Bishop Jakes Responses to His Critics!!

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by crakjak

So which do you think Jakes is doing?

I think TD Jakes is saying that he is oneness in a sly way!

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

I think TD Jakes is saying that he is oneness in a sly way!

Wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove? Sly as a fox?

Whatever we think of him, he as built an incredible following, both at The Potter's House and readers of his books. I am not particularly a fan, but I do respect his accomplishments. He's had a tremendous impact on the local community. I pray that God will guide him and direct him in His paths, and to avoid the failures of many that have such visibility.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove? Sly as a fox?

Whatever we think of him, he as built an incredible following, both at The Potter's House and readers of his books. I am not particularly a fan, but I do respect his accomplishments. He's had a tremendous impact on the local community. I pray that God will guide him and direct him in His paths, and to avoid the failures of many that have such visibility.

I guess that does not impress me much... but I do like his perspective on the Godhead and think we should adopt it.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I guess that does not impress me much... but I do like his perspective on the Godhead and think we should adopt it.

I tend to agree, I also respect his commitment to serve the community, generally he is a humble man.

But I am always cautious of great personalities, if they fall (and most of us do have missteps here and there) many fall with them, very important for leaders to defer to the Almighty, and avoid personal grandioseness.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Darryl

Seems silly to be critical of a man that has baptized 23,000 in Jesus Name when some here have only baptized 23. We will have to stand next to him at the judgement.

Not silly at all, sir. Hardly.

A man's walk with God [and a preacher's responsibility before God] consists of a lot more than just the number of people he baptizes in Jesus' name.
(I'm kinda hoping you already know that.)

Besides.. if a man baptizes in Jesus' name, and is still slacking, compromising, and/or watering down other doctrinal areas, it is more than appropriate for him to face scrutiny and criticism from other saints.
It might not be pleasant, but it's biblical.

[tv1a]

Such a silly stance you are taking since the Oneness revelation is not a heaven or hell issue. People use the oneness revelation as an excuse to act spiritually superior to others. Since we don't operate in the power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost on a regular basis so we have to substitue that with superiority of revelation. What scripture do you use to support the claim that SAINTS have the right to scrutinize the preacher? (Your words not mine.)

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Not silly at all, sir. Hardly.

A man's walk with God [and a preacher's responsibility before God] consists of a lot more than just the number of people he baptizes in Jesus' name.
(I'm kinda hoping you already know that.)

Besides.. if a man baptizes in Jesus' name, and is still slacking, compromising, and/or watering down other doctrinal areas, it is more than appropriate for him to face scrutiny and criticism from other saints.
It might not be pleasant, but it's biblical.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Such a silly stance you are taking since the Oneness revelation is not a heaven or hell issue. People use the oneness revelation as an excuse to act spiritually superior to others. Since we don't operate in the power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost on a regular basis so we have to substitue that with superiority of revelation. What scripture do you use to support the claim that SAINTS have the right to scrutinize the preacher? (Your words not mine.)

There you go, also throwing around the word "silly" unnecessarily.
First of all, you're making some erroneous assertions and assumptions here.

First off, I have never said that Oneness is a heaven or hell issue , even though you assume that I think it is. (It's probably better to respond to what someone clearly says their positions is on a particular topic, rather than assuming what you think their position is on a topic.)

But beyond that, my issue with the man is more than the Oneness/Trinity. I happen to be one who thinks he has played a game of verbal hide-and-seek on that issue, as well as others, in a seeming desire to not clearly define himself and his beliefs to outsiders.

But that wasn't even the point of the my post that you responded to...[Lets get back to that for a second]... In a previous post, Darryl said it's "silly" to criticize a man who has baptized 23,000 people in Jesus' name (as if anyone who baptizes in Jesus' name should be considered doctrinally sound just for that reason!). My point simply was/is that if someone is compromising, or preaching a watered down doctrine in other areas (which obviously I think he's done) then the baptism thing by itself doesn't mean we should simply pat him on the back as if everything is all good.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with acting "spiritually superior to others" as you also assert. Its a matter of having biblical convictions and sticking to them. But anyway...

For the record, My position on Jakes is simply that I don't consider him to be Apostolic; and in my view, "apostolic" refers to not just Oneness doctrine, but also the (Acts 2:38) salvation plan itself, the necessity of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as well as a man's willingness to declare with Apostolic conviction and clarity what he believes on such key topics of the Godhead, baptismal formula/salvation plan/ Baptism of the Holy Ghost, etc.
Now of course, if you think Jake's teachings are fine, you may take umbrage at those who consider his positions to be in error, compromised, or watered-down. (Obviously I have a problem with the stances he has taken on several of the key issues; but that's a separate matter in itself.)

----

Anyway, since you want to throw the word silly around, I must say the only thing silly here is this question you ask me:

Originally Posted by tv1a

What scripture do you use to support the claim that SAINTS have the right to scrutinize the preacher? (Your words not mine.)

What...are you kidding me? Your question would be almost almost laughable, if it weren't so sad. Are you implying that the SAINTS do not have the right, under God, to scrutinize the preacher and his words?? That would be absurd.

The Bible is very clear that the church should be watchful against those who would preach error and false doctrine. Don't you see that in your Bible?

Anyway...since you seem to find it so unthinkable that "the preacher" should be scrutinized by the SAINTS, lets look at some scriptures here, and see if the Bible doesn't lay down a very clear principle for the saints to abide by:

Doesn't the Bible commend the Bereans as being "noble", because,even when brought the word by Paul and company, they "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" ?(Acts 17:11).

Doesn't the bible say "prove all things" ?(Thess 5:21) ...or as the NIV puts it "Test everything. Hold on to the good."

Doesn't Paul write in Galatians 1: 6-10 about those who would bring another gospel, and also in multiple other NT passages about the danger posed by false/erroneous doctrines creeping into the body?

Doesn't the book of Jude not only warn against false teachers, but also strongly condemn them?

Even on the subject of a prophetic word given in the church... doesn't Paul say let 2 or 3 prophets speak, "and let the others judge" ? (1 Cor 14:29) So if we are to judge even the prophetic word, is the preached/ taught word above being judged/scrutinized? Clearly not.

Doesn't Paul warn the church leaders in Acts 20:28-31 to be watchful against those who would turn the flock away to false teaching?

Doesn't Paul admonish about the importance of proper doctrine in 1 Tim 4:16 ? :"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." ??

I could throw out some more scriptures on this, but these should suffice, to make my point. The biblical principle is clear here, unless you would choose not to see it for some reason. All the saints, both clergy and laity alike, have a responsibility to not only maintain proper doctrine, but to be watchful against those who teach error. If you assert that that is false, I'd love to see what scriptures you would provide to support you on that.

I truly feel sorry for any saint who just swallows everything their pastor tells them from the pulpit, without weighing it against scripture. I sure hope you're not one of those.

[tv1a]

1. Jakes isn't your pastor.

2. Things have to tempererd with scripture.

3. Saints do not have a right to undermine a preacher over subjective issues. Period.

Jakes' non committal language about a subject that is irrelevant to salvation is no big deal. Why waste the time developing a Oneness statement when it has no bearing on one's salvation. It's choking on a gnat.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

There you go, also throwing around the word "silly" unnecessarily.
First of all, you're making some erroneous assertions and assumptions here.

First off, I have never said that Oneness is a heaven or hell issue , even though you assume that I think it is. (It's probably better to respond to what someone clearly says their positions is on a particular topic, rather than assuming what you think their position is on a topic.)

But beyond that, my issue with the man is more than the Oneness/Trinity. I happen to be one who thinks he has played a game of verbal hide-and-seek on that issue, as well as others, in a seeming desire to not clearly define himself and his beliefs to outsiders.

But that wasn't even the point of the my post that you responded to...[Lets get back to that for a second]... In a previous post, Darryl said it's "silly" to criticize a man who has baptized 23,000 people in Jesus' name (as if anyone who baptizes in Jesus' name should be considered doctrinally sound just for that reason!). My point simply was/is that if someone is compromising, or preaching a watered down doctrine in other areas (which obviously I think he's done) then the baptism thing by itself doesn't mean we should simply pat him on the back as if everything is all good.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with acting "spiritually superior to others" as you also assert. Its a matter of having biblical convictions and sticking to them. But anyway...

For the record, My position on Jakes is simply that I don't consider him to be Apostolic; and in my view, "apostolic" refers to not just Oneness doctrine, but also the (Acts 2:38) salvation plan itself, the necessity of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as well as a man's willingness to declare with Apostolic conviction and clarity what he believes on such key topics of the Godhead, baptismal formula/salvation plan/ Baptism of the Holy Ghost, etc.
Now of course, if you think Jake's teachings are fine, you may take umbrage at those who consider his positions to be in error, compromised, or watered-down. (Obviously I have a problem with the stances he has taken on several of the key issues; but that's a separate matter in itself.)

----

Anyway, since you want to throw the word silly around, I must say the only thing silly here is this question you ask me:



What...are you kidding me? Your question would be almost almost laughable, if it weren't so sad. Are you implying that the SAINTS do not have the right, under God, to scrutinize the preacher and his words?? That would be absurd.

The Bible is very clear that the church should be watchful against those who would preach error and false doctrine. Don't you see that in your Bible?

Anyway...since you seem to find it so unthinkable that "the preacher" should be scrutinized by the SAINTS, lets look at some scriptures here, and see if the Bible doesn't lay down a very clear principle for the saints to abide by:

Doesn't the Bible commend the Bereans as being "noble", because,even when brought the word by Paul and company, they "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" ?(Acts 17:11).

Doesn't the bible say "prove all things" ?(Thess 5:21) ...or as the NIV puts it "Test everything. Hold on to the good."

Doesn't Paul write in Galatians 1: 6-10 about those who would bring another gospel, and also in multiple other NT passages about the danger posed by false/erroneous doctrines creeping into the body?

Doesn't the book of Jude not only warn against false teachers, but also strongly condemn them?

Even on the subject of a prophetic word given in the church... doesn't Paul say let 2 or 3 prophets speak, "and let the others judge" ? (1 Cor 14:29) So if we are to judge even the prophetic word, is the preached/ taught word above being judged/scrutinized? Clearly not.

Doesn't Paul warn the church leaders in Acts 20:28-31 to be watchful against those who would turn the flock away to false teaching?

Doesn't Paul admonish about the importance of proper doctrine in 1 Tim 4:16 ? :"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." ??

I could throw out some more scriptures on this, but these should suffice, to make my point. The biblical principle is clear here, unless you would choose not to see it for some reason. All the saints, both clergy and laity alike, have a responsibility to not only maintain proper doctrine, but to be watchful against those who teach error. If you assert that that is false, I'd love to see what scriptures you would provide to support you on that.

I truly feel sorry for any saint who just swallows everything their pastor tells them from the pulpit, without weighing it against scripture. I sure hope you're not one of those.

[Rhoni]

The Bible tells us that 'No flesh will glory in His presence". Men are human and not above making mistakes. I have to say I admire Billy Graham for keeping himself above reproach but it isn't always an accomplishment of many men or women of God. This does not make them any less successful in kingdom ministries but gives God and man an opportunity to forgive and restore.

Blessings, Rhoni

[simplyme]

Originally Posted by crakjak

I tend to agree, I also respect his commitment to serve the community, generally he is a humble man.

But I am always cautious of great personalities, if they fall (and most of us do have missteps here and there) many fall with them, very important for leaders to defer to the Almighty, and avoid personal grandioseness.

Very wise observations., he really is almost "worshipped" for his own self., not necessarily his fault, but his followers., or rather., congregants., and others who look to him as a pastor., he has so far kept his image clean enough, and I do admire the man for his accomplishments and teachings I have learned and been edified by watching his televised services., although I do not agree with him completely in all things.