Trinity and TD Jakes

What is the difference between the Trinity and saying this ""...One God, but manifest in...three different ways, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration."" (obviously a quote from TD Jakes).What is the Difference between the Trinity and saying that??There are reasonable people on both sides who when pressed to be specific and explain this end up confessing: "It is a mystery."The term trinity was coined by Tertullian long after the apostles were gone. So the term is non-essential for saving faith in Christ.There are NOT three Gods. We know that.We also cannot say that the Son = the Father since Jesus said in essence: the Father > the Son. Not logically correct.The Scriptures make no claim of "mystery" for a Trinity. The mystery of godliness has to do with God being manifest in the flesh. (1 Tim. 3:16) Ponder on THAT, and you will begin understanding the godhead better. Listen to one of the bishops set in place by the apostles themselves:Ignatius: A.D. 30-107Epistle to the Trallians.CHAPTER VI"For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."Notice that very early the apostolic teaching was against there being "one person." But our word "person" can take on a bit different connotation than the Greek. Of course this is not Scripture. But a very good witness it is indeed.This is from Justin Martyr AD 110-165:"And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him.” Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, “He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me.” From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, “And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people.” And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, “And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” yet [the Jews] maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, “Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me.” And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him.” The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death."RT

What is the difference between the Trinity and saying this ""...One God, but manifest in...three different ways, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration."" (obviously a quote from TD Jakes).Jakes believes in an idea that I've understood to be termed "modalism". Modalism is the idea that the same thing or person can take on different forms but never be separate forms. Modalists believe these different forms can be consecutive but never coexistant. For instance the ice/water/steam metaphor is rather modalistic if we are talking about one glass of water becoming either ice or steam. Another darker example of modalism is found in the myth of Dracula where the count can change into a bat or even vapor. When I was growing up there were some cartoon superheroes called the "Wonder Twins." They would put their rings together and say something like "Form of a...tiger!" and transform into a tiger. ...animated modalism? :-D Orthodox Trinitarians reject modalism because they believe in separate but equal coexistant persons. We know that Jesus was more than a mere morph of God because He said He was going back to the Father...to sit at His right hand. The fact that Jesus talked to the Father is an obvious indication of their separateness. Also, if Jesus is a only a shape-shifted manifestation of the Father, then He is in effect only a created being instead of the Lamb pre-existant with God before creation itself.I've read many apologetics for the importance of the Trinity but most never seem to stick in my head very well. I have always sensed that the essential reason the Trinity is so important to the Gospel has something to do with the cross and the atonement. Jesus had to be perfectly and completely God to be the spotless lamb who could rise from the dead and ascend to the Throne, yet He had to be set apart from the Father in order to take upon Himself the sins of the World. There are more complete explanations but that one has always satisfied my curiosity...MC

To add to Compton's reply I would add that a very critical element is missing from Jakes explanation of his belief of the Godhead. You will never hear the words Co-equal, or Co-eternal. For Jakes, the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit...etc. The Trinity is the proper way to describe God because it's the truth. Deut. 6:4 which states "the Lord our God the LORD is one," contains in it a hint at a plurality in the Godhead. The Hebrew word used for "one" is echad, which is used in Hebrew to describe a group being united as one. John chapter one is the clarion passage for Trinitarians."In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and God was the Word." In the Greek there is a definate article in front of the first rendering of Theos (God). The second reference to Theos identifing Him as also being the Word is missing the definate article. This is significant in that it identifies two distinct persons BOTH called God. If the definate article were present in the second renderring then this passage would only be talking about one person and modalists would be right.This is an important doctrine because the root of almost all heresy begins in a misunderstanding of the identity of God. Without the trinity there is no Son to sacrifice, and no Father to receive the sacrifice. The prayers of Christ make no sense...etc.Hope this helps,In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

RT writes:Listen to one of the bishops set in place by the apostles themselves:Ignatius: A.D. 30-107Speculation. There is no record of the apostles having done this and Ignatius' view of 'monarchical bishops' is certainly not shared by Paul and Peter.Here's a one page devotion on Trinity that I wrote for a catholic school assembly!

A way that has helped me apprehend the Trinity is by observation of the creation concerning His eternal power and Godhead.All of our universe boils down to 3 things:1) Space2) Matter3) TimeThis is a Trinity1) Space exists as L x W x HThis is a Trinity. Length is not width. Width is not height. Height is not length but they are ALL SPACE2) Matter exists as:a) solidb) liquidc) gasThis is a Trinity. Solid is not liquid. liquid is not gas. Gas is not solid. But they are all MATTER3) Time exists as:a) Pastb) Presentc) FutureThis is a Trinity. Past is not the present. Present is not the future. Future is not the past. But they are all TIME.

Yshua,I believe what Robert was highlighting in those examples (thank you for those brother!) was the clear difference as stated here:Modalists reject the idea that although God is one in nature, He is three in personage. They would maintain that God is one being who morphs back and forth between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, depending on the situation - but is never all three existing at the same time in full, equal existence.In other words we believe there are three "whos" and one "what". One God, co-equal and co-existing in three personages who are altogether unique yet altogether one.Modalists would say that three do not exist simultaneously, only one exists at a time, yet is fully God. We reject this because God can not be "fully God" unless He is shown as the complete "us" as is in Genesis: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, together as three persons in one Godhead.Hope this helps...

Fairly simple difference, in that Jakes believes that there is one God, and has manifested (or shown himself) in three forms... God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Trinitarians believe that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three seperate beings, co-equal and co-eternal, and all three are God. Without disputing or cutting down anyone's doctrine, that's a fairly simple definition of both views... :)J

The Father IS NOT the Son, The Son IS NOT the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit IS NOT the Father. Is the way you are pertraying this.You left out the last part:But they are all God. Elohyim. See my article "ONE 'Yachid' or one 'Echad'?".God Bless,-Robert

Didn't see this post, sorry...Jakes doesn't believe there is co-existance because he doesn't believe that God is three seperate persons, but one person, one being. How can you co-exist with yourself? God CAN and DOES use Jakes in a mighty way. Hope this helps explain the confusion a bit...J

Here is another question, same topic. Can God use TD Jakes? If he believes such lies? This is a bit of a weird question now, but it seems like God is getting the glory..right? or is he like benny hinn but in a different way.Meaning, 'alot of show', and some Glory to God.All error begins with a misunderstanding of God. A question was posed a while back whether or not genuine revival has ever flowed from the Oneness Camp. As far as I know no one answered that.

...everything that we know about revival has come from the oneness camp. It started in Acts 2, then moved to Samaria, and all over the world. If that's not revival, then I don't want it. I prefer to let scripture define us and what revival is rather than the sad movements (in comparison) that we have today...

If that's not revival, then I don't want it. I prefer to let scripture define us and what revival is rather than the sad movements (in comparison) that we have today...Does this mean you reject all the classical revivals in known history where, so as we can ascertain, they would all have rejected Sabellian Modalism. Are you saying 'you don't want' classical revival because it is not Sabellianism?

As Paul said "I am determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ, and him crucified", so then I am determined to know nothing but the example as set forth in the word of God. This doesn't mean I reject the "revivals" that have happened, such as Azusa or Wales or Lewis, etc... but it means that I let the Bible define what I believe and want. If something, as good sounding as it portrays itself, is against the Bible in any way, then I'm against it as well. That's all I'm saying.

The full description of this ancient heresy is Sabellian Modalism. I thought I would introduce the extra word for folks wanting to research things further.

Zapthycat,It seems you may be missing the point of this thread. Yeshua wanted to know what Modalism was, and how it was different from the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.There were a few who helped him with the definition, to which he was satisfied. Then, he asked a follow up question concerning whether or not God could use someone who had such a faulty view of the Trinity.The question was replied to with the simple response that no true revival has ever come from the camp containing the heresy of modalism, or the "oneness camp". Your reply sounded odd in that you said that all revival had come from this heretical camp. I am sure this is not what you meant, you probably meant to say that God is one and all revivals came from a true understanding of the Biblical truth that God is one. Indeed He is one, but when we say "oneness" we are referring to the heresy of modalism, from which I hope you would agree that the bible clearly mitigates against, especially as one who "lets the Bible define what I believe and want."Modalism, or Sabellian Modalism, or that which springs from the "oneness camp" is heresy; but the Biblical view of the Trinity is truth. Robert's point was that no true revival has sprung out of heresy.I hope this helps un-muddy the waters...