Elephant Fallout - ER Saga (Part 9)

My head has been spinning over the last two years at the shocking decisions made by so many people I respect. Who would have ever thought that John Piper would invite Rick Warren to Desiring God, or that The Gospel Coalition would say almost nothing publicly about their member Mark Driscoll's inexcusable behavior, or that James MacDonald would put his stamp of approval on the ministry of TD Jakes. Am I in the matrix? Has modern evagelicalism built a portal into an alternate reality? Have the real James MacDonald and John Piper been abducted by aliens and are currently being impersonated by shape shifting imposters? My friends still laugh at these theories but not too much anymore.

What is going on? I don't know the answer to that, but in the midst of all of this mayhem I have become greatly encouraged by the number of godly men in this country who have been galvanized to action and enlisted in the truth war. Perhaps Rob Bell fully removing his sheep suit was the catalyst for all this combativeness and I finally have something to thank him for. Whatever it is, the growing clamor of zeal by men who desire to earnestly contend for the "Once for all delivered faith", and oppose all other "gospels" is probably the most exciting development in the last twelve months.

One great example of this is Pastor Arvid Svendsen (sounds very Scandinavian) who has withdrawn his mega-church from James MacDonald's Harvest network and given a lengthy public statement as to why. Thank God for men like Arvid, may God bless his congregation for the stand he has taken, may godly men rally around him, and may his stand be an integral part of the much needed correction needed to good preachers who start to go maverick. Read on and be greatly encouraged . . .

March 7, 2012

An Important Message from the Elder Board of Harvest Bible Chapel New Lenox:
Our church began on January 1, 2003 as "Cornerstone Church" with the purpose to glorify God by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to our community. On October 2, 2005, we joined with Harvest Bible Fellowship (HBF) and became Harvest Bible Chapel New Lenox (HBCNL). We were excited to be HBF's first "transition church".

By God's grace, we have enjoyed many good times of fellowship and growth since our partnership with HBF. God has worked in our midst as we have determined to preach the Word of God, to call men and women to faith and repentance by the enablement of the Holy Spirit, and to trust God to do His work of drawing them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ by His grace and for His glory.

Decision to Disassociate with Harvest Bible Chapel Fellowship
As the Elder Board of HBCNL, we now come to a significant moment of change in regards to our affiliation with HBF. Over the past year and a half the elders of HBCNL have sensed an increasing shift away from the convictions and philosophy of ministry that were in place when we joined HBF in October, 2005. In light of these concerns, we are disassociating from Harvest Bible Fellowship, effective March 31, 2012.  We will then assume our previous name (held from January 1, 2003 to October 2, 2005), "Cornerstone Church", and continue to serve the Lord together as an independent church.   

Harvest Bible Chapel Ministry new distinctives that we oppose:
In order to be clear, greater detail concerning our differences with Harvest Bible Fellowship is necessary. Though we are not accusing Harvest Bible Fellowship or Pastor James MacDonald of abandoning the faith, we are convinced that they have drifted into error in a number of key ministry areas. That drift can be evidenced by at least three major changes in their convictions and philosophy of ministry:

1.  A Growing Personality/Celebrity Pastor Centered Ministry
The Elder Board of HBCNL is troubled by HBF's commitment to the establishment of "multi-sites", also called "video campuses", in Chicagoland with Pastor MacDonald projected weekly on the video screen as the lead preacher. Multi-sites minimize the gifting of the Holy Spirit for vocational pastor/teachers to exercise "live" teaching and preaching, personally shepherding the flock, and directly practicing spiritual oversight. The multi-site model is foreign to the biblical model of ministry in the New Testament, as pastors and elders are told by Peter to "…shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight…" (I Peter 5:2a). Our observations of HBF indicate that a corporate mentality is in place that seeks to promote Pastor MacDonald in a way we cannot support.

2.  Pastor MacDonald's associations with "pastors" who hold to errant theologies
We do not oppose pastors having friendships with those who are not genuinely regenerate, as long as the goal is be a strong voice of the Gospel to the unregenerate minister. However, we are deeply concerned that HBF has been disrupted by associations and influences of men who hold to errant theologies and ministry distinctives.

A number of those associations include "pastors" given over to a hybrid prosperity/empowerment/love-over-doctrinal-precision posture. The resultant troubling actions, decisions, and statements from Pastor MacDonald demonstrate the negative impact of those associations. For example, Pastor MacDonald allowing prosperity teacher Steven Furtick to preach at HBC Rolling Meadows in August of 2011 is something that would not have happened five years ago at Harvest. Another example of influence was Pastor MacDonald's statement, "I am also excited to hear him (T.D. Jakes) state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world". T. D. Jakes is an empowerment/prosperity gospel preacher. Associations like these have brought about harmful influence. Further, despite Pastor MacDonald's claims to the contrary, the large majority of the public's perception of associations with errant pastors is that there is endorsement in belief and mission.  

3.  Lack of Discernment in the Elephant Room Discussions
It was learned in the Fall of 2011 that the January 25, 2012, "Elephant Room 2" (ER2) conference would host T.D. Jakes as one of the seven pastors invited to form a discussion panel. The conference was intended to address difficult ministry topics with the seven pastor panel. The announcement of T.D. Jakes' appearance at ER2 was publicly criticized by a number of godly pastors and evangelical leaders. The elder board of HBCNL was also unanimous in our strong disagreement with the Jakes ER2 invitation. As referenced above, Jakes is clearly associated with many TV stations and ministries that are steeped in the false teaching of the Prosperity Gospel/Word Faith Movement. That reality in itself made the ER2 invitation alarming.

Equally alarming is the fact that Jakes is ordained in the Oneness Pentecostal Church, which denies the Trinity. Rather than believing in the biblically correct view of God as one God eternally existing as three "persons", the Oneness Pentecostal church holds to the errant view that God is one God existing as three "manifestations". The Oneness Pentecostal view denies the biblical view of the Trinity, denies the co-eternality, co-existence, and co-equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, and instead claims that one God shows up in history in three different "manifestations".

When given the opportunity, the orthodox pastor must confront unbiblical teachings and doctrines:

"I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:1-4). 

A large segment of the "evangelical church" has drifted away from strong adherence to biblical doctrines, sadly denigrating the precise and clear explanation of those doctrines. The current thinking among many preachers is that doctrinal precision should be laid aside, and love should be the priority in the church of Jesus Christ so that unity would be attained. The opposite is true. A high regard for biblical truth and the guarding of doctrinal precision is the basis of unity, as the Lord Jesus Christ prayed, "…sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth…" (John 17:17). The truth of the Scriptures clearly defined is the highest expression of love for the listener. Strict adherence to Biblical truth and doctrine, not doctrinal leniency, brings about the unity for which the Lord prayed.  

Both Pastor Driscoll and Pastor MacDonald failed to address Jakes' prosperity gospel teaching at ER2. In fact, Jakes' prosperity gospel teaching was not publicly questioned or addressed at all. The reason for ignoring that entire area of false teaching at the ER2 is unknown, since we were told that we would be hearing about Jakes' views on the subject.

During the ER2 session with Pastor MacDonald and Pastor Driscoll, Jakes stated that he was not comfortable with the orthodox term "persons" or the modalistic term "manifestations". Specifically, Jakes stated, "My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except the word… 'manifest' instead of 'persons', which you describe as 'modalist', but I describe it as 'Pauline'."

Jakes then proceeded to make a case for the validity of the term "manifestations" to describe the Godhead based on I Timothy 3:16. However, the phrase Jakes referred to, "He was manifested in the flesh" found in I Timothy 3:16 is not referring to the essence of the Triune Godhead, but rather explains the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was deeply troubling that none of the other six pastors on the ER2 panel challenged Jakes' incorrect interpretation of I Timothy 3:16.

Jakes' view on the Trinity, is not only deficient, it is outside the realm of orthodoxy, and can only be labeled as heresy.  Jakes urged that we not be too caught in those issues which were surrounded in mystery. Yet we read in Scripture that we must "…contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints..." (Jude 3).

Though we are called to speak to the lost, the church is warned to never welcome the false teacher into any gathering so that his words are given any type of legitimacy:

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds."  (2 John 10,11)

The Bible is clear about the stance one should take towards false teachers. T.D. Jakes' stated position on the Godhead is not an orthodox view of the Trinity. Jakes attempted to defend his position of the Trinity using language that is unique to the modalist who denies the Trinity. Unlike T.D. Jakes, no Trinitarian is uncomfortable with the word "persons" to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the one God of the Bible.

Ultimately, Jakes' position on the Trinity is not the issue. Rather, the problem is HBF and Pastor MacDonald's not correcting or rebuking the false teaching presented in ER2. Pastor MacDonald's doctrinal tolerance and leniency before, during, and after the ER2 is at the heart of our departure from HBF. Pastor MacDonald's subsequent defenses of the ER2 on his website and on Moody Radio lead us to conclude that this change in direction established is part of the future ministry of HBF. Grievously, doctrinal leniency and disregard for proper theological examination from the pastors present marked the event.

We have addressed our concerns with the leadership of HBF
We addressed our concerns with Kent Shaw and Bill Molinari on two separate occasions, and also had additional conversations. We expressed to them our deep disappointment with ER2. We repeatedly expressed the clear violation of Scripture that was taking place by giving T.D. Jakes a platform to espouse his errant theology concerning the Trinity and the false gospel and prosperity and empowerment that marks his ministry. During all meetings, both Kent Shaw and Bill Molinari were gracious and brotherly.  Although the desire to work out our difficulties with HBF was present, it became clear that we could not continue to partner with HBF as directed by Pastor MacDonald. 

What is our future direction?
In light of the decision to withdraw from Harvest Bible Fellowship, what is our direction for the future?

1. Independent Church
Our conviction is that we remain independent, with no denominational affiliation at this point. That decision does not mean that we will never form any association with a fellowship of churches in the future, but at this time, we will remain an independent church.

2. A "new" name
Our new name will be "Cornerstone Church", our original name when we began the ministry in 2003. The belief and mission of Cornerstone Church will be given over to the authority of the inspired Word of God, the grace of our Lord, and the n We are deeply committed to declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  we will through the ministry of the word, prayer, and the work of the Holy Spirit, we will inform the community that we have changed our name, and will continue to meet in the same place, continuing to seek to obediently minister the word and reach out to the lost for the sake of the glory of Christ.

A new constitution
Legally, we must craft a new constitution, and make necessary legal requirements for the name change. Most of that work has been accomplished, our goal is to have all our necessary obligations completed by March 31, 2012. However, we are not dissolving as a church, we are simply dropping our affiliation. Transition to Cornerstone Church will take place during March 2012.

Please pray for our church as we continue to minister, and that God will be glorified in all that we do and say. Pray also for Pastor James MacDonald and HBF, that they would be attentive to the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

Sincerely in Christ,

Pastor Arvid Svendsen
arvid@harvestnewlenox.org

Elder Board: Carl Pignotti, Don Howley, Steve Long, Dean Porter, Jim Schwab, Rex Stouffer

Go On To Part 10
Go Back To Part 8
Go Back To Part 1

Voddie Baucham And Ethnic Gnosticism - ER Saga (Part 8)

This jaw dropping interview took place after the Elephant Room conference where James MacDonald interviews three African American pastors. And the reason for people who criticize TD Jakes is because of his heretical teaching? No!!! It would appear that Jakes' skin color gives him diplomatic immunity from theological scrutiny . . .



It is beyond me why James MacDonald would post this video. Amidst the true points made here there is a lot to be disturbed about. If James MacDonald really wants to help the African American community then a good place to start would be to stop affirming those who plunder this very community with their outrageously heretical prosperity teaching. How about sitting down and discussing the gospel they preach rather than the color of their skin. Is it just possible that the content of TD Jakes' teaching could have anything to do with those Christian leaders who are critical of him? It would seem that another elephant just entered the room.

I cannot think of a better combination than the combined apologetic superpowers of Dr. Voddie Baucham and Dr. James White to discuss this issue. This discussion is gold - please check it out!



Go On To Part 9
Go Back To Part 7
Go Back To Part 1

James White Knows An Elephant When He Sees One - ER Saga (Part 4)

In the previous post we saw the transcript of the hotly debated and much anticipated discussion that took place between James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, and TD Jakes during the recent Elephant Room 2 conference. On initial impressions, the conversation raised four major questions. Firstly, why were there no questions concerning Jakes' long history of overtly peddling his prosperity Word Faith gospel?
Todd Friel nailed the issue in this video:



Secondly, I am amazed that in a discussion on the Trinity there was no question asked concerning the eternality of Christ. That was a big red flag to even a lightweight theologian like myself. Jakes has a history of being very slippery and evasive when doctrinally questioned on his modalism and an interview like this requires carefully defined and phrased questions. Which raises my third question - why didn't they invite an expert on this issue like James White to question Jakes? This leads to the fourth question - was James MacDonalds promotional spiel "get your ringside seats" an invitation to view some genuine theological combat or to entertain with something as carefully prearranged and orchestrated as WWF wrestling?

Indeed James White suggested (via Twitter) that he could have cleared up the Trinitarian issue in 15 seconds:









Indeed Dr. White received so many questions about the Elephant Room discussion that he discussed it on his radio program. This is worth viewing for the educational value of being properly schooled in a doctrinal matter that is of first importance and has eternal consequences. The only sad part of this video is that it leaves me wishing that James White had been invited to the Elephant in the Room conference. At least he knows how to recognize one!



Go On To Part 5
Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Carefully Scripted Elephant Avoidance - ER Saga (Part 3)

It would seem that my theory about the real James MacDonald being abducted by aliens some time last year is not as far fetched as my doubters first thought. Of the multitude of "weird" things James MacDonald has done over the last year or so, perhaps the most alarming was his invitation to TD Jakes to attend his Elephant Room conference where "brothers" discuss their methodological differences. Rather than back down and receive the biblical counsel from his many orthodox friends, MacDonald decided it would be better to redefine the mission statement of the Elephant Room, then redefine what brother means, then redefine Jakes' slippery modalist language, and then resign from The Gospel Coalition. It has been truly amazing to see the lengths James MacDonald (the alien imposter version) will go to to have TD Jakes at his conference. Before the conference MacDonald had promised us that the Elephant Room is a place where "sparks fly", men face up to each other, and don't shy away from disputes . . .



Well, amidst the disappointment, many of us remained intrigued as to how many sparks would appear in flight in the conversation between James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, and TD Jakes. Since I'm not willing to shell out the bucks to buy a copy of the video from Pastor MacDonald, we'll have to settle for a transcript. And even though this format is text rather than video, I think even the untrained eyes might be able to spot an elephant or two. And if the following conversation proves too tedious then make sure you scroll down to the bottom of the post to see how Todd Friel earned his "elephant spotting badge"!

Jakes: My father was Methodist. My mother was Baptist. My father's family was Methodist as far back as I can remember. I was raised in a Baptist church. But I was raised in church but I really didn't have a real committed experience with Christ until my father died. When my father died, I had a real experience with Christ -- a real conversion in Christ, and I had it in a Oneness church.

Driscoll: By Oneness meaning [what]? -- for those who do not know all the theological terms.

Jakes: Well it would be like, how do I explain it? It was not a UPC [United Pentecostal] church, in spite of the blogs. It was not a UPC church, but somewhat similar.

Driscoll: Jesus only, modalism?

Jakes: "Jesus only -- modalism" which is still a theological term. ... But Christians and Christians [who] believe in Jesus Christ, believe He died and rose from the dead, coming back again -- all the same things that you do. Pentecostal Christians by its virtue. But how they described and explained the Godhead in a traditional oneness sense is very, very different from how traditional Trinitarians describe the Gospel. And I was in that church and raised in that church for a number of years. My problem with it as I began to go on and as God began to develop my ministry, I started preaching from that church and from that pulpit and that sort of thing. But I'm also informed by the infiltration from my Baptist experience and my Methodist experience, so I ended up Metha-Bapti-Costal in a way. So I'm kind of like a mixed breed sitting up here, OK? And what I began to find out [is that] it is easy to throw rocks at people that you don't know, but the more you really get to know them and see Christ work in their lives, regardless of their belief system, you begin to try to be a bridge-builder. ... When you try to build bridges between people who've been fighting for hundreds of years -- hundreds of years before you ever even got into the discussion. There is an old adage that says 'he who stands in the middle of the road gets hit by both sides.' So as I began to progress, I began to understand that some of the dogma that I was taught in the Oneness movement was very dogmatic and very narrow and really not the best description of how I now understand the Godhead. I still did not want to switch teams and start throwing rocks back across the street, because much of what we do today is teach people to take sides. But I believe we are called as the Body of Christ to reconcile wherever possible.

MacDonald: Alright, but before we even get into -- and I think what you're leading us into is wise and helpful and it reflects why we're here -- how we relate to people who differ is on subject. Before we even go to that, I'd love to give you an opportunity to just -- like there were some particular Scriptures that began to inform you, you began to move and develop in what you personally believe. I'd like to just hear you articulate that.

Jakes: My struggle after I was ordained and consecrated in the Oneness church was in several passages, sometimes the doctrine fits; sometimes it doesn't. And when the doctrine becomes the primary thing you force it into many places where it doesn't fit. I really at this point in my life don't want to force my theology to fit within my denomination. I am open to hear whatever God is saying. Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River, for example, coming up out of the water the Holy Spirit descends like a dove, the Father speaks from heaven -- and we see all three of them on one occasion, or in Genesis "let us make man in our own likeness" or Elohim -- He is the one God who manifest Himself in a plurality of ways. Or what Jesus says, "I am with the Father, and the Father is in me" and understanding -- or attempting to understand. And that began to make me rethink some of my ideas and some of the things that I was taught. I got kind of quiet about it for a while. Because when you are a leader and you are in a position of authority, sometimes you have to back up and ponder for a minute, and really think things through. I began to realize that there are some things that could be said about the Father that could not be said about the Son. There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and the working of the redemptive work of Christ. I'm very comfortable with that. You and I have talked; [Jack] Graham and I have talked; there is very little difference in what I believe and what you believe. But here is where I find the problem: 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.

Driscoll: ... We all would agree 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 one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God three persons simultaneously existing eternally. ... And I understand, there is some mystery -- for sure. Would you say it's 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 I think 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 -- I am not crazy about the word "persons." ... My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except for the ...

Driscoll: The word "manifestation."

Jakes: Manifest instead of persons. Which you describe as modalist, and I describe it as Pauline. Let me show you what I'm saying. When I read 1 Timothy 3:16, I didn't create this. ... "And without controversy," which I think we have been bickering about something that is what Paul describes as a mystery, and I don't think we should do that. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. So God was manifest in the flesh." Now Paul was not a modalist, but he does not think that it is robbery to the divinity of God to say God was manifest in the flesh. And I think maybe it's semantics. But Paul says this before this fight was started. But He also says God "was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached until the Gentiles, believed on 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 -- [that happened] only in the person of Jesus Christ. Coming back for us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has 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.

MacDonald: Not at all.

Jakes: 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 that are 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. ... it's almost like the stereotypical ideologies we have about races. We have little ideas about denominations and movements. The reason I applauded 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 so 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.

Driscoll: Let me jump in here. I want to say a couple of things. Thank you for joining us. You don't have to be there. You were on the cover of Time magazine. You have options of where you go.

MacDonald: This isn't your biggest gig ever? [laughter]

Driscoll: It takes a lot of courage and humility to put yourself in an unscripted situation and to be outside of your normal tribe. And the fact that you showed up to dinner last night, I was shocked. I was like, "T.D. Jakes is coming to dinner?" I loved you. I enjoyed you. I really appreciated hearing your story of your family in context and your upbringing. And I walked away going, "I really appreciate getting to meet and know and enjoy that man. So thank-you for being gracious; thank-you for being courageous; and thank-you for being humble. And I think it might be helpful because, You're coming out of a Oneness background and out of a different context than a lot of us are. You've demonstrated humility, saying "I've been studying the Bible and I'm even changing some thinking as I'm studying." A lot of pastors will just defend their first position to death rather than humbly reconsidering it biblically. Maybe to help others understand you, on the flip side, How have you been treated and what has the response been from some who were friends that you don't want to throw rocks at, but because of your transition.

Jakes: That's what's funny about this, that's what's really funny to me.

Driscoll: Are you the heretic to them?

Jakes: Oh, very much so in many circles ... Many of the circles that I came from would never allow me in their pulpit because they consider me a heretic. I have to read the article to see which heretic I am.

MacDonald: We'd be honored if you'd come be with us and let's all grow together.

Jakes: OK, and that'd be great. But I think the time has come for us to be willing to take the heat to have a conversation. Because if we do not do this, and we continue to divide ourselves by ourselves and compare ourselves with ourselves, we do it at the expense of decreasing numbers of new Christians in our country. We have to mobilize. Just for your consideration: This is the only thing that Jesus prayed that we can answer. He only prayed, "Father, I pray that they may be one even as You and I are also one." And this is the one thing that is within our power to answer, and we do not do it.

Driscoll: Can I ask a couple of quick questions, and then we can do whatever you want. Do you believe this is the perfect, inspired, final authority Word of God? [Driscoll holds up a Bible]

Jakes: Absolutely.

Driscoll: So you believe there's one God, Three Persons -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit? You believe Jesus was fully God, fully Man?

Jakes: Absolutely.

Driscoll: You believe He died on the cross in our place for our sins?

Jakes: Absolutely.

Driscoll: You believe He bodily rose from death?

Jakes: Absolutely.

Driscoll: You believe that He is the judge of the living and the dead?

Jakes: Yes.

Driscoll: And you believe that Apart from Jesus there is no salvation?

Jakes: Absolutely.

Driscoll: Thank-you. [applause]

MacDonald: That was crazy! I've just want to say this: I am so weary of people thinking they know -- they don't know I think you honor us and you humble us, a man of your stature and commitment to the Gospel and fruitfulness would come and sit in this room, let you and me ask him what he believes? ... I just want to say this, I think you've honored us, and you've shown immense humility, and I want to be in the world where I believe that Jesus Christ stands. And He's told us again and again He stands with the humble. "Get to those people who love my Son, who believe my Word, who express humility." And I'm honored to hear what you said. I want to just say, further, Mark, if I could contribute to this, that I feel deeply in my heart that God is both three and one. Three and one. I believe the Scripture is very clear when we get to heaven, we are going to see Jesus -- the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declare. Jesus is the only God we will ever see. When I was studying Revelation last year I was struck by the number of times that I saw in the book of Revelation that it almost seems in the text like the Father and the Son are on the same throne, and when I start to think about this, I believe in God eternally existing in three persons. But, the more I think about it, the more I feel like my head is going to explode, and I get a little weary of people who feel that they need to erase mystery and replace it with certainty as a test of orthodoxy. If what we have heard today doesn't satisfy, then the person is insatiable, and I'm ready to move on to a new subject. I believe that very strongly.

Jakes: Let me just make one little comment: One of the things that you said at the end, even as we talked about it before, and I've heard Jack Graham say this, too, that there is going to be one throne and there's going to be one God we can see. And I thought the more I hear everybody arguing about this, we're all saying the same thing. And we like fight about it to the death, and I just think that in the world that we're living in today, if we could just connect, and I know that there will always be distracters and there will always be people who define themselves by their differences rather than their connections, who are more comfortable with being known by what they are against than by what they are for. But when I hear you say that there's going to be one throne and one God on that throne, My soul leaps in celebration, and I hear both of us stumbling trying to explain how God does what He does like He does. I think THAT stumbling is worship. I think THAT stumbling is worship. I think the fact that we would humble ourselves and say, "Your thoughts and ways are beyond human comprehension" is what makes worship fill the room.

There you go! Did you spot any elephants? I know Todd Friel earned his elephant spotters badge . . .



Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

James White Coming To Brisbane

For all my Aussie friends, particularly in Brisbane, you do not want to miss this outstanding event featuring heavyweight Christian apologist Dr. James White. It will be hosted by pastor Craig Ireland at Hope Christian Church which, I am thrilled to say, is one of Brisbane's solid biblical churches pastored by my precious brother Craig Ireland (I plan to talk about the Craig's journey and church plant in a later post - just waiting for Craig to answer my calls). Be sure to confirm your place at this debate between Oneness Pentecostal Roger Perkins and the combative Dr. White over the essential Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Todd Friel and Tony Verkinnes on Wretched Radio have a running joke about the popular "Christian" singing trio "Philips, Craig, and Dean" which goes something like this:

Todd: Hey I went to the big Christian music convention last weekend and you'll never guess who I met there!

Tony: Who???

Todd: Philips, Craig and Dean!

Tony: Really?

Todd: Well obviously, not all of them at the same time.

Be warned, this is a joke that will fall completely flat unless you know some inside theological information about Philips, Craig, and Dean. They hail from a Oneness Pentecostal church, a denomination that holds to the anti-Trinitarian doctrine of Modalism.

The heresy of modalism/sabellianism goes back to the second century AD and was a reason for the Athanasian Creed which godly men from that time formulated to refute all doctrine that was anti-Trinitarian. I won’t delve into an in-depth study on the Trinity right now but I recommend Paul Washer’s book “The One True God” for an excellent and simple study on the subject. The Athanasian creed is very long but it if you need to summarize it in three points regarding the Trinity as taught in Scripture they are these:

1.There is one God.
2.This one God exists in three persons.
3.These three Persons are each fully God.

Modalism however does not teach one God in three Persons. It teaches one god in three manifestations. So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit become different roles that God uses at different times – just like water, ice, and steam is h2o appearing in different forms (maybe the joke is getting a bit funnier now). The modalist has major problems with issues like Jesus praying to the Father or Jesus’ baptism where the Father spoke and the Holy Spirit descended. For the modalist Jesus is not eternal, but how the Father appeared for 33 years. For the modalist Jesus cannot be a mediator between sinners and the Father. For the modalist Jesus cannot suffer the Father’s wrath on the cross. I could say more but I think you can see modalism is a big problem – it is idolatry.

Modalism is alive and well today and has other major proponents who tend to try and fly under the theological radar, none more so than popular “evangelical” preacher TD Jakes. This, in turn, highlights the need for those of us who inhabit church pews each Sunday, and then head back out into our mission fields, to be informed about subtle heresies like modalism. the doctrine of the Trinity is one of the cornerstone doctrines of the historic Christian faith as witnessed by the many creeds and confessions through the centuries. People have given their lives defending it and you don't want to have the wool pulled over your eyes. So be sure to come out and learn some vital truth . . . and enjoy the fireworks!

Preaching Myths In Modern Pulpits (Part 3)

Myth 3. The Trinity can be illustrated by water, ice, and steam.

I’ve heard this one preached a lot of times. I have to say that any illustration is going to have problems when it comes to explaining the Trinity. But is there a particular problem with this illustration?



I don't want to be harsh on the guy in this video because he is spot on in his theology of the Triune God. It is just that he is using a bad illustration, one of which I am also guilty of using. Water ice and steam is actually a good illustration for the heresy of modalism/sabellianism which goes back to the second century AD and was a reason for the Athanasian Creed. I won’t delve into an in-depth study on the Trinity right now but I recommend Paul Washer’s book “The One True God” for an excellent and simple study on the subject.

The Athanasian creed is very long but it if you need to summarize it in three points regarding the Trinity as taught in Scripture they are these:

1.There is one God.
2.This one God exists in three persons.
3.These three Persons are each fully God.

Modalism however does not teach one God in three Persons. It teaches one god in three manifestations. So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit become different roles that God uses at different times – just like water, ice, and steam is h2o appearing in different forms. The modalist has major problems with issues like Jesus praying to the Father or Jesus’ baptism where the Father spoke and the Holy Spirit descended. For the modalist Jesus is not eternal, but how the Father appeared for 33 years. For the modalist Jesus cannot be a mediator between sinners and the Father. For the modalist Jesus cannot suffer the Father’s wrath on the cross. I could say more but I think you can see modalism is a big problem – it is idolatry.

Modalism is alive and well today. Popular “evangelical” preacher TD Jakes is a modalist as well as the singing group “Philips, Craig, and Deane”. Todd Friel told me he once met “Philips, Craig, and Deane” though obviously not all of them at the same time.

Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal and exist in perfect unity, they often carry out distinct functions as distinct persons.

1. The FATHER is the invisible God who no man has seen (John 1:18).
2. The SON is God made flesh and the perfect revelation of the Father (John1:1, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 14:9).
3. The HOLY SPIRIT is God living in the Christian (Romans 8:9, John 14:16-17, John 14:23).

Truth 3. The Scripture clearly teaches that there is One God. This One God exists in three Persons. And these three Persons are each fully God. If you define God differently to this you are an idolater.

Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

A Screen Door On A Submarine - The Hillsong Faith Statement

Stop the press! Just when I thought I had finished with my series on the false gospel of Hillsong some intriguing videos were drawn to my attention. Many of you have been reading my series over the last few weeks where I have exposed Hillsong's shameful editing of Scripture. Equally shameful was the blatant contradiction between their faith statement and the gospel presented in their massively popular worship CDs. This contradiction was so bad that Hillsong's faith statement actually defines their gospel presentation as a false gospel. This is an extremely serious matter for people who publically represent stewardship of the Christian faith.

Robert Fergusson, who Brian Houston (their senior pastor) used to write their faith statement, actually engaged in some correspondence with me. He is one of the most prominent preacher/teachers at the Hillsong mothership in Sydney. Fergusson's e-mails ultimately revealed (click here to read the correspondance) that Hillsong's faith statement is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike or a screen door on a submarine. It gives the cosmetic effect of orthodoxy all the while serving no practical purpose whatsoever (it is a lesson to all of us to make sure that our churches have orthodox creeds and that the teaching submits to those creeds).

Even though Fergusson ultimately decided to deal with my questions by ignoring them, one of the readers on this blog drew my attention to this intriguing video . . .



So, clearly, Fergusson outwardly professes that their faith or creedal statement should be the driving force behind the message they communicate. But his apologetic with the Anglican minister was amazing - listen to some of our other CDs! What a great way to answer a legitimate theological question - NOT! Furthermore, it was interesting to note that Fergusson stressed the importance of teaching the theology of the Trinity in their songs. Robert, if the Trinity is so important then why did you invite this guy as your main speaker?????



That's right, TD Jakes, the keynote speaker at this year's Hillsong conference doesn't even believe in the Trinity. He is what is known as a modalist, someone who denies the three distinct Persons of the Trinity by describing them as three manifestations. TD Jakes' modalist presentation of God is clearly not the God of Scripture and therefore an idol. Modalism is a heresy that was denounced in the fourth century AD by the Athanasian Creed (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html) and was punishable by death during the reformation. But in 2010 it qualifies you as a keynote speaker at a Hillsong conference!

A Biblical Defence Of The 5 Pillars (Part 1)

In my previous series, "The Anatomy of the Gospel", I broke down the Gospel message into five basic components (as an attempt at constructing a helpful witnessing framework) and called them the "Five Pillars of the Gospel". I have recently received correspondence concerning this series of posts questioning what basis I have for defining the Gospel message as something that should contain:

PILLAR 1 – THE HOLINESS OF GOD
PILLAR 2 – THE DEPRAVITY OF MAN
PILLAR 3 – THE NECESSITY OF JUDGMENT
PILLAR 4 – THE WORK OF CHRIST
PILLAR 5 – THE RESPONSE IT DEMANDS

I can only commend people for being Bereans and testing what I have to say. "The Bottom Line" is a blog which regularly puts "Christian teaching" under the blowtorch scrutiny of Scripture. Therefore it would be inconsistent, were I not willing to subject myself to the same scrutiny. So what follows is my biblical defence of the use of these five pillars as the critical core elements of Gospel proclamation.

First up consider these two important passages of Scripture:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

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. (Galatians 1:8-9)

It is important to remember that 1 Corinthians 15 is meant as a defence of the resurrection, hence it has a major emphasis on the resurrection of Jesus Christ and briefly deals with the other issues when defining the Gospel. Nonetheless I can still make my case for defending my "five pillars" from 1 Corinthians 15. Additionally, it is worth paying close attention to Galatians 1:8-9. It is here that Paul goes on to say that there is only one Gospel, it is the Gospel that Paul preached, and preaching any other gospel is a damnable offence. Purity is, quite clearly, extremely important with the Gospel - it is life or death, heaven or hell! We must get it right.

We must also remember this simple rule of hermeneutics:
Scripture cannot contradict itself - therefore in understanding 1 Corinthians 15 rightly, it must harmonize with the rest of Scripture.

DEFENDING PILLAR 1 – THE HOLINESS OF GOD

In 1 Corinthians 15:3 we see the two characters of pillars 1 (The Holiness Of God)and 2 (The Depravity Of Man) - God (as Christ) and man (our sins) are presented in the roles of redeemer and criminal respectively. We also see that this message submits to "accordance with the Scriptures". In other words, Paul's terms of reference ("Christ" and "our sins") can be safely defined within the entire counsel of Scripture. We can know that God's Holiness, His character, and His nature, must be understood rightly because 1 John 2:22-23 teaches:

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:22-23).

This stresses the importance of knowing God rightly and defining Him rightly. That is why we call Mormonism a cult - because even though they name the name of Jesus, they define Him not as fully God but as a brother of Satan (among other things). So the God Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15 must be understood and presented rightly (as Scripture does) in order for a sinner to be rightly saved. I am not suggesting that to be saved you must understand and know every attribute of God - we cannot do that. After all, who can fathom the Trinity? But conversely, it is damnable to consciously deny God as He is presented in Scripture - which Bishop TD Jakes does, for example, when he denies the three distinct Persons of the Trinity by describing them as three manifestations (http://www.thepottershouse.org/v2/content/view/18/32/). This is a heresy that was denounced in the fourth century AD by the Athanasian Creed (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html). TD Jakes' modalist presentation of God is clearly not the God of Scripture and therefore an idol.

The Christ Who dies for our sins in 1 Corinthians 15 is God incarnate, "the Holy one of God" (John 6:69). The God of the Bible is Holy and unlike anything in the universe. He is the creator and sustainer of all things (John 1:3). He is so powerful that He spoke the universe into existence (Genesis 1). He is so huge that he measures the entire universe with the span of His Hand (Isaiah 40:12). He is so detailed that he numbers the hairs on our head (Luke 12:7). He is so just and righteous that He must punish all sin against Him (Genesis 18:25, Isaiah 13:11). He is so loving and merciful that He withholds his judgment giving us time to repent (2 Peter 3:9). Many people and religions use the Name of God, but in defining Him differently they commit the sin of idolatry.

On Friday I will continue with a biblical defence of PILLAR 2 – THE DEPRAVITY OF MAN.

Go On To Part 2
Go To "The Anatomy Of The Gospel" Series