience in addition to training. These teachers can register as Experienced Registered Yoga Teachers (E-RYT®s).” (Online source)

One of my articles on Yoga on my website discusses an organization that trains Yoga teachers called YogaFit. In my article, I pointed out the Eastern spirituality being taught to the teacher trainees, and how the Eastern terms are disguised for the general public taking classes. YogaFit, it turns out, offers training in accordance with the standards of the Yoga Alliance.

THE TRAINING

The Yoga Alliance training “[i]ncludes asanas, pranayamas, kriyas, chanting, mantra, meditation and other traditional yoga techniques.” Right away, we can see that this not “just exercise.” (Online source)

Pranayama is the Hindu term for the breathing techniques, which are often merely called “breathing exercises.” In Yoga (and Hinduism), prana is believed to be a “divine breath” which cleanses spiritually and causes spiritual alterations. Doing pranayama is not merely for physical reasons, but principally for spiritual ones. It also induces a meditative state. Since the purpose of Hatha Yoga, the form of Yoga most popular in the West and what is marketed as exercise, is primarily is to prepare one for deeper meditation in more advanced Yoga, this is not surprising.

Kriya in terms of yoga training means “cleansing” and the purpose of these exercises are “to cleanse the internal organs and thereby create harmony between the major pranic flows, Ida and pingala, and attaining physical and mental purification and balance” (Online source).

“Pranic” refers to prana. Ida and pingala are part of “subtle channels” (i.e., invisible) in the body through which energy flows. One of the Kriya exercises has to do with breathing alternately through the right and left nostrils such that energy moves through these two channels (when in the New Age, I did these exercises). Ida is the left channel and associated with the same properties as Yin in Taoism; pingala is the right channel (same properties as Yang). This diagram depicts these two channels.

The Kriyas consist of “nasal cleansing, abdominal churning, upper digestive tract cleaning, colon cleansing, cleansing of lungs and bronchial tubes,” and “steady gazing.” (Online source – which also explains how these kriyas are done).

{Kriyas also refer to spontaneous movements or vocalizations associated with the “pranic energy” and the awakening of the kundalini, the alleged energy coiled at the base of the spine, but in this context, refer to the exercises and cleansings noted above).

Mantras are words or phrases which one repeats while meditating. Not only can a mantra act as a tool for self-induced hypnosis, but it also allegedly has a spiritual effect on the person chanting or repeating it. Many mantras are the names of Hindu deities. Some say “I bow to Patanjali” (Patanjali is a semi-mythical figure generally credited with organizing the system of Yoga) or “I salute the Sun.” (Online source, mantras).

Meditation is Eastern meditation, a technique used to bypass thinking. Hinduism (and Buddhism) believe that the mind is a barrier to grasping “true” reality and realizing the true Self (which in Hinduism is the Atman, the divine self). This type of meditation suspends judgment and critical thinking and opens the mind to any influence that enters. (See article on Eastern meditation below.)

The training not only entails a study of the physical body (which is fine) but also “energy anatomy and physiology (chakras, nadis, etc.).”

Energy in this context has to do with Kundalini and/or Shakti, both invisible energies connected to all forms of Yoga. Kundalini is the invisible energy coiled at the base of the spine which is to rise through the invisible chakras (wheels of energy) in order to awaken one to enlightenment. Shakti is the primordial cosmic energy.

The Nadis are invisible channels of Kundalini energy in the body which connect to the nostrils. Breathing through each nostril separately is a cleansing technique (see Kriyas).

Additionally, the website states that there is study of “yoga philosophies.” Thought it’s not specified, this undoubtedly includes Hindu beliefs.

THE YOGA ALLIANCE ANNUAL CONFERENCE

The 2011 Yoga Alliance Annual Conference offered a number of sessions for attendees. These includes sessions on meditation, mantras, mudras (mudras are hand positions often depicted by Hindu deities and said to enhance the pranic flow), the “sacred spine,” and the Bhagavad Gita, the most famous Hindu text. (Online source)

The Yoga Alliance is no wishy-washy organization trying to dumb down the Hindu roots of Yoga. As I’ve said many times, anyone who has been trained to teach Yoga has had Hindu teachings, or at the very least, Hindu-tinged New Age teachings.

WHY THIS ARTICLE?

If you have a teacher at your church teaching “Christian Yoga” or “Sacred Movements” or whatever the name might be, and she or he has been registered by the Yoga Alliance, this information may be helpful if you decide to meet with your elders or pastors to question the introduction of Yoga into your church.

If the teacher has been trained by another outfit or is certified by another Yoga organization, find the website and check it out.

RELEVANT QUOTES FROM YOGA SITES

“In short hatha yogis found that the processes and techniques of hatha yoga produced a genuine purification which positively affected the body, the nervous system, the brain, the mind -- opening up man’s heart and eventually opening up the previously blocked channels between heaven and earth – between spirit and nature – between mind and body – crown chakra and root chakra, and the like. Dormant evolutionary circuitry were unearthed, resurrected, and opened up, activated, and integrated.” (Online source)

“In the Indian tradition, Hatha Yoga is one of the four main traditions of Tantra Yoga. Hatha Yoga is first of all concentrating on the practice of postures (asanas) and breath control (pranayama) to energize the subtle channels (nadis). Thus one might say Hatha Yoga concentrates on the third and fourth steps of the eight-fold path of Ashtanga Yoga. The objective of Hatha Yoga is obviously to remove the obstacles to address the further steps of Pratyahara (sense-withdrawal), Dharana (Concentration), Dhyana (Meditation) and Samadhi (Balance). In many Hatha Yoga schools, these further steps are seen as part of Hatha Yoga.” (Online source)

“Hatha is also translated as ha meaning "sun" and tha meaning "moon." This refers to the balance of masculine aspects—active, hot, sun—and feminine aspects—receptive, cool, moon—within all of us. Hatha yoga is a path toward creating balance and uniting opposites. In our physical bodies we develop a balance of strength and flexibility. We also learn to balance our effort and surrender in each pose. Hatha yoga is a powerful tool for self-transformation. It asks us to bring our attention to our breath, which helps us to still the fluctuations of the mind and be more present in the unfolding of each moment.” (Online source)

“Exercising postures or Asanas in Hatha Yoga has two essential objectives. The first is that to practice any real meditation, one needs at the least one posture in which one can be perfectly comfortable for a longer period of time. The more such postures one can master, the better the basis for developing the inner meditation techniques. The second objective of exercising asanas in Hatha Yoga is to bring health and energy to body and mind by opening the nadis.” (Online source)

“’Nad’ means movement. In the Rig Veda, it means stream. In Yoga, nadis are the channels of Kundalini energy. . . . The subtle channels or Yoga Nadis are the channels of mind and the channels of chitta, the feeling self or being.” (Online source)

“At the beginning of each yoga class, in order to raise the room's energy as well as to relax, focus and uplift our mind, we recite some mantras. These mantras come from the ancient, sacred Sanskrit language of Sanskrit. Through their repetition we invoke the spiritual powers of the following deities: Ganesha, Subramanya, Saraswati, the Guru, and Durga Devi.” (Online source)

“Mantras are sacred chants that harness higher vibrational energies, and can raise one’s level of consciousness.” (Online source)

CANA Resources

Christian Yoga: An Oxymoron?

Yoga: From Hippies to Hip

Yoga: Yokes, Snakes, and Gods

Out of Your Mind: Meditation and Visualization

File this one under: "It's hard to gin up attendance among world-loving goats when your dry ice and smokin' sound system can't compete with the world's version of that on the same day"

2012-02-04T12:57:00.000-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

According to the Christian Post, megachurch Pastor Perry Noble has cancelled his Sunday night church services because of the Super Bowl, with the following explanation:

"I've been in church work for over 20 years and the one thing I can say is that attendance on Super Bowl Sunday night in church has always been awful! (and…the people who are there are pretending to be looking at youversion on their phone…but they are really checking the score of the game!)"

Additional Resources

You're A Jackass If You Want To Go Deeper In God's Word, Says Perry Noble

Perry Noble Says "You Officially Suck" If You Don't Like the Music

The Perry Noble 2011 Sheep Beating Incident

Perry Noble Has His Worship Team Play AC/DC's Highway To Hell On Easter Sunday?

Perfect Biscuits

2012-02-04T12:20:00.003-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Please be advised that the title of this post is straightforward and is not designed in any way to draw the reader into a deeper theological discussion about the dangers of leaven, the bread of life, etc., etc. Sometimes a biscuit is just a biscuit. The recipe below is simply instructions on how to make.....drumroll, please......Perfect Biscuits. (Note: Whenever we use the word "perfect" in our household, one or both of my sons will exclaim "You mean, as perfect as anything can be in a fallen world!" and then crack up laughing. Okay. End of theological discussion. I promise.)

I am thrilled to have found this recipe, courtesy of Cook's Countrymagazine, and in fact, I will go further and confess that, prior to having found this recipe, I had never made a decent biscuit in my entire cooking career. All my attempts at biscuits have resulted in (alternately) rubbery, doughy, dry, tasteless discs that might be better to be repurposed as paperweights. And this is no small thing. To be a Southern woman (which I am) and to be unable to cook a decent biscuit is to have your very Southerness called into question. So I have guarded my shameful secret very carefully, with the aid of Mary B's frozen biscuits, and the pretext of checking on the ham whenever the topic of biscuit recipes came up. But at long last, the brainiacs at Cook's Country have broken the code on biscuit making. And for that, I am deeply indebted.

Perfect Biscuits

2 cups all purpose flour
1 Tbsp baking powder
1 tsp salt
16 ounces of sour cream
7 tablespoons of butter, melted & cooled to room temp (divided 5/2)

Preheat oven to 425°. Grease a 9 x 12 rimmed baking sheet with cooking spray. Combine flour, baking powder and salt in bowl. Stir in sour cream and 5 tablespoons of the melted butter, and stir just till combined.

Using a 1/4 cup measuring cup sprayed with cooking spray, scoop out biscuits and place 2 inches apart of baking sheet. Spray measuring cup with cooking spray between each scoop for easy release (the dough is pretty sticky). Brush tops of biscuits with melted butter, and bake till golden brown, 20-25 minutes. Serve warm.

(Quantity: 12 biscuits)

Additional Resources

Mother's Day and Chocolate Cake

Voddie Baucham: T.D. Jakes Is Godfather of Word Faith and A Poisonous Influence

2012-02-04T10:42:00.000-05:00

Article by Ken Silva, Apprising Ministries

From a recent interview with James White, Alpha & Omega Ministries:

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 (pauseWhite: 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)

Additional Resources

DISGRACEFUL: JAMES MACDONALD PLAYS THE RACE CARD

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

James MacDonald Plays the Race Card

2012-01-31T15:45:00.003-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack and Cathy Mathews

James MacDoanld with Eric Mason, Charles Jenkins and Bryan Loritts

James MacDonald posted a video today in which he gathered together three African American Christian pastors to discuss the fallout from his public embracing of heretic T.D. Jakes as a Christian brother. Below is a partial transcript of their conversation:

Bryan Loritts: "Some of the strongest reactions were African Americans in the blogosphere....um, I'll just go ahead and say it, who strike me as wanting so bad to be in the white theological world. And to take a little bit of a tangent here, and I'll get back, the loudest voices in the conservative evangelical world, in my estimation right now, are your older, white reformed voices. And so that implicitly sends the message that mature Christianity in the conservative evangelical world is 'older white.' And you've got some African Americans who so idolize that - what some people would call white idolization - that they then feel as if they've got to be the voice for black culture to speak against people like T.D. Jakes. So what happens is, you kind of prop them up. When the truth of the matter is, the term 'black' is very complex.......We're different, we're different. So my concern is, African Americans, a small minority speaking against Jakes, and then leveraging that in the white theological world for some of these older white theologians...."

James MacDonald: "What would they be leveraging it for?"

Bryan Loritts: "To fit into their circles...."

James MacDonald: "Opportunity...?"

Bryan Loritts: "We want to be in their circles. And so we'll allow ourselves to used as a puppet. That is my perception of some of this backlash."

TRANSLATION: If you are white and will not accept Modalist heretic T.D. Jakes as a brother in Christ, then you are racist. If you are black and will not accept TD Jakes as a brother, it is because you are being used as a puppet by the white reformed community. Our question: Is everybody okay with the race card being so blatantly played?

You can view part of the roundtable discussion below:

Additional Resources

T.D. Jakes: Through A Glass Blurrily

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room 2

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room 2 - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Elephant Room 2 Claims First Acts 29 Casualty

Interview With A Former Oneness Pastor

Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

A Measured Response to Bryan Crawford Loritts' Request for the Reformed Community to “Repent” of their Criticism of T.D. Jakes

File This One Under "Oh, The Irony...."

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

James MacDonald who Kicked Folks from ER2 Slated to Speak at Counseling Conference where Reconciliation is Taught

2012-01-31T09:53:00.002-05:00

Article by Pastor Rob Willman (Rendering Truth blog), posted with permission

When a pastor mentioned Philippians 4, most people immediately think of verse 6-7, which reads:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

But just TWO verses prior we have these beautiful words penned by Paul through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice! Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near.

Notice that sentence: ‘Let your gentle spirit be known to all men.‘

How beautiful is this command from the Lord!

God’s Word also lists gentleness, peace, and joy among the 9-part fruit of the spirit in Galatians.

Now that I’ve painted that Scriptural background, I want to bring to light the unfortunate incident that occurred last week.

An explosive story broke concerning the ecumenical ‘Elephant Room’ conference and a couple of would-be attendees. You see, Chris Rosebrough (of Pirate Christian Radio and Fighting for the Faith fame) and Erin Benziger (Do Not Be Surprised… Blog) were both denied entry into the Elephant Room 2 conference on January 25th.

ER2 was hosted by James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel and Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church. You can read about it here and listen to Chris Rosebrough’s account of the events here. Chris Rosebrough was even threatened with arrest by Harvest Bible Chapel elder Jim Rowan.

Now friends, please remember that the very same James MacDonald gave speaker TD Jakes ‘a get-out-of-jail-free card’ when it came to questioning Jakes about his modalistic theology, and his aberrant beliefs concerning the Trinity.

According to the Elephant Room’s ‘About us page’:

The Elephant Room is more than an event. It is the outgrowth of an idea. The idea that the best way forward for the followers of Jesus lies not in crouching behind walls of disagreement but in conversation among all kinds of leaders about what the scriptures actually teach. We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently. (Online Source)

Is it just me or does it seem like the very actions by James MacDonald and crew are AT ODDS with the stated purpose of the Elephant Room?

These men are at odds with Scripture. Didn’t the Holy Spirit command us to let our gentle spirit be known to all men?

Why is James MacDonald willing to give the nod of approval to anti-Trinitarian TD Jakes, who preaches a false gospel (read about it here) and at the same time kicks Chris and Erin out of the Elephant Room conference?

They weren’t even at the main event, but at a satellite location where a live feed would broadcast the event. So that rules out the concern that somehow Chris Rosebrough and Erin Benziger were going to disrupt the ecumenical love-fest going on.

But wait! It gets even better.

Chris and Erin did receive a refund of their tickets to the event, but there has been no effort made to pay for their travel expenses. Instead, the men who ran this event allowed Chris and Erin to travel quite a distance even though MacDonald and crew KNEW they would be turned away.

And just when you though that it could be any more hypocritical, it appears that now James MacDonald is going to appear as a featured speaker at the Biblical Counseling Training Conference (BCTC) – 2012 (Source) at Faith Church. The host church offers biblical counseling, and their Biblical Counseling page (Online Source) states:

First, we believe that the Bible, given by God, is sufficient for life in that, when properly interpreted, it reveals to the believer all the data necessary for one to understand his need for Christ, how he can please the Lord, and how to live in a god-honoring way regardless of the circumstances whether comfortable or oppressive.

So they believe that “Christians are to live in a God-honoring way… whether comfortable or oppressive.”

And for those people (like me) who believe words mean things, Faith Church links to the confessional statement of the Biblical Counseling Coalition in order to clarify their position on the importance of Biblical counseling.

Wouldn’t you know it, the Biblical Counseling Coalition’s statement on biblical counseling sounds surprisingly similar:

Biblical Counseling Must Be Directed toward Sanctification
We believe that wise counseling should be transformative, change-oriented, and grounded in the doctrine of sanctification (2 Corinthians 3:16-18; Philippians 2:12-13). The lifelong change process begins at salvation (justification, regeneration, redemption, reconciliation) and continues until we see Jesus face-to-face (1 John 3:1-3). (Online Source)

They believe in reconciliation. Amen! They should.

They promote sanctification, where the believer should be more Christ-like until Jesus returns. Amen to that too.

Yet James MacDonald (who hasn’t made any steps towards reconciliation with Chris Rosebrough or Erin Benziger) is one of the featured speakers.

I find it all mind-boggling. Let’s recap the sequence of events, shall we?

Elephant Room 2 conference happens. James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll are the hosts.
Chris Rosebrough and Erin Benziger are turned away at the door, with Chris threatened with arrest.
Meanwhile - TD Jakes (still a modalist) gets an affirming nod from the ecumenical group inside, welcoming him as a fellow Trinitarian orthodox believer.
No apology or attempt at reconciliation is made towards Chris or Erin.
Similarly, Pastor Voddie Baucham declines a position in the Elephant Room 2, yet was slated to speak at the Men’s conference hosted by James MacDonald two days after the Elephant Room 2 ended. (Online Source)
James MacDonald apparently didn’t like Pastor Voddie’s statements on the Elephant Room (Online Source) and allowed Voddie to fly in for the conference before he met with him to discuss whether he would be able to speak at the Men’s Conference.
Voddie stated that “MacDonald had already made arrangements for a replacement speaker” when they had their meeting. (WOW!)
Voddie’s Facebook shows that he was given a ride back to the airport to catch a plane home.
James MacDonald is going to speak at Biblical Counseling Conference Feb 12-17th. This conference offers aNANC (National Association of Nouthetic Counselors) Track with exams.
NANC, Faith Church, and the Biblical Counseling Coalition all sound very solid and biblical.

I say all that to ask this key question:

How can James MacDonald take center stage as a keynote speaker at a Biblical Counseling event promoted by a church that supports sanctification, by a group (NANC) that supports reconciliation and God-centered sanctification, when James can’t even attempt such reconciliation himself?

I personally verified that Chris Rosebrough has not been contacted by James MacDonald or Mark Driscoll since he was drubbed at their pachyderm-smelling conference.

Couched in the framework of the Scriptures I mention above, please explain how James MacDonald is qualified to speak at a counseling event where the certification track (NANC) is all about reconciliation.

Which one of these is not like the other?

Additional Resources

T.D. Jakes: Through A Glass Blurrily

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

T.D. Jakes: Through a Glass Blurrily

2012-01-30T22:54:00.001-05:00

By Marcia Montenegro (Christians Answers For The New Age)

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” 2 Peter 2:1-3

The Trinitarian God is revealed in God’s word and has been confessed by Christians throughout the centuries. And during that time, the Trinity has also been attacked and denied by many. Satan is always assailing the nature of God with a multitude of false teachings and heresies. The early anti-Trinitarians, such as Arius and Sabellius, were condemned as heretics.

MODALISM

Anti-Trinitarian beliefs are many and often differ drastically from each other. There are even variations within the same views. Modalism is only one of these anti-trinitarian teachings, and is also called “Oneness.” It is the belief that, instead of three Persons in the Godhead, God has three “modes:” Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Modalists also use the word “manifestations.” A common statement of belief about God on the website of Oneness churches is that God “manifests as God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.” What is meant by this is that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are but three aspects of one God; they are not co-existent. Jesus was the human side of God the Father, who is spirit. Modalism is, technically speaking, a unitarian view of God; that is, unitarian as opposed to Trinitarian.

Modalism is not always expressed the same way. For example, a modalist may not necessarily use the term “modes” or the label “modalist.”

T. D. JAKES, THE “BISHOP”

T. D. Jakes (born 1957) has been known as a modalist or “Oneness” minister. There is a lot of information supporting Jakes’ modalism, including the statement about God on his church’s website that uses the classic modalistic phrase about God in three manifestations. Jakes, who has no theological training, preached his first sermon at 19; was “licensed as a minister in the Church” at 20; and at age 23, planted his first church in West Virginia, a Oneness church (quote and other information from the Potter House website here).

Jakes' title of “Bishop” comes from the Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies (HGAAA), a network of Oneness Pentecostal churches. This title was given in recognition of his position as a prelate of this organization. According to the HGAAA website, Jakes gave several talks in 2011 sponsored by HGAAA and is listed as a speaker at this year’s upcoming “24th Annual Holy Convocation” in June 2012. His is listed in the HGAAA Directory as Vice-Prelate.

Jakes was invited this past January to be a speaker at a revival called Code Orange, held at a large evangelical church in Charlotte, NC, called Elevation, pastored by Steve Furtick. This event was disturbing for many Christians because Jakes, as a known Oneness follower, denies an essential of the faith and cannot be considered a brother in Christ. Furtick may have thought that Jakes had become a Trinitarian. However, if that had been the case, then it should have been announced. To give Jakes, a non-Trinitarian, a platform in a church violates 2 John 7-11.

THE ELEPHANT ROOM INTERVIEW

Not long after Code Orange, on Jan. 25, Jakes was the guest in what is called the “Elephant Room” (this is a meeting/interview event that has been somewhat controversial due to various reasons) to be interviewed by a well known Reformed pastor, James MacDonald, and pastor Mark Driscoll. MacDonald, in fact, had recently resigned from the Gospel Coalition, a group of Reformed pastors, due to disagreement over his invitation of Jakes to the Elephant Room (known this year as ER2).

This is the only transcript available at this point of the Elephant Room dialogue with Jakes.

My brief comments on this available interview (James MacDonald has posted on his blog that he had decided not to release the full transcript) follow.

Unclear/ambivalent statements by Jakes are bracketed by ==, followed by my comments:

==“But how they describe and explain the Godhead in a traditional oneness sense is very, very different from how Trinitarians describe the gospel.”==

COMMENT: This raises the question: Does this mean that Jakes thinks only the verbal description differs?

==“He is one God who expressed Himself in a plurality of ways.”==

COMMENT: This is a modalist statement.

==“There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit - the moving of the Holy Spirit - and the work of Christ.”===

COMMENT: This is also modalist language. To express a distinction in the "workings" or functions of Jesus and the Holy Spirit indicates a difference in the operations of Jesus and the Spirit, not a distinction in the Persons. He has a similar statement later about God and the "workings" of the Son.

==“I don’t think anything that any of us believes fully describes who God is. And if we would ever humble down to admit that we in our finite minds cannot fully describe an infinite God.”==

COMMENT: Actually, God has revealed himself clearly as a Trinitarian God. Jakes in the past has used this ruse of how nobody can really know God, implying that a discussion of the Trinity is either unimportant or impossible. However, we can describe God according to what God has revealed to us about himself.

==“Three Persons. One God – Three Persons, . ..[ . . .] . . . I am not crazy about the word persons this is…most people who follow me know that that is really. My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except the word…”==

Driscoll: “manifestations”

Jakes: ==“Manifest instead of persons. Which you describe as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline.”==

COMMENT: It looks possibly like Jakes is equating "Persons" with "manifestations." If so, we are back to square zero with Jakes and the Trinity. Also, it is not “Pauline” to say God manifests as three persons. Jakes and other Oneness followers, in an effort to bolster their stance, point to scriptures such as 1 Tim. 2:10 and 3:16, Heb. 9:8, and 1 John 3:5 where the word “manifest” means to “appear” or “disclose.” However, these scriptures and the use of the word “manifest” in them have nothing to do with a belief that God is a being who takes on the role of three beings.

==“I think that it is important that we realize that there are distinctives between the Father and the working of the Son. The Father didn’t bleed, the Father didn’t die, only a different person in Jesus Christ…is coming back for us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is with us, but only indwells us through the person of the Holy Spirit; we are baptized into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think any of that is objectionable to any of the three of us. So that is consistent with my belief system.”==

COMMENT: A modalist could say that the Father didn’t bleed because he (he Father) was in the role of Jesus at the time of the cross, so it was Jesus who bled. So this is no affirmation of the Trinity. Also, saying that one is baptized “into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit” could be said by a modalist. It is unclear what Jakes means by this. Is he referring to water baptism, which Oneness Pentecostals believe is necessary for salvation?

==“I’m with you. I have been with you. I teach/preach that all the time. There are many people within and outside quote unquote denominations labeled Oneness that would describe that the same way. There are some that would not. But when we get to know people by their labels, then comes all the baggage of how we define that label.”==

COMMENT: Jakes says that he's been teaching this all along! Yes, he has been teaching modalism all along. Jakes has never been on record affirming or teaching the Trinity; in fact, he has reacted negatively to questioning on the topic. If anything, this is an admission to Oneness beliefs. He also plainly states that Oneness is not really different from Trinitarian, or at least he wants it to sound that way. He is also back to the “description” remark because for Jakes, it seems to be just a semantics issue. That is what he has said in the past about the difference between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views.

==“I still have fellowship, associations, relationship, and positions within and without Trinitarian and Onenness movements.”==

COMMENT: A Trinitarian can have a friendship, but not fellowship, with Oneness followers and modalists. Fellowship is only within the body of Christ. This statement is very revealing and indicates Jakes still doesn't get it, or is trying to blur the line between modalism and Trinitarianism, something many believe he has been doing for years.

IF…..

If Jakes has truly become Trinitarian, then he needs to relinquish his title of “Bishop,” make a clean break with the HGAAA, clearly affirm and teach the Trinity to his church, and renounce modalism. Jakes has been misleading his flock with false teaching for years (this includes the Word of Faith and prosperity gospel, which is another deeply problematic issue). I certainly allow for a small possibility of Jakes’ conversion to the true God, but until these outward evidences, we cannot declare Jakes a Trinitarian.

This event, judging by some defending the claim that Jakes is now a Trinitarian, has revealed either a crack in the knowledge about the Trinity amongst some Christian leaders, and/or an apathy to the Trinity. But if Christians do not get the nature of God right, we cannot truly preach the gospel. Like sheep, we tend to stray.

A reaffirmation of the Trinity and more teaching on it in churches would be a good result of this rather depressing affair. There is no salvation in modalism; it is false. Therefore, this is of utmost important because this is a salvation issue.

There is a link to the Athanasian Creed at the end of the links below. Please read it if you have never read it before.

RESOURCES

On the Jakes Interview:

Excellent interview of former Oneness pastor Jordan Dayoub who gives his views on Jakes, and whose insights are extremely instructive on this issue

Informative remarks by Daniel Neades on modalism, the Trinity, and the interview with T. D. Jakes, and why Jakes’ remarks are troubling

Minister Voddie Baucham who was invited to the ER2 interview with Jakes, on why he declined and why later he withdrew from speaking at a men’s conference sponsored by James MacDonald

On T. D. Jakes:

Concerns About the Teaching of T.D. Jakes

CARM - T.D. Jakes Articles

On the Trinity:

CARM - The Trinity

CARM - Early Trinitarian Quotes

Watchman.org (Put the word Trinity in search box at this link and links will come up to several articles)

On Oneness:

Watchman - Oneness-Pentecostalism

On Sabellianism and Modalism:

Basic Theology - Sebellianism

Got Questions? - Sebellianism - Modalism - Monarchianism

Sabellianism: Third and Twentieth Century Heresy

Basic Theology - Modalism

CARM - Modalism

Helpful Illustrations of Modalism

"Oneness Doctrine" (Jesus Only) vs. Trinitarianism

The Athanasian Creed, which affirms the Trinity

All That TBN Stuff Is Real, Right?

2012-01-30T11:56:00.004-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack (with thanks to Daniel Neades)

From the 1972 Academy award winning documentary Marjoe, about the life of evangelist Marjoe Gortner. (NOTE: Some offensive language)

Oneness Pentecostalism, and How "Evil" Isn't Always Obvious

2012-01-30T10:05:00.002-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack and Cathy Mathews (with thanks to Ken Silva at Apprising Ministries)

In light of the uproar over the acceptance of Oneness Modalist T.D. Jakes as a keynote speaker during the Elephant Room's recent gathering, we're posting the videos below which feature a debate held in 1985 between Christian apologetics writer Dr. Walter Martin and Oneness Pentecostal pastor Nathaniel Urshan and Robert Sabin. We would like to also point out the curious fact that, in our experience, many of our fellow Christians don't seem to understand that they can be deceived, and that in fact, the Bible gives warning after warning after warning to Christians to take care that they are not deceived. And that's perhaps one of the most peculiar characteristics of deception.......it doesn't feel like deception. Well, isn't that kind of the whole point of deception? It's not called "Parading In Waving A Flag Stating Its Evil Intent," now is it?

For the record. Deception, by its nature, is designed to confuse, to trick, to ensnare, though in its outward appearance it will often appear beguiling. And when deception happens, let's be discerning enough to recognize that it's not going to be like in the movies: Green smoke won't start oozing under the door and spooky music won't start playing. Heretics will typically not be foaming at the mouth, hostile and half- crazy, charging in and demanding that everyone immediately renounce Christianity. In fact, heretics will often be gentlemanly, likable chaps, and will quote plenty of Scripture, as evidenced in the videos below. You can witness this type of reasoning in the transcript of Session #7 of the Elephant Room 2, where James MacDonald discusses initially being concerned about Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll, and Steven Furtick; but he explains that once he talks with them and realizes they are all swell, likable guys, all concern is gone. Apparently the same thing happened concerning T.D. Jakes. In our opinion, ER2 misnamed this particular breakout session "We Can Work It Out;" when instead (and still staying with the hip and culturally savvy Beatles motif) that session should have been rightfully named "All You Need Is Love." Does it not seem like the visible church has made the same decision, that "All you need is love"? That nobody can or should challenge doctrine? And that we should all, in the name of "love," rush pell mell into false unity with heretics?

Fellow Christians, please suit up in your spiritual armor, and please take to heart the many scriptural warnings against being deceived. Niceness is not our measure for truth, God's Word is. Whatever is claimed or taught in the name of God must always be held up to the actual Word of God, and studied in context. Let's remember that when Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, he did not make up lies....no, he quoted straight Scripture. Only, the Scripture was taken out of context.

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” (Satan, quoting from Psalm 91:11,12)

Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:5-7)

(NOTE: The videos above are only 4 segments of a 27 part series. The rest of the series can be found on YouTube.)

Additional Resources

Interview With A Former Oneness Pastor

Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

A Measured Response to Bryan Crawford Loritts' Request for the Reformed Community to “Repent” of their Criticism of T.D. Jakes

File This One Under "Oh, The Irony...."

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

ER2 Q&A with a Former Oneness Pastor

2012-01-30T09:12:00.000-05:00

Article by Richard Barcellos (reprinted with permission, Grace Reformed Baptist Fellowship)

I (Richard Barcellos) have invited my friend Jordan Dayoub to answer some questions about the recent Elephant Room 2 discussion between T. D. Jakes, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald. There are two reasons why I chose to do this: first, there are some folks in our church-plant with Oneness Pentecostal backgrounds and second, Jordan is a former Oneness pastor. So, here it goes.

RB: Jordan, can you describe your history with Oneness Pentecostalism?

JD: I was born into the movement. My parents were hippies in Los Angeles during the 1960s (my father raised a Roman Catholic and my mother born and raised a Jew), met a Oneness Pentecostal minister, embraced the theology in 1968, and started attending a Oneness congregation in South Los Angeles. The year I was born my father was ordained as a minister in the church we attended. At 18 years old I felt the call to preach and teach, attended Bible College and was later licensed as a minister in the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW). My wife and four children were discipled in the movement as well. We were very involved. My father planted a church and I became his youth pastor and eventually took over as the senior pastor. Like many heterodox groups, we believed we alone had the true gospel.

RB: How and why did you get out of it?

JD: Oneness Pentecostals refer to themselves as Apostolics and teach that the movement is a faithful representation of ante-Nicene apostolic Christianity. I began to study church history and historical theology and it became evident this claim was false. Our view on the godhead, expressed by sects like the Modalists, was roundly condemned by the early church. From that point forward I started earnestly praying for truth. The Holy Spirit led me to books, magazines, and publications by faithful orthodox and reformed theologians.

RB: What was it like believing what you had been taught (and what you taught) for so many years was wrong and what did you do once you came to orthodox convictions about the Trinity and other matters?

JD: Revolting from the Oneness movement and embracing biblical orthodoxy was complex. My initial reaction was a deep feeling of betrayal. On the one hand, I felt I was betrayed by the pastors and leaders who should have known and taught me better, I felt I was lied to. On the other hand, I felt I was betraying all that I had ever known, believed, and loved. There were family, friends, and
close relationships at stake. There was quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on. I didn’t start with the Trinity. I first dealt with the idea of grace alone and the implications of the five solas. The Oneness understanding of the godhead (that God is not personified but manifest in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that God really is just one person who takes on different modes) was the sacred cow and I avoided it at first. I dared not remove it without a firm grip on the alternative. It was difficult but once I saw how biblical the doctrine of the Trinity was, I also realized how unbiblical and false Oneness theology was.

RB: Did you hear (or read) the discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity between T. D. Jakes, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald and what was your over-all impression of that discussion?

JD: I read the article and even saw a clip on YouTube. Here’s the problem. Driscoll and MacDonald let him expound on his own views and experiences and I know it was in a spirit of love. What they’re unable to detect, because they’re unfamiliar, is the ecumenical smokescreen that big-time prosperity preachers like Jakes put up because he really cares nothing for theology. If you listen closely, his entire discourse is centered on denominational identities and bridging the divide. He says he was Metho-Baptist-Pentecostal because of his upbringing. He sees theology simply as petty divisions among varying tribes of Christian sects. Because he sees himself as a ‘bridge builder’, doctrine is merely semantics among those who profess Christ. He told them he believed in ‘God in three persons’ but never called himself a Trinitarian. His position today is exactly what it was 15 years ago – vague.

RB: Do you think it’s important to contextualize T. D. Jakes’ ER2 statements or should we take him at face-value, infusing meaning acceptable to the orthodox position on the Trinity into what he said? What I’m getting at is this: Do you think knowing what you know about Jakes and Oneness theology helps you understand him better than others might be able to who have no long history in his thought-world?

JD: Coming from the movement myself, I can understand this man’s words in ways most people can’t. There are two types of Oneness Pentecostals. There are the hardcore, doctrinally dogmatic types who care nothing for popularity or mega-church growth. These openly assert Oneness theology and declare the doctrine of the Trinity as heresy (from their viewpoint) and an aberration of
the apostles’ doctrine. They are not out to make friends but win people over to what they see as the true gospel. They are genuine and sincere though totally wrong and if ever converted they would make great Trinitarians. The other type (like Jakes) have adopted the seeker-sensitive approach which really guides all that they do. They are out to be successful, sell books, buy TBN time slots, and gain a national following. They see success as the end-game which justifies any and all means. That model is above all things, including truth or doctrinal purity. They see their small Oneness church pastor colleagues and know that it is precisely Oneness doctrine that keeps their congregations from growing and decide to abandon theology altogether. Anything that divides people they avoid no matter how central a tenet of Christian doctrine it is. They become de facto prosperity preachers because weak Christians enjoy hearing man-centered sermons that speak to their itching ears.

RB: Do you think asking for definitions of words like “manifest” and “person” is important and why in the case of Jakes?

JD: By insisting to use the word “manifest” instead of “person” he was able to save face with his large Oneness following. It was an important distinction made that his interviewers could not appreciate.

RB: What questions would you have liked the ER2 men to ask Jakes on the Trinity?

JD: If you are a Trinitarian, why don’t you teach it to your congregation seeing it is so central to Christian dogma? You said your understanding of the godhead has been in transition, when you finally reach the end of your journey of understanding regarding the Trinity, will you openly teach it and renounce modalism as false like the early church did? Are you willing to risk losing members for that truth? Those are the questions I would have asked.

RB: Do you think they should have asked him questions about the prosperity gospel?

JD: Yes. In the last 20 years, Oneness churches have witnessed the tremendous successes of the prosperity gospel movement and largely adopted their mode of operation. In many scenarios they have effectively merged the two but the latter has swallowed up the former. T. D. Jakes’ unorthodox view on the godhead is just the tip of the iceberg. He is a prosperity preacher through and through. Men like Jakes see theological nuance as labels and baggage. He, along with many other successful mega-church CEO pastors, play both sides of the fence because it’s expedient and he doesn’t want to alienate anyone and that’s what he sees as valuable, not identifying absolute truth and exposing false doctrine.

RB: Assuming the best and that Jakes now affirms the orthodox view of the Trinity, if you were Mark Driscoll would you have asked him if he was going to publically recant for teaching damning heresy for so long?

JD: Yes. If he truly affirms an orthodox view of the Trinity, he must repent of his former teaching. The two views are totally incompatible.

RB: Elaborate on the practical implications of moving from modalism to the orthodox view in terms of Jakes’ church and world-wide impact. In other words, what would you do if you were T. D. Jakes and you now hold to the orthodox view of the Trinity after confusing so many people for such a long time?

JD: If I were Jakes, I would start to teach the Bible. That may sound like an oversimplification but men like Jakes may use the Bible every Sunday but don’t really teach it. I would start there.

RB: Comment on the following tweet I saw the other day: “The way Jakes played MacDonald & Driscoll, you could say Bishop took two pawns.” Why do you think the tweeter said that?

JD: Jakes quickly neutralized their objective questions with a bit of reverse psychology. MacDonald and Driscoll, who came to ER2 thinking the issue was doctrine, were very quickly routed by the Bishop, and before long they were talking about unity. It is always tempting to abandon our pursuit of doctrinal purity for church unity.

RB: On your Face Book page, you said, “Jakes’ chair was certainly no hot seat for he is an expert in vagueness and unfortunately they were charmed by his charisma.” Explain what you mean.

JD: He has capitalized on his cult of personality. His speaking skills, social diplomacy, and celebrity status can be overwhelming. He is a master at saying a lot without saying a lot. He is also a very likable fellow and the 30,000 Texans who make up his congregation are proof that theological ambiguity can fill a church building. I have been to conventions where he was the main speaker and have seen multitudes swoon over him. Driscoll and MacDonald were easy pickings.

RB: What would you say to folks who may be confused about ER2 and the discussion with Jakes?

JD: It may come as a surprise but men like T. D. Jakes are not epistemologically self-conscious. By that I mean that they spend so much time on motivating speech and platitudes that they’ve given very little time or thought to expound why they believe what they believe. They have reduced their doctrinal expressions to harmless sound-bytes intended to offend the least amount of people possible, and this is why he could neither call himself a Trinitarian nor fully renounce Oneness.

RB: Jordan, thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions. This has been very helpful.

JD: You’re very welcome.

RB: I plan on posting a brief piece on the Trinity tomorrow.

Additional Resources

A Measured Response to Bryan Crawford Loritts' Request for the Reformed Community to “Repent” of their Criticism of T.D. Jakes

Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

A Measured Response to Bryan Crawford Loritts' Request for the Reformed Community to “Repent” of their Criticism of T.D. Jakes

2012-01-28T08:45:00.004-05:00

Article by Daniel Neades (reprinted in full with permission from the Better Than Sacrifice blog)

In a piece entitled, ‘Reformed Crowd Asked to Repent for Attacking TD Jakes’, the Christian Post reports that Elephant Room participant, Bryan Crawford Loritts, is ‘asking the Reformed community to “repent” of their harsh criticism and one-sided attacks on Bishop T.D. Jakes in regards to his beliefs about the Godhead’.

The Post reports:

To the adjunct professor at Crichton College, those “gospel centered” people elevated love for doctrine over love for people. His words for them were this: “Your conduct is out of step with the gospel,” referring to Apostle Paul’s words to Peter in Galatians 2 when he avoided the Gentiles only when he was around the Jews.

Loritts has apparently failed to understand that it is because we love people – including T.D. Jakes himself – that we want to be sure that they are neither inadvertently trusting in a non-Trinitarian god of their own imagination, nor being deceived by a false prosperity gospel, such as the one Jakes preaches. Loritts uncharitably judges the inward thoughts and intents of his opponents.

Revealingly, in his application of Galatians 2, Loritts has cast himself as the Apostle Paul. Some might think that his seeming lack of concern for the integrity of the Gospel better suits him to the role of Peter.

Loritts also advised the “middle aged white Reformed guys” to be extremely careful of the messages they sent, both implicit and explicit.

The age and skin colour of those questioning Jakes’ beliefs and teaching is irrelevant. In fact, those men and women expressing concern represent a broad spectrum of the Church, including Baptists and Confessional Lutherans, as well as the Reformed. Loritts here is merely engaging in an ad hominem attack, mischaracterizing the Elephant Room’s many opponents as originating from a narrow clique. He also sows the utterly unfounded idea that latent racism may be motivating those with whom he disagrees. This disgraceful tactic merely highlights the intellectual and doctrinal poverty of his own diaphanous arguments.

The Post continues:

Though he was not accusing anyone of racism, he found that the “Reformed crowd’s” actions (refusing to come to the Elephant Room event or having an honest dialogue) sent an implicit message to the public – “theological bigotry.”

If Loritts is not accusing anyone of racism, why does he even mention it? Again, he is transparently engaged in the desperate antics of those feeling the quicksand of their own position rapidly dissolve beneath their own feet.

Loritts also seems to have conveniently forgotten that independent apologists endeavoured to attend the Elephant Room but, despite having reserved tickets in advance, were refused entry and, in one case, even threatened with arrest. It is the organizers of the Elephant Room who have proven themselves unwilling to engage in honest dialogue. And, by his baseless personal attacks, Loritts himself demonstrates the very fault that he ascribes to those with whom he disagrees.

Loritts is apparently unmoved by the informed and reasoned assessment of scholars such as Dr. James White, who declared on Twitter:

McDonald [sic], Driscoll, etc., showed such disrespect to the Trinity and Church History that they did not even ask the most basic questions.

White later devoted an hour of his popular Dividing Line webcast to scrutinizing Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room.

Dr. Carl Trueman, Departmental Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, likewise gave his assessment of what White called the ‘MacDonald/Driscoll disaster’:

This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of ‘Hey, hater!’ from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant’s wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, ‘Did you do that?’ to which he says ‘No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives’; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary. (Source)

In a pithy blog post, Tom Chantry, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, and Elephant Room attendee, gave his assessment of Jakes’ performance:

Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology. Don’t be fooled by the panel members who insist that he affirmed the Trinity. What he did was say, “I’m Trinitarian so long as I am free to express it in Sabelian terms.” He repeatedly insisted that Oneness folks and Trinitarian folks are all saying the same thing. He dismissed the question as secondary – not worth division among the people of Christ, among whom he clearly counts the Oneness churches. Once he has deconstructed the very idea of systematic theology, he can affirm anything. So yes, he answered “absolutely” or “yeș” to each and every one of Driscoll’s questions, but what does that mean? Not much.

The Elephant Room débutantes’ ball has seen the public emergence of pachydermism, the belief that clearly defined and defended sound doctrine is harmful to Christian unity. This lethal disease contrasts sharply with the Biblical doctrine that true unity of faith arises from a shared understanding of the objective truth taught by Scripture (cf. Ephesians 4).

In fact, there have been very few, if any, attacks upon T.D. Jakes himself – I am aware of none. Rather, it is his belief and teaching that have been subject to intense scrutiny. Pachydermism is regrettably characterized by its inability to distinguish between improper attacks upon a person, and the legitimate comparison with Scripture of what a person believes, teaches and confesses.

In a Facebook discussion of the Christian Post article, Pastor Gervase Charmley, minister at Bethel Evangelical Free Church, Stoke on Trent, UK, and perhaps best known for his ‘good sermons’ featured on the Fighting for the Faith Internet radio programme, gave this assessment:

I would say “Woe unto them who say ‘peace, peace’ where there is no peace.” Because that’s what MacDonald and co. are doing, saying that there is peace where there isn’t any.
Yes, the criticism of Jakes has been substantive and doctrinal, not ad hominem. What has been criticised is what the chap has said and not said, not the colour of his shirt, or even the style of his preaching. It is disgraceful to characterise it as personal attack, though not in the least surprising.
One of the effects of Postmodernism is the loss of the ability to actually engage in meaningful conversation; by saying that all positions are equally true we are left with only one avenue of criticism – the personal attack. And that is where you are left by the compromise of the Elephant Room. You can only accuse of ad hominem, while using ad hominem yourself (the implied accusation of racism, for example).
If anyone asked me what I believe about the Trinity, I would be able to point to multiple sermons addressing the question, and historic credal statements that express my beliefs. When someone can’t, we have a problem. No one in public ministry should leave any doubts about their views on the Trinity. Who God is happens to be extremely important.

Loritts’ call for repentance amounts to asking Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Confessional Anglicans, and other Christians, to repent for caring about the doctrine of the Trinity and for objecting to Jakes’ false prosperity gospel. Loritts is asking sincere Christians to repent for loving sufficiently so as to be willing to speak the truth, even when it is unwelcome and contrary to the prevailing spirit of the age.

The critics of the Elephant Room have presented substantive, carefully argued and Biblical critiques of what occurred, rooted in the creeds and confessions of the historic orthodox Christian Faith. The defenders of Elephant Room, like Loritts, are able to respond with nothing other than tawdry personal attacks and unfounded slurs and insinuations. It is Loritts who should repent of his reprehensible accusations, and he who, along with James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll, ought to repent for participating in the Great Doctrinal Downgrade of which pachydermism is the herald.

May the Lord open their eyes and grant them repentance and the forgiveness of sins in His Son, who died that even these sins might be forgiven. May He grant us all the grace to speak the truth in love to one another, that we may ‘grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ – from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.’ (Eph. 4:15–16)

Readers may also be interested in my earlier coverage of T.D. Jakes and The Elephant Room 2:

POSTSCRIPT

The term pachydermism was inspired by the title of my friend Erin Benziger’s post, This ‘n’ That – Pachyderm Edition.

UPDATE

The Christian Post article was apparently based upon this blog post by Loritts.

File this one under "Oh, the irony...."

2012-01-27T20:50:00.001-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Video of James MacDonald rebuking the heretical theology of the Prosperity Gospel. What will his new BFF (Prosperity Gospel preacher T.D. Jakes) think??

Additional Resources

Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Tom Chantry on ER2

2012-01-27T12:39:00.001-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

An excellent post by Tom Chantry, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, with some quick points about The Elephant Room 2:

1. T.D. Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology.

2. Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald are too much in awe of Jakes' massive numeric success to call him on this.

3. James MacDonald is angry.

4. The mega-pastors are one big lovin' family!

5. If you aren't defined at least somewhat by what you are against, you aren't really defined at all.

Pastor Chantry's entire post, including the development of these teaser points, can be read here.

Additional Resources

Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Carl Trueman and The Elephant Room

2012-01-27T12:10:00.002-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Additional Resources

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Attention, Elephant Room Security Personnel...

2012-01-26T14:06:00.002-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Additional Resources

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

2012-01-25T19:24:00.005-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed.

Fighting For The Faith radio talk show host Chris Rosebrough, an outspoken critic of seeker driven methodology and ego-driven megachurches, recently traveled, along with his colleague and fellow discernment writer Erin Benziger, to Rolling Meadows, Illinois to attend The Elephant Room II, an event hosted by James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel and Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church.

Chris Rosebrough and Erin Benziger had both purchased online registrations for this event.

Upon entering the building to attend the conference, Chris Rosebrough and Erin Benziger (Do Not Be Surprised blog) were approached by security personnel who informed them that their registrations to The Elephant Room II had been revoked, and that they needed to immediately leave the premises, or be arrested for trespassing.

The Elephant Room II says in its purpose statement:

The Elephant Room is more than an event. It is the outgrowth of an idea. The idea that the best way forward for the followers of Jesus lies not in crouching behind walls of disagreement but in conversation among all kinds of leaders about what the scriptures actually teach. We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently.

You may listen to Chris Rosebrough's interview about this event here.

Additional Resources

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

2012-01-25T11:42:00.134-05:00

Posted by Cathy Mathews and Christine Pack

The Christian discernment blogosphere has already been very, very busy in just the first 4 weeks of 2012. First was Passion 2012 in Atlanta, GA, with its concerning alliances and seemingly mystical activities which led to obvious questions among many Christians. Next we had the whipped up Code Orange Revival which took place in Charlotte, NC under the direction of rising superstar pastor Steven Furtick, and at which Oneness heretic T.D. Jakes was......rebuked? corrected for his false teaching? asked to leave? No, none of those things. In fact, Trinity denier* Jakes was welcomed with open arms as a keynote speaker for the conference. In an even more surprising turn, well-regarded pastor and Gospel Coalition member James MacDonald spoke very warmly from the stage about T.D. Jakes, and in tweets after the event proclaimed his love for Jakes and his teaching. It was shortly after the ~~Heresy Love Fest~~ Code Orange Revival that James MacDonald, pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel, chose to resign from The Gospel Coalition, of which he had been a founding member.

Whew. But wait, there's more.

The reason these events have been so controversial is because discernment writers, who are often charged with being hateful, judgmental, divisive, etc., have helped to put the spotlight on these concerning alliances (thus creating controversy), and have written numerous articles aimed at helping their fellow Christians understand why it's a problem that T.D. Jakes denies the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, that doctrine really does matter, and why Christians can't just willy-nilly link to anyone who comes down the pike claiming to be a Christian brother. Words matter. Terms matter. Definitions matter. After all, we demand precision from cab drivers, surgeons, airline pilots, and elevators: should we ask any less from those who are handling God's word? And thus, controversy has arisen. Should high profile pastors like James MacDonald (and by default, well-regarded groups like The Gospel Coalition) be associated with someone like T.D. Jakes, a character that my grandfather would have given the old-fashioned term "huckster"? So a number of Christian apologetics and discernment bloggers, including:

Dan Phillips (Biblical Christianity and Team Pyro)

Ken Silva (Apprising Ministires)

Talk show host Chris Rosebrough (Fighting For the Faith Radio)

Erin Benziger (Do Not Be Surprised)

Daniel Neades (Better Than Sacrifice)

(among others) have been outspoken critics of events like Code Orange Revival and The Elephant Room II, and labored to help their fellow Christians understand the doctrinal problems with some of the speakers at these events, including Steven Furtick and T.D. Jakes.

But wait, there's still more.

In an ongoing effort to gather information, talk show host Chris Rosebrough and writer Erin Benziger (as mentioned above) both purchased tickets to Elephant Room II and traveled to the event, which began today. Upon entering the event, however, both were approached by security and told that their registration at the Elephant Room II conference has been revoked. Both Rosebrough and Benziger were told to leave the premises of Harvest Bible Chapel under threat of arrest. Yes, you might want to read that again, and no, it's no joke. (And you can listen to Chris Rosebrough discuss what happened in a radio interview at Issues, Etc. here)

And now read the purpose statement of The Elephant Room:

The Elephant Room is more than an event. It is the outgrowth of an idea. The idea that the best way forward for the followers of Jesus lies not in crouching behind walls of disagreement but in conversation among all kinds of leaders about what the scriptures actually teach. We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently. (our emphasis)

As you probably already know, James MacDonald is the pastor at Harvest Bible Church and also the host of The Elephant Room II. Just yesterday, MacDonald resigned from The Gospel Coalition due to his invitation to T.D. Jakes to speak at this year's Elephant Room.

Wow- apparently, MacDonald will separate from an organization that is grouped around the Biblical Gospel (The Gospel Coalition) for the sake of giving cover to a heretic who preaches a different gospel, while at the same time refusing to even admit into attendance some Christians who disagree with MacDonald's yoking to said heretic.

Who is it in this picture that is "crouching behind walls of disagreement?"

* Before the emails start, yes, I know that T.D. Jakes was asked whether he affirms the Trinity at the just begun Elephant Room II, and yes I know that he answered that he does. The problem here is that no-one has asked him to define his terms. Those who have researched T.D. Jakes and know him well can attest that he does not hold to the orthodox view of the Trinity as held by Christians through the centuries.

Additional Resources

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

Chris Rosebrough Gives An Interview About Being Escorted By Security From The Elephant Room II

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note