Great comment Ryan, couldn’t agree more. Thanks for showing some grace in sharing your thoughts here!

Dear Joseph,

You might also find this interesting:

The human cost of T.D. Jakes’ false prosperity gospel

Scott,

Point taken!

Dear Joseph,

Thank you for making your point, and doing so politely. I am open to being shown that I am wrong, but only from the Scriptures – if you can show me that Jakes’ handling of the Scripture in this sermon was valid, and that the passages he uses really do teach the things that he is claiming, then I shall, of course, amend this review accordingly.

Grace and peace.

I really appreciate the heart that you have for God’s word. However, I am very sorry to inform you that you are wrong. I had the opportunity to listen to Pastor Jake’s message and it was awesome. How can false doctrine and false theology draw people closer to God. If it weren’t for preachers like TD. Jake’s and Furtick, youngsters like me would be far from God. Both these preachers don’t preach doctrines that tickle the ears. In fact, the teaches of both these men of God encourage us to press on God and see his glory unfold in our lives. If you use your influence in a productive manner, God will surely use you for the glory of his name. May God bless you Sir.

Greetings,
Jobin Joseph Kottaram

Thanks for another excellent response. I think I will find the articles written by Bob DeWaay quite relevant.

Although i was raised in the church, i’m a baby christian and this was helpful to me….it makes me realize how easy it is to twist the scriptures and it shows me how important it is for me to study the scriptures and continually ask for God’s wisdom while studying it and while searching for teachers of His word…..we are seriously in the last days…

I don’t know about such rigid rules being talked here. Always this, always that…

What about Christ-in-You?

What if saints since the resurrection went about their Christianity, and lo and behold: quickly come in them is Christ-in-You? (Behold, I come quickly… Behold with eyes to see, eyes not blinded by rigid-righteous rules about… uhm, say preaching?)

What about that? Do we honor Christ-in-You individuals?

Or do we honor rigid rules about preaching!

Careful with your answer, here… because Jesus taught that it is better to honor the holy flexible than the dummy rigid-righteous folk practicing the religion of the day.

My friend, Erin Benziger, provides a good answer to your question. I’ll leave you to read the whole piece, but here’s a snippet:

The answer to why I maintain this blog (and to why I’ll “call a spade a spade” in any conversation) lies in Ezekiel 33:6:

But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.

If I saw that your house was burning down, but you were in a far room and were as of yet unaware, would you like me to alert you of the impending danger? Or would you prefer that I stand back and watch the house burn with you inside of it? The same idea applies to what I am doing with this blog: I see a destructive, un-Biblical teaching in the church and instead of sitting back and watching you drown in a sea of apostasy, I am led to boldly speak up for the Truth and stand against the false teaching. Though my prophecy postings are few, the idea is the same. Jesus is coming back…SOON and as a Christian who is eagerly awaiting His return, it is my duty (and yours) to “blow the trumpet” and warn others who are not yet ready!

Now, there is of course a right way and a wrong way to go about comparing a preacher’s teaching to the Scriptures. If the intent and effect is to tear down the preacher, then this reprehensible. If the intent and effect is to warn the flock of error, to present the true Gospel, and to all people to repentance, it is commendable. Speaking personally, I consciously strive for the latter, though I no doubt fall short from time to time. My desire is to proclaim the Gospel of Christ crucified for our sins, and raised for our justification.

You may find the following articles from Bob DeWaay both relevant and helpful:

The Believers Call to Judge Part 1

The Believers Call to Judge Part 2

The Believers Call to Judge Part 3

Peace and grace.

Tarre, thank you for visiting and for your question.

I’d think about this by asking a question: ‘What is it that makes a sermon Christian?’

It is surely not an exhortation to moral living and loving one’s neighbour. Many other religions – Judaism and Mormonism, for example – enjoin their followers to such things. Indeed, all religions other than Christianity combine one or more of three ladders that we can purportedly use to climb toward god (or heaven, nirvana, or whatever the goal of the religion happens to be). Pastor Wolfmueller explains:

Lutheran theologian Adolph Koberle talks about these attempts of man to ascend to heaven as the three ladders. These three ladders are moralism, mysticism, and speculation.

The first ladder is moralism. Moralism is the ladder of the will. The moralist tries to get to heaven by works, efforts and the living of the good life. Human pride often thinks that it has climbed the ladder of moralism into heaven. Time after time the question, “Why will you be in heaven? Is answered by the ladder of moralism. “I’ve lived a good life, I’ve been a good person.” This is perhaps what most people think of religion, and even of the church, that the Christian life is trying to be good enough for God. Lord have mercy! Good enough for God! No, the ladder of moralism in not high enough to reach heaven. The top of that ladder will only reach the peak of pride or the clouds of despair. No, no one is saved by ascending the ladder of moralism.

The second ladder is mysticism. Mysticism is the ladder of emotions. The mystic thinks that heaven can be reached by an emotional experience. If we sing the song enough times, if we sit in profound silence, if we discipline our soul, we can feel God, experience God, somehow climb the ladder of the emotions into the bliss of heaven. But this ladder, like the ladder of moralism, is woefully short. Searching the depths of the human soul for the flower of divinity, it finds instead the horror and the depth of sin clinging not just to our flesh but to our very soul. Mysticism, if it is honest, finds that we are sinners, and that we cannot change that on our own. Mysticism, if it is not honest, becomes inflated with is idolatrous pride that thinks “God lives in me.” No one one is saved by ascending the ladder of mysticism.

The third ladder is speculation, or rationalism. Speculation is the ladder of the mind. This ladder attempts to climb into heaven by obtaining perfect knowledge, as if salvation is a matter of knowing about God. But what do we know of God that He has not told us? So inquiry into the nature of God apart for His Word is like looking into deep darkness, and the ladder of the mind tumbles into this despair, often into the prideful despair of atheism and unbelief. No, no one is saved by ascending the ladder of speculation

Wolfmueller concludes:

Salvation is the gift of God. We are saved not because we’ve gotten up to heaven, but because Jesus has come down to us. We are saved not because we’ve climbed a man-made ladder into heaven, but because Jesus was lifted off the earth on a cross. Our salvation is not the result of our doing, feeling or thinking, it is the result of Jesus’ suffering, dying and rising.

Christianity is not about man climbing up to God. The exact opposite is true. Christianity is about God coming down to man, coming to our weakness, coming to our sin, coming to our punishment and death, to take our place under the wrath of God so that we might have life eternal.

To be Christian, preaching must therefore necessarily be about Christ – his life, death and resurrection for us poor undeserving sinners. This is why Paul says this:

And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (1 Cor. 2:1–2)

Only the Gospel is the power for salvation – not just for our initial conversion, but to sustain us throughout our lives:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. (Rom. 1:16)

I have touched on this theme in a number of articles. You might find the following of particular interest:

The power of the Gospel

What is the activitiy we call ‘discernment’ really all about?

Some preliminary musings on sanctification

I hope this is somewhat helpful. (Incidentally, I highly recommend Pastor Wolfmueller’s Table Talk Radio theological game show.)

As the video goes on, blatant and uncalled for allegory of the Israeli worship customs grows, but in the first few minutes Jakes is getting at least closer to the meaning of Hebrews 4:15.

T.D. Jakes uses classic Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP).

He delivers a) audience hypnotism, b) showmanship, c) misdirection and d) suggestion.

And his “finish my, finish my, finish my, finish my……. SENTENCE!” weirdism surely creates high blood pressure, heart troubles, blinding-of-sheep’s mental acumen, and a whole host of demonic troubles…. that keep His Empire on, er, fire.

Hebrews 4:15, For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities

He cut the passage off at ‘touched’ to build on uw ‘touching’ Jesus. that’s eisegesis, not exegesis. It was a self-centered, NOT God centered sermon, well delivered to tickle the itchiest of ears.

This is a stand-alone post (i.e. not a reply to a comment) I saw on facebook yesterday:

I have now seen 3 critical reviews of people trying to teach the Bible in the past week. Each of these reviews, if true, I agree with to varying degrees (some are just using the wrong words to communicate the “right” doctrine and others are just plain scary).

But I have to ask. Is writing critical reviews of this type in anyway supported by scripture? Is re-posting these reviews all over the Internet supported? I’m having trouble reconciling this practice with Acts 17:10-12, Gal 6:1, 1Tim 5:13, and Matt 18:15.

I’m sure this generates traffic to the web site, but does it edifying to the Church?

How would you respond?

BetterThanSacrafice,

Thanks for the reply. I too saw that good article on the letusreason.org site.

The ““touch not God’s anointed” tactic was used on me, mostly I believe in response to my posting a link to your article here on my facebook page.

Also, I hadn’t seen your response to KirbyCarranza above. It was a good response.

I have another question for you but I’ll start a new message for it.

Rom623Rom828,

Thank you for your question.

There’s this comment, above. I’m afraid I didn’t respond directly to the ‘touch not mine anointed’ point – I didn’t consider it to be a serious one as it so misunderstands what the Scripture teaches. Had I responded, I would probably have done so generally along the lines of this article:

Touch not my anointed!

(Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about, nor do I endorse, letusreason.org, but this particular article seems to cover the main points well.)

Here is a relevant extract:

The first thing one should notice is that the word touch actually means physical harm. What it does not mean is saying something about another person publicly that is true. How do we know this? Because that’s exactly what David did about Saul. It was David who said he would not harm God’s anointed, who was King Saul at the time but He spoke out publicly about him.

Not only David, but Samuel “touched God’s anointed,” as he spoke out against the kings disobedience. God told Saul to “Smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not…” (1 Sam. 15:3). But instead, he spoke a half truth and “spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord…” (v.15). Samuel said it was rebellion like witchcraft and idolatry (v.24). Because he did not obey the Word of the Lord he would be removed being king. Saul admitted he feared the people and obeyed their voice. What a crucial thing to learn of Saul who was God’s anointed.

In1 Sam.16:13-16 we find David who was shepherd boy was anointed before God took away Saul’s position. David refused to touch Saul physically but it didn’t stop him from telling everyone the truth about him publicly.

David not raising his hand to touch (harm physically) God’s anointed is used in 1 Sam.26:9,11,23. Look at 1 Sam.26:11: tells us that David would not stretch his hand out to touch him (harm him); instead he sneaked up and took Saul’s spear and water jug. In verse 15 David rebukes Abner for not guarding Saul and says he deserved to die. Saul hears the commotion and comes out, and David rebukes Saul before all his troops, asking why he is pursuing David’s life since he is innocent — that the king has come out to seek a flea. Saul then repented for his rash behavior and called himself a fool. David returned Saul’s possessions and said, “For the Lord delivered you into my hand but I would not stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed.” Notice what this means, not to bring physical harm.

1 Samuel 24:10 “Look, this day your eyes have seen that the LORD delivered you today into my hand in the cave, and someone urged me to kill you. But my eye spared you, and I said, ‘I will not stretch out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.” “And David said to Abishai, “Do not destroy him; for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?”(1 Sam. 26:9)

Saul was anointed as King over Israel he had a position of rulership that was soon to be over. Knowing he was next in line David refused to physically touch the king as God’s anointed and remove him from his position prematurely. It was God, not David who would remove Saul from his position (26:8-10).

We should notice an important part in this story, it was Saul who was pursuing David, hunting him down and trying to kill him. The Bible story has Saul whose position was threatened, pursuing to kill David who was innocent. Isn’t this what we see today? Those who are in a greater position of leadership going after people who are anointed that are challenging them in what they are saying and doing as wrong. From their position they have trained people to listen to them and willing to silence their challengers. They do this by going after them with Bible threats such as “don’t touch God’s anointed” or you are committing the “blasphemy the Holy Spirit” when you speak against another “man of God.” Ignoring the fact that blasphemy meant one is saying that Jesus’ miracles were done by an unclean spirit, not about questioning another mans alleged miracles. Those of the flesh are pursuing those who are of the Spirit, just as Saul did to David. Those who are following the Spirit of the Lord go to His Word to keep themselves in the truth no matter what the opposition may say.

Welcome, Cars and thank you for the link to that interesting article. Your comments are scarily close to the truth.

Peace and grace.

Passion, values, transparency, will to succeed, things are getting better, overcoming challenges, lack of complacency, … these are Jakes’ themes with only slight modifications to include a verse or a biblical example, but over the past ten years his WTAL ministry and TPH ministry have been, at root, this humanistic engine. The verses and anecdotes are incidental; the world view is, as Fulford say, grows in the shade of Nietzsche’s image.

Read the whole thing: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/01/24/fulford-carving-a-nietzche/

Terriergal- I’m trying to respond to your comment- but there was no reply button underneath it. I totally love love love your response about “do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?”
The whole “it’s about a relationship, not religion— or it’s about relationship, not about doctrine” has wrecked the evangelical community. It has boiled salvation down to the lowest common denominator of claiming a relationship with Jesus, while at the same time disregarding the terms that God has ordained to be in a reconciled or covenant relationship with Him. It makes me crazy, but it seems people love their bumper sticker Christian slogans more than they love the revealed Word of God. Anyway- your response was helpful to me personally in thinking through this issue.

On many occasions, I have stepped down from the pulpit thinking about what a poor sermon I have just preached. To my horror, I sometimes realize that I have forgotten to preach the Gospel; that the Lord Jesus Christ has not even been mentioned. People sometimes pounce on me with their greater wisdom and revelation, telling me what I did or did not say and of course I take it on board and yes, it can be painful at times. I guess that’s the pride in me. Sometimes, the criticism is most untimely and unhelpful. People do it because it’s easier to criticize than to encourage. All I would say is that I never claimed to preach with papal infallibility and I thank God that salvation is of the Lord and not of me. This is not a cop-out on my part. That’s just how it is; I try to honour the Lord in and out of the pulpit but all too often, I fail. So, that’s where I’m coming from in this debate.

The sermon under discussion, that of T.D. Jakes is somewhat different in as much as it is not about an omission or that it was lack-lustre or plain boring; rather it’s about whether or not a false gospel was preached.

I do have a problem with that sermon or any sermon that claims that God died on the Cross because of any intrinsic value that a person has. Surely that is not in agreement with the Bible which teaches in Romans 3:9-16:-

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

Surely, if any of us had any value of our own then grace would no longer be grace; it would be reward. Surely God has taken the filthy rags of self-righteousness off those whom the Lord Jesus came to save and he has decked them out in his own perfect righteousness. Surely what is so amazing about the Gospel of Christ is that he hung and suffered upon that cross for wretched, worthless and hell-deserving sinners and not because we have value.

Have I got it wrong?

Some of these responses are not only ironic, but are wholly ignorant of what the Word of God says. They’d rather defend a man than the Word of God. But alas, I was one of those people when I was blinded by the false teaching of the Word of Faith movement. They are so high on themselves (as I once was) that they don’t know what they are saying. They only know what they have been taught by Furtick and Jakes and company. They think they know the Word of God but they only know the twisted portions they’ve been fed by these wolves, believing they can get by without rigorous study of God’s Word because they have the “leading of the Holy Spirit”. In order to know “what Jesus would think about this review”, you have to actually know Jesus. When I didn’t know Jesus but thought I did, I was mean-spirited and hateful towards those who would hold a standard of truth because they were tearing down my idols. But God granted me repentance and He may do the same for those reading this biblical review.

Daniel, do not grow weary in well doing (Galatians 6:9). This was a much needed article.

” If he did miracles then, sent the Holy Spirit to large groups then, etc. then he is the same today.”

Yes, so are you saying that we ought to be slaughtering animals in the temple? After all, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever…

If he is in fact heretical then I am the fist who wants to know so I can stay away from it.

Daniel wrote an entire post detailing the heresy. Did you not read it?

If Daniel says yes, will you believe him? If he says no, does that mean everything he says is wrong? Do you have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ?

In fact, everyone has a relationship with Jesus. It’s either one of having been redeemed and therefore loving him, or not redeemed by him and so fearing and hating him for the judgement which is coming. So your question is poorly phrased in the first place.

However I will concede that everyone understands that the wrongly phrased question actually MEANS “Has Jesus Saved you?” I have never seen anything from Daniel to indicate otherwise. His devotion to standing for Biblical truth, as Jesus, the prophets and the apostles, and innumerable saints through the ages, is exemplary.

Other than what you say that in you opinion Jakes took a verse out of context where is the heresy? If he is in fact heretical then I am the fist who wants to know so I can stay away from it.

Just a brief to the point response of his false doctrine is appreciated. (ie what he believes that is not biblical.)

Your response is appreciated.

But do you have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ?

Grace and peace in Christ Jesus!

Thank you for being the Lord’s bond-servant.

“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape form the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” 2 Timothy 24-26

It is evident through your careful dividing of God’s Holy Word that you have met the requirements for being the Lord’s bond-servant.

Many would claim that the gift no one wants in Christianity is martyrdom. I understand, but I think that the gift of discernment is actually harder. The body of Christ needs all of it’s members working effectively to operate the way God intended. Some members do not appreciate the part called discernment because it illuminates the spiritual cleaning that is inorder. This causes distress because there are those members who are comfy in their old, feel good, dirty sneakers and they don’t want to change. May God grant us the love of His Word which will melt our hearts into undivided obedience to the One who purchased us with His precious blood.

May God continue to strengthen you for His purposes and bless all of those who are seeking wisdom and truth.

Only by His undeserved grace, charisse

This might be relevant:

A Note on Changed Lives

Better Than Sacrifice, trust me I get it. The choice is still yours!!! Go back & read the blogs. Bishop Jakes preached a very intimate topic. Maybe not according to your standards. But I know that lives were changed and restored…

It’s probably worth adding that I grew up in the UK in what I suppose would be considered mainstream evangelicalism – a mix of general Baptist, Assemblies of God (i.e. Pentecostal) and soft charismatic churches. Though I had fellowship with a great many very dear Christians, I subsequently came to see the error of my ways and to embrace more historically orthodox (small ‘o’) Reformation doctrine. (Or, perhaps I should say that it embraced me.)

That explains this article.

You can find my post of Dr. Rosenbladt’s lecture here:

The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church

Dr. Rosenbladt’s message really is superb and well worth everyone’s time.

James, thanks for clarifying your comments. As you are ill and we’re already pretty far afield of the original post, I’m not going to respond in length; I think in many ways we would agree, but the way we describe things (and the results of the language that we use) differs. Finding the bounds of that agreement could be instructive; perhaps some other time.

I feel I need to comment on one thing, however, because you echo what many others seem to be saying:

But that’s exactly what Neades did. He ripped Jakes, Furtick and those attending to shreds.

Daniel’s article dealt with the substance of Furtick’s introduction and Bishop Jakes’ message. If you want to say he ripped that message to shreds, feel free; I might agree with you. Perhaps you could say that by showing the unbiblical foundation of Jakes’ message, he implicitly accused the discernment of any who were listening with approval. But most of those who have taken issue with Daniel’s article seem to think that by disagreeing with what Jakes said (and by extension, what Furtick said about him), Daniel is attacking them as individuals and questioning their salvation. That is a leap in category that isn’t supported by what Daniel wrote; since your comments draw fine categorical distinctions, I’d hope you could extend that same courtesy to him.

I would recommend that you look on this blog for references to Dr. Rosenbladt’s “The Gospel For Those Broken By The Church.” Listen to that message and see what Daniel says about it. While I’m comfortable saying that the immediate context of this post refutes your characterization, I’m certain that the additional insight you’d get by this further research would clarify things further.

Or, just listen to Rosenbladt’s message; it is wonderful and well worth every Christian’s time (and I’m not saying that because I expect you to disagree with it; I think you’ll agree with most of it).

JW, welcome :-)

I’m a mongrel. Think Reformed Baptist, but heavily influenced by Confessional Lutheranism on a bunch of things, and you’ll probably not be too far off. No, that probably doesn’t make much sense, and I am still working a bunch of things through :-) I tend to quote quite frequently both from the Lutheran Confessions and from the Westminster Confession of Faith. That no doubt frustrates a few people…

I generally think of myself as being in the Reformation tradition, and I hold to the five solas of the Reformation. I currently attend a Reformed Baptist Church that adheres to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

There’s a little more info (not much) on my About page.

Peace and grace.

Robert – I apologize that I missed that you didn’t agree with the “hellenistic” comment which you copied here. As such my comments should be directed at the original commenter.

Hey, you make great points. I think we’ll forgive you :-)

I realized the irony of my comment referring to our “country”, as if the U.S. is the only country represented. Sorry, Daniel—and anyone else who is not in the U.S.!

You see, folks, without criticism of people who claim to be teachers of God’s Word, you wouldn’t even be in this country, believing what you think you believe about Christ (if I may be so reductionist).

We would all be Gnostics, or Roman Catholics, or whichever prevailing heresy was left uncontested.

Steven Furtick and T.D. Jakes would have been burned at the stake for preaching at all without papal approval. THAT would be horrific, even to those of us that might not agree with their mishandling of Scripture.

But that aside, I think the question I always come back to when people criticize critics is this:

What teaching would be ANTI-BIBLICAL enough that you would approve of a critique? From the present level of dissenters, such a teaching doesn’t exist, for we should all just “love” one another, and “assume” that each is a brother in Christ.

As pointed out numerous times in previous articles and in previous comments above: we are COMMANDED to test EVERYTHING against Scripture. You cannot do this if you do not know Scripture.

The author here (Daniel) has carefully studied both Jakes’ teaching as well as his use of communication at the event, and has made very cogent biblical points. To speak out against him is foolish without Scripture, for you betray that your value is not in Scripture (God’s actual revealed Word) or in Christ, but in the favor of man, which is fleeting and often-times sinful.

Are there bloggers who simply attack preachers with unbiblical critiques (calling them names, and deserving the title, “haters”)? Yes. This is not one of those bloggers. Save your pithy Aesop fable responses for the really nasty ones. This author is interested in Truth, even if, in a discussion, you point out that his may be faulty—he is humble enough to admit it if you make a case with Scripture.

In Christ,
Frank

I have been very lenient thus far, and let just about everything through. From this point on, comments will need to make a substantive point accurately, and do so with respect. Critical comments are still welcome, but please craft them carefully in accordance with the Comment Policy.

Your cooperation towards achieving a dignified conversation is appreciated.

He didn’t preach the Gospel. That’s the point.

Dan, Terriergal, and Bobby, seems that you too may be guilty of judging me so the circle goes.

I will always speak out for the truth and the truth is that you are all picking apart a sermon and searching for reasons to tear down a man of God preaching the gospel. It’s not judging, it’s just the truth of the article. “He didn’t say hell, he said you can literally touch God, etc. etc. etc.” All of it is grasping at straws. A house divided can’t stand.

Bobby,

I commend to you Pastor Todd Wilken’s excellent article, Playing the Pharisee Card. It is well worth your time.

Peace and grace.

Kirby,

BETTER THAN SACRIFICE, I ask you with a humble heart, take down and remove every postings in this website.

You are asking me to remove an article that is a careful Biblical rebuttal of a false gospel and which proclaims the true Gospel clearly in its place – the Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead. By the grace of God, this I will not do, no matter how personal, vitriolic and hateful the attacks become.

Quit enticing others to spew hatred and ugly talk against your brother-in-Christ.

It is not hateful to compare carefully with the Scriptures the teachings of a preacher, to see whether they are true. This is what we are all called to do. As Paul says to the Thessalonians, ‘Test all things; hold fast what is good’. Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, commends the Jews of Berea for scrutinizing even the teaching of the Apostle Paul. No one – not even St. Paul – is beyond scrutiny by even the humblest of saints:

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

(Acts 17:10–11)

I wonder, do you consider the Apostle Paul to have ‘spewed hatred’ when he wrote this to the Galatians?

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

With regard to hatred and ‘ugly talk’, I think an impartial observer of my article and all the comments here would draw their own conclusions. One side of the argument makes careful application of the Scriptures and is measured in its language. The other overwhelmingly does not base its opinions in a sound exegesis of the Scriptures, but instead resorts to rancour and personal attack. This should, I think, give cause for reflection.

Now, that said, I understand that you are sincere and believe you are in the right. I’d ask you, though, to consider whether you might not be mistaken.

If I am wrong – and I have been wrong about a great many things in the past, and no doubt am wrong about a great many things now – if I am wrong, show me by a careful argument from Scripture where I have erred. That is the only way I shall be persuaded.

May our Lord and Saviour cause us no longer to ‘be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, [to] 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. 4:14–16)

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be upon you.

Kirby:
I was reading Ryle’s Holiness last night, and I would like to recommend it to you, and other Code Orangers, coming off the revival high.

Here are three short bits to whet your appetites. You can find the book online, for free. Give it a read, son. It’ll be most instructive to you!

“A religion without doctrine, is a thing which many are fond of talking of in the present day. It sounds very fine at first. It looks very pretty at a distance. But the moment we sit down to examine and consider it — we shall find it a simple impossibility. We might as well talk of a body without bones and sinews. No man will ever be anything or do anything in religion — unless he sincerely believes something. Even those who profess to hold the miserable and uncomfortable views of the deists, are obliged to confess that they believe something. With all their bitter sneers against dogmatic theology and Christian credulity, as they call it — they themselves have a kind of faith.”

Emotional feelings, after false religious excitement, is a most deadly disease of soul. When the devil is only temporarily cast out of a man in the heat of a revival, and by and by returns to his house — the last state becomes worse than the first. Better a thousand times begin more slowly, and then “continue in the Word” steadfastly, than begin in a hurry, without counting the cost, and by and by look back, with Lot’s wife, and return to the world. I declare I know no state of soul more dangerous, than to imagine we are born again and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, because we have picked up a few religious feelings.”

For lack of counting the cost, hundreds of professed converts, under religious revivals — go back to the world after a time and bring disgrace on religion. They begin with a sadly mistaken notion of what is true Christianity. They imagine it consists in nothing more than a so-called “coming to Christ” and having strong inward feelings of joy and peace. And so when they find, after a time, that there is a cross to be carried, that our hearts are deceitful, and that there is a busy devil always near us — they cool down in disgust and return to their old sins. And why? Because they had really never known what Bible Christianity is. They had never learned that we must count the cost.”

Becky, thank you so much for sharing your experience here. It’s people like you who make the effort ‘to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ worthwhile.

May our great Lord Jesus Christ bless you abundantly in His marvellous grace.

Ashley, thank you for your comments.

It really pains me to know that some “christians” would freely take the liberty to take a significant amount of time to write a review on a man of God just to shoot him down.

I assure that the purpose of my writing this article was not to shoot Jakes down – your assumption that it was is really rather uncharitable. Indeed, I have not attacked Jakes at all, but rather compared his doctrine – the content of his teaching – to the Scriptures. This is a practice that we should all do, and something that the Bible commends. I’d encourage you to read this other comment of mine, where I go into this in a little more detail, although there is far more that could be said on this matter.

No, the purpose of my writing here was to counter Jakes’ false gospel and in its place proclaim the true Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead.

We had to be worth something for Him to send death upon His own son.

This might seem logical to you, but it is not what the Scriptures teach – as indeed I endeavoured to show from Scripture in the article. I’d encourage you to go back and re-read what I wrote – and the Scriptures that I quoted – in the article.

The depth of the love of God, the immense riches that we believers have in Christ, is far more wonderful than you, or any of us, realize. The love of God to us in Christ is such that He died for us even though we did not in any way merit or deserve such a gift. Christ died for us even though we were His enemies. And He makes us into something beautiful for His own glory. The length and depth and height of the love of Christ truly surpasses our knowledge and understanding.

For our relationship with Christ to grow, we must study His word and better understand it.

Amen to that.

Peace and grace.

Sharon, it’s wonderful that you are finding such delight in God’s amazing written word. May the Lord continue to bless you richly as you abide in Christ through His sure word.

There is a difference in preaching and teaching God’s Word. Teaching should never take scripture out of context, but preaching must be left to the Holy Spirit’s direction.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that preaching does not need to be based on the Scripture, nor that it must teach only what is found there.

I wonder what you would make of Paul’s charge to Timothy:

But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

(2 Tim. 3:13–4:5)

Paul instructed Timothy to ‘Preach the word!’ Which word? The immediately preceding context shows the word to be the Holy Scriptures, given by the inspiration of God, which are profitable for ‘doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness’.

And so Paul is telling Timothy to preach the Holy Scriptures. He instructs him to ‘convince, rebuke, exhort’. How? With all patience and teaching. Biblical preaching, then, is nothing else than teaching the Holy Scriptures with longsuffering.

R.C.H. Lenski, the great New Testament commentator and Greek scholar, explains the charge to ‘Preach the word!’ like this (he translates ‘Preach’ as ‘Herald’):

“Herald the Word!” is properly put first, for this is Timothy’s greatest work and function. This connects directly with 3:14–17, especially with “all Scripture God-inspired.” This word is regularly translated “preach” and regards the preacher as a “herald,” whose function is to make a loud, public proclamation, one that has been given him by a superior. He must announce it in its completeness (Acts 20:27) and not alter it in any way, not add anything of his own or anything that is borrowed from another source, not subtract a particle. “Herald!” and not offer religious opinions, not philosophize, not argue. In view of the connotations of this imperative many a preacher, who should be a “herald” and is not what he should be or not all that he should be, must stammer and blush when he faces Christ’s appearance and his kingdom.

(R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon)

Paul makes a direct connection in this passage between preaching and teaching. He contrasts Biblical preaching of the Scriptures with the time that he said would come (and I believe is now upon us) when people ‘will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables’.

When a preacher turns aside from what Scripture teaches, and instead preaches something else that is popular – something that what people want to hear and therefore think is wonderful – does he not put himself into the category of those teachers that people heap up for themselves, not enduring sound doctrine?

The stature of a preacher, then, is not measured by the reaction that he obtains from his audience, nor by the popularity of his message, but by his faithfulness in proclaiming nothing else but the Holy Scriptures and the doctrine that they contain.

Unless Bishop Jakes or anyone else preaches contrary to the Word, their choice of scripture verse(s) should not be questioned.

The intent of my article was to show in detail how what Jakes taught in this sermon was contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and to proclaim the true Gospel in its place. I question not the choice of verses that Jakes made, but what he read into them contrary to their meaning.

Unless a person knows all of the burdens and needs of every other person in attendance at a service they have no way of knowing how the Word is ministering to others.

I agree. But the point here is that the word of God was not preached. Rather than teach the Scriptures faithfully, Jakes misused them and taught what is not found there, leading people to put their trust in promises that God has not made. This will have tragic results.

I have never personally heard a sermon preached by Bishop Jakes so obviously I was not in the congregation.

If you did not hear this sermon, I am not quite sure of the basis upon which you are quite so vigorously defending it…

For a flavour of T.D. Jakes real doctrine, you might be interested in watching these few minutes of him on YouTube. Is this the voice of God speaking? Does God promise faithful believers the things that Jakes is promising to his audience there?

Yet I feel confident that there were people ‘touched’ by the Spirit and those people received answers to the needs in their lives by whatever verses the Holy Spirit chose to use that day.

How do we know whether people are touched by the Holy Spirit? Simply because they feel an emotional high? Do not people feel such highs in non-Christian contexts? A concert, for example? Do not people in other religions also have their own highly emotional experiences? Are those religions therefore true?

The Holy Spirit never contradicts the written word that He has inspired. He does not lead people to misuse it and abuse it, but to reverence it, and trust in the promises it delivers to us in Christ. Simply then, if teaching contrary to God’s word is preached, this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. Those people who claim to speak on behalf of God things that He has not said put themselves into an exceedingly precarious position (cf. Deut. 13 & 18).

Paul tells the Thessalonians not to despise prophecies, but to ‘Test all things; hold fast what is good.’ Clearly, there must be an objective standard for what is ‘good’, otherwise we could not hold fast the good and reject everything else. Scripture gives us no objective standard for such testing other than the one He gave Israel in Deut. 13 & 18 – accuracy, and conformance with his word.

Finally, notice how the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write of those at Berea who subjected even the words of St. Paul the Apostle to a stringent scrutiny from Scripture:

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

(Acts 17:10–11)

It is a good thing to diligently compare all that we hear preached with the Scriptures, holding fast to what is good and rejecting what is not. It is very easy for us to be misled by teachers with great charisma who freely use Biblical language to cloak their error. But we must be very careful not to be misled by another gospel that is not the Gospel of Christ – Him crucified for sinners and raised from the dead. St. Paul writes to the Galatians:

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

(Gal. 1:6–9)

Peace and grace.

FJ, did you not read the article? I took great care to proclaim the true Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead. Indeed, the entire reason I wrote was to counter a false gospel and proclaim the true in its place.

Peace and grace.

Just for the record, I’m not Episcopalian either – but I do appreciate your kind words, thank you.

What I trying to say is that is the only way that the Bible can contain all answers that we will ever need. There is a difference in preaching and teaching God’s Word. Teaching should never take scripture out of context, but preaching must be left to the Holy Spirit’s direction. Unless Bishop Jakes or anyone else preaches contrary to the Word, their choice of scripture verse(s) should not be questioned. Unless a person knows all of the burdens and needs of every other person in attendance at a service they have no way of knowing how the Word is ministering to others. Have you never sit through a sermon and not be personally ministered to, yet others are rejoicing, weeping, or even broken, on their faces before God? Have you never been the one that was rejoicing, weeping, or broken while others sit at their pews seemingly untouched? The Holy Spirit ministers to those that are in need and open to His ‘TOUCH’ as He chooses. We are not to question His wisdom. I have never personally heard a sermon preached by Bishop Jakes so obviously I was not in the congregation. Yet I feel confident that there were people ‘touched’ by the Spirit and those people received answers to the needs in their lives by whatever verses the Holy Spirit chose to use that day.

King David said it very eloquently, “I will not come against the Lord’s anointed.” In this instance, you have done so ladies and gentlemen. That is something to grieve about… Stones have been casted upon a very humble and gracious man… and he has taken your assault with humility. Yet, Bishop T.D. Jakes remains under the precious Blood of the Lamb!!!

In heaven, there will not be a separation of race & state, eloquent preacher & learning to be a preacher… We will all be one. And it hurts to hear so many of you speak crudely about our brother-in-Christ. And let me caution you, to say anything on the contrary of the work the Holy Spirit has done through this man, would be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Lives have been truly changed, healed, redeemed, only by the Blood of the Lamb, through the ministry of Bishop T.D. Jakes.

What would Jesus say about all the postings on this website! DO NOT ANSWER! Just meditate on that. Because we can never truly speak the mind of God.

BETTER THAN SACRIFICE, I ask you with a humble heart, take down and remove every postings in this website. You know you have the power to do so. The decision is yours. Quit enticing others to spew hatred and ugly talk against your brother-in-Christ. Instead, encourage your website followers to pray and intercede for Bishop Jakes to reach those for Christ that you and I can not reach!

The Choice is yours!!! Also, you have ended some of your postings with Peace and Grace. I have NOT heard any peace-talk or grace-talk towards your brother-in-Christ.

Pray peace over Bishop Jakes and God’s grace over him. PRAY THAT THE LORD WILL BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM, THAT THE LORD’S FACE WILL SHINE UPON BISHOP JAKES, AND BE GRACIOUS TO HIM. PRAY THAT THE LORD’S COUNTENANCE WILL RISE UPON HIM AND GIVE HIM PEACE.

Grace to you all,

Kirby

Your non-Episcopalian friend

Well, then I’m happy you agree with me! I never said the law of non-contradiction was suspended. I said it didn’t really exist in the way that we understand it in the west.
It’s really best demonstrated in a scene from the musical “Fiddler On The Roof.” The men of the village surround Tevye, the milkman as another elder reads bad news about the other villages:

REB LACHAM:
Why should I break my head about the outside world? Let the outside world break its own head.

MEN
Well put!

TEVYE
He is right. As the Good Book says, “If you spit in the air, it lands in your face. ”

PERCHIK
Nonsense. You can’t close your eyes to what’s happening in the world.

TEVYE
He is right.

REB MORCHE
He’s right and he’s right? They can’t both be right.

TEVYE
You know, you are also right.

As I am the person who wrote the comment, I feel free to here respond to some statements made about the things I said (on FB, no less).
I didn’t say that Jewish though is irrational, and to even infer it from the full text of what I said is ridiculous.
I said, originally, that while we in the West tend to view our entire world through a very hellenistic lens, we must understand that, in the jewish (and broader Asian mindset) that kind of constraint didn’t necessarily apply. Which is why I used the “slave/free” examples. They are, prima facie, contradictory, and to try to convince anyone otherwise demands that we give a broader context and, even then, explain how we can accept and believe what seem to be two contradictory statements.
“How lovely on the mountains are the feet of them that bring good news.” The feet of running messengers are not pretty. Yes, it’s poetry, but it exists as more than poetry. We do ourselves a great disservice when we limit what Scripture CAN mean, simply because it’s not what we have determined it to mean via our systematic approach.
I’m not saying that one can just make scripture mean whatever one wants it to mean (and, for the record, I never called anyone a “hater” so, please, in the future, be more careful with your replies), but it’s a simple matter to understand that, while, yes, Luke was Greek, the story he was telling was a Jewish one. Jewish people. Jewish culture. Jewish heritage.
The example I use with some frequency is that of adoption and being grafted in. We don’t understand what that means (in America especially, I can’t speak with as much certainty regarding other places), and, because we don’t, we miss the power of the truth that we have been adopted by God and have been grafted into the promise of Abraham. But even a little cultural study can show what this means. You don’t HAVE to know it to be saved. It doesn’t increase your salvation. But it CAN enhance your experience with God. I’ve seen it.
I’m quite ill as I write this, and I worry that I am not being as coherent as I would like. My apologies if that is the case.
In closing, let me say that, whatever your thoughts about what Jakes’ emphasis is in his preaching, we run on dangerously thin ice to say that he is not a Christian. I have heard the man teach that salvation is through Christ alone. According to Paul, that is the end of our soteriological requirements. And now, to quote myself from FB:

Yes the good news is that we have a Savior Who redeems people from the sentence of an eternal Hell, but that’s NOT ALL HE DID! Jesus didn’t come to endure every temptation, live a sinless life, die a brutal death and resurrect again just to prove that He is God and save us from the hot place. He came to give life, and that life is supposed to be overflowing with abundance (not necessarily material wealth, but true abundance).
Finally, [another commenter] said that it “saddens [me]” that we would “even remotely criticize a fellow worker [Neades].” But that’s exactly what Neades did. He ripped Jakes, Furtick and those attending to shreds. You can say what you want about Jakes (most of which I probably would not disagree with, but you can’t say he isn’t a Christian. First of all, the Bible is fairly clear that to be saved one need only “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” What we do after that, is all growth. NONE of us are there. If we were, I firmly believe we would have been Enoched out of here.
If Jakes is off in his theology, or, more to the point, he doesn’t focus on issues that you would focus on if you were preaching, then, by all means, go [start?] preaching and be thankful that God has blessed with a myriad of voices, each of whom have independent strengths and abilities, so that, where you are weak, they might be strong; so that, in the end, we can, all of us collectively, be all things to all people so that by all means we might win some.

Elevation Church, TD Jakes, and some others that you choose to condemn have openly confessed their belief in this truth. Whether you like it or not they will have everlasting life according to the Bible and they are apart of His Church just like you!

Different churches have different flavors based on the people that attend. Different preachers have different translation of various parts of the doctrine (some things are really complicated). They may be right they may be wrong, who cares because they teach the most important Truth. God gave a son, and He died so that we may live.

PLEASE stop wasting your energy Condemning these men! You are harming the Church. Your words and actions are not constructive, they are destructive.

Thanks

I grieve deeply for you. Your consequences for your actions will be heavily felt by you and those contributing.

Well we know people by the kind of fruit they produce and this fruit is looking pretty sour

Wow, you may need to get a life. Investing this much time and effort into TD Jakes? The guy is a fake, done, move on.
Line up commentors and praise another useless blogger with to much time on his hands. Sad, very sad.

In case you hadn’t noticed, Daniel took close to a year off of blogging until quite recently. I guess that must mean he has a life somewhere.

Yes, we know Jakes is a fake. the problem is, many do not. And thanks to some like Furtick, James Macdonald, and others, Jakes is gaining credibility among young evangelicals who don’t know the Word.

You must have taken the time to read the article even if your comment didn’t take too long to compose. So apparently you also have too much time on your hands, showing up here to tear down a brother in Christ? Sad.

The only way I can read that person’s comment as making any sense whatsoever is if he really meant to say Jews often relied heavily on context to give the actual meaning of the word. But even so, that does not mean the law of noncontradiction is suspended. It means there are other factors to take into account. Noncontradiction still applies, as it does in all rational thought. What this person is trying to say is that essentially, Jewish thought is irrational. In which case, if true, we are all at best guessing as to God’s character and commands, and no one, him included, has a right to judge anyone else, including judging us as “haters.”

Your time could be much better spent reaching lost souls yourself than tearing apart preachers who are. Let God be the Judge.

I always find it amazing for people to come to a blog, piously judge other Christians for “judging” and further judge them for the blogger not doing something in his life, when the person has no possible way of knowing what the blogger does in his personal life at all. Amazing.

But let’s be real here and not over think everything. Other churches may worship differently and preachers preach differently, buts that because people are different, and what attracts them may not be what attracts you–and that’s ok…

Absolutely would agree with you. So then I would assume you’d be just fine attending, say, Harold Camping’s church, or a Mormon church, or a Jehovah’s Witness church? How about a Rastafarian church?

Basically what you have said here is akin to Rodney King’s “can’t we all just get along?” Well, yes, we can, within certain limits. But obviously we must not overthink those limits, because… someone might be disregarding them and we wouldn’t want to actually know about that, would we?

It really doesn’t take much thinking at all to see what is wrong at Furtick’s church. However, for those who do prefer to think through things, Daniel has put heart and soul into providing something concrete to deal with. If Daniel indeed sees danger in what is being pushed at Elevation, it wouldn’t do for Daniel to just say “I dont’ like it” because that is inherently subjective and means nothing as a warning. You see, Daniel is doing this, as most people do, because he cares about people knowing the truth, because he cares about people.

Furtick characterizes people like Daniel as “haters” when in fact, if Daniel didn’t do it when he believes it to be spiritually dangerous to people, THAT would in actuality be unloving and hateful of his fellow Christians.

So you see, the issue then comes down to, is Daniel right, or is he wrong? And that cannot be determined without thinking and analyzing and being a Berean. The apostle Paul considered those that tested by Scripture everything he said to be ‘of more noble character.’ (Acts 17:10-12) Paul, of all people other than Christ, had a right to demand people take him at his word. And he did not.

Contrast this to Furtick and others like him who consider the people who do what Paul calls “noble” to be “haters.” Something wrong with that picture.

“In hellenistic thinking we have as our undergirding ontology – and even our teleological processes are girded up in this – the law of noncontradiction. “A can not be both A and non A at the same time and in the same relationship.”

Oh good! So then since noncontradiction doesn’t apply, I am happy to see that you AGREE with Daniel!

It’s not really fair to reply in detail to a comment copied from another site, but I wanted to say a couple of things on one part (and since I’ve seen that Daniel can format comments, I’ll try to put some inline HTML for clarity. I hope it works):

The only problem I have with Neades’ comments are that he embraces a hellenistic approach to critique while ignoring the fact that he is critiquing someone who is expounding a very Jewish (some could even say Asian) text….

In hellenistic thinking we have as our undergirding ontology – and even our teleological processes are girded up in this – the law of noncontradiction. “A can not be both A and non A at the same time and in the same relationship.” I hold to this because, for the most part, it is a reliable foundational truth. However, this idea doesn’t really exist in Jewish thinking. It’s freedom from that kind fo constraint that makes it able for the following contradictory affirmations to be true:

“In Christ, I am free indeed”

and,

“I am a slave to Christ.”

I’ll admit that I haven’t spent a lot of time studying the justifications for a non-Hellenistic hermeneutic in this passage, so I don’t want to over-extend my comments. I understand that a “non-Western hermeneutic” is growing in popularity; I’ve seen it in what’s often called the Emergent church and with other authors sympathetic to that general movement, and it was a large part of a debate between Bob DeWaay and Doug Pagitt that I attended a few years ago (though Pagitt used the term “binary reductionistic thinking” instead). To this point, I’ve not seen a compelling, Scripture-based argument supporting it, in spite of some very intelligent, well-educated excellent communicators promoting it.

Personally I try to use an historical-grammatical approach, which holds the context of the passage to be of primary importance in determining its meaning, and at first blush, I’d say that the cultural outlook of the author is part of that context. One should be able to keep that in mind without abandoning a “Hellenistic approach to critique.”

Other than that, just a few minor thoughts that came to mind in reading this:

What does Hellenistic mean? Referring to Greek language and culture. Luke’s gospel is written in very refined Greek, so the recipient Theophilus would at least have had to be very comfortable in the Greek language and culture, if not a Greek or Roman by birth.
Jewish thinking seems to have had a pretty clear understanding of the law of non-contradiction; the Ten Commandments and Great Shema seem pretty unambiguous in that regard.
The sample “contradictory affirmations” aren’t contradictory given careful definition of terms, which is a critical part of Hellenistic thinking. In particular, the relationships of the two statements are not the same.
I’m puzzled as to what relevance this whole critique is intended to have. I can think of at least three possible answers, but non of them seems particularly on topic. Is the author arguing that Jakes was using a more appropriate hermeneutic? In that case, some detail and support would have been useful. Is he or she saying both Daniel and Jakes are using an improper understanding, thus invalidating the whole topic? Or is this just a way to validate what Daniel wrote and what Jakes preached? Regardless, it seems the author is trying hard to define a different hill upon which to fight, and I didn’t see a lot of positive evidence for why that would be needed or desirable.

I’ll try to keep the ideas within this comment in mind, since I believe this sort of objection is growing in popularity. If it has merit, I’d love to understand it better, but as someone who believes consistency in thought is valuable and that it reflects an attribute of God, so far it seems to be applied in an arbitrary fashion, to allow the individual to avoid undesirable interpretations of otherwise clear texts.

I think James’ involvement in these men’s lives are that of a discipler. I too, at times, have been questioning why James is being involved with them, but I think in the long run Furtick and Noble will learn a lot from James. They respect him. Both guys have a tremendous amount of faith, which is not to be discounted. Think of the impact they will make in years to come when their theology becomes evermore sound. Driscoll started out this same way that these guys have. Fast. Edgy. Unapologetic. Driscoll has come a long way from those days. Through what? Discipleship. Everyone needs it. Pastors included.

In no way am I making a case for the ministries of Furtick and Noble. I’m just appreciative of the heart that James MacDonald has to see these guys grow in their knowledge of the scriptures and in Christ.

Much grace.

FAITH CAN MOVE MOUNTAINS – I’m not trying to be unkind here at all, but I’ve always thought it hypocritical for a person to come in to a blog for the express purpose of telling the author that what he wrote was invaluable and that his time “could be much better spent” in some other way (insert favorite Biblical mandate here).

I mean, seriously, could we just not say the same thing to you for “wasting your time” while posting here? While telling the author how he ought to be spending his time, are you not judging him in this? Yet, you wrote “Let God be the Judge.”

It is the author’s right and I would even add, Biblical responsibility to speak the truth in love. He seems to be trying to do that. Since you’ve decided to be here and interact, why don’t you do that by talking about the merits or non-merits of his arguments and assertions, rather than telling him how you think he should be spending his time?

VROB125, I hear what you’re saying and I understand your point of view. May I gently make a suggestion to you? If you do not understand the term “Pelagian” or even “Theophostic,” this could be good motivation for you to dig into those terms for understanding. Trust me, its important that you do have a working knowledge of those terms as they are relevant to this critique. Additionally, as you study Pelagianism particularly, you’ll discover that its an ancient heresy that was condemned by the church centuries ago. Some thought it dead at that point, but they were wrong… Even today, it continues to poke its gnarled head up from the dirt of the past over and over again. Yep, history just seems to constantly repeat itself.

You wrote, “Now back to the point, bloggings are a waste of everyones time and should focus as we should on living an honorable existence before the Creator.”

Do you not see the irony in this statement? You spent considerable time reading this blog and then considerable time responding to it as well. Yet, its a “waste of everyone’s time?”

I can’t help it, but this just made me smile:)

All believers are called to rightly handle God’s Word. Preachers, as teachers of Scripture, are held to a higher (not different) standard in that regard (James 3:1). Was what you understood from Jakes’ sermon biblical? How do you know? Because if you go to the passages Jakes was using and try to understand what they actually say, you’re not going to find support there.

You seem to have missed that a large part of Daniel’s critique was that Jakes’ message was not rooted in the Scripture passages from which he was claiming to preach. It simply didn’t say what Jakes argued it said (and here’s the most important part) even when what Jakes was claiming it said was actually biblical (i.e. consistent with other Scriptures understood in context)! That’s not a disagreement on the meaning of a passage or a minor theological difference; that’s a credibility issue (or should be) even if you completely agree with what the preacher is saying, and even if everything he’s saying is orthodox.

C.M., you may not like what Daniel said or how he said it, but would you deny that he took what Jakes said, looked at the passages Jakes said he was using, and gave detailed reasoning on how things didn’t match up? Isn’t that exactly what Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for doing, regarding Paul’s preaching?

Robert,

Thank you for posting those thoughts. You’ll understand if I am a little weary right now, and thus I hope you will forgive me if I am brief and do not therefore provide an exhaustive response. Others may wish to chip-in and make up for my lack.

The only problem I have with Neades’ comments are that he embraces a hellenistic approach to critique while ignoring the fact that he is critiquing someone who is expounding a very Jewish (some could even say Asian) text.

When interpreting Scripture, one has to bear in mind the purpose for which the author was writing. Luke is absolutely clear about his purpose, as I documented in the article, and as he makes clear in Luke 1:1–4:

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Luke says he is doing what others had done: recording a narrative of ‘those things which have been fulfilled’. Luke’s stated purpose for writing his gospel is to record Jesus’ fulfilment of prophecy, ‘that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed’. To be valid, one’s interpretation of the text must start from there.

While it’s true, for example, that the story of the woman with the issue of blood found in Luke 8 is “a historical record of one woman’s encounter with Jesus”, it does not necessarily follow that the story “is not about us” and/or that “it is not normative for our faith and practice” nor that “the woman’s issue of blood is not representative of our issues, our problems.”

I agree that it does not necessarily follow that a given historical record is not normative for our faith and practice. We need to consider authorial intent, the textual context of whatever pericope we are examining, the historical context, and the wider counsel of Scripture – and, of course, what the text actually says (which will involve a proper consideration of grammar and syntax).

Thus, for example, the Church has always understood the Lord’s Supper as being normative – that, after all, is what the New Testament clearly teaches. Where, though, does Scripture teach that Luke 8:46 is normative for all believers? It simply doesn’t.

If, in this case, the rest of Scripture had taught that God promises to fix our temporal problems, then we could legitimately use Luke 8:46 as an example of that. But the rest of Scripture does not teach this – in fact, it makes plain that we can expect all sorts of problems and tribulations (which is not to say at all that God does not often bless us with temporal blessings, simply that we do not have a promise from Him to deal with our ‘issues’). And we have plain examples in the New Testament of physical sickness where the advice is not to ‘reach out and touch Jesus’. Consider Paul’s advice to Timothy, for example: ‘No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.’ (1 Tim 5:23)

It is therefore illegitimate to read into the Luke 8 account something contradicted by the rest of Scripture (and especially so, since we are told the actual reason for the account being written). There is nothing in the pericope or the rest of Scripture to suggest that it should be normative, and much to prove that it isn’t.

In hellenistic thinking we have as our undergirding ontology – and even our teleological processes are girded up in this – the law of noncontradiction. “A can not be both A and non A at the same time and in the same relationship.” I hold to this because, for the most part, it is a reliable foundational truth. However, this idea doesn’t really exist in Jewish thinking. It’s freedom from that kind fo constraint that makes it able for the following contradictory affirmations to be true:

“In Christ, I am free indeed”

and,

“I am a slave to Christ.”

I’m not sure this argumentation is even relevant to the proper handling of the Luke 8 passage. We’re not talking about a question of logical contradiction, but a proper hermeneutic, as discussed above. And I defy anyone to use a valid hermeneutic and come up with the doctrine that Jakes taught in his sermon.

That said, I’d assert that the statements proffered are not contradictory affirmations at all, if they are properly understood in their respective contexts. And consider Paul, someone very close to Luke (e.g. Col. 4:14, Acts, etc.). I defy anyone to read, say, Romans or Galatians, and argue that Paul is not making heavy use of rigorous logical deduction, despite him being a Jew’s Jew. Thus, are we really to argue that Greco-Syrian Luke has a completely different mindset from Paul, or that the 1st century Jewish mindset did not embrace rigorous logic?

Additionally, Neades’ says that Jakes:
“introduces a subtle version of the word-faith heresy, which teaches that the confession of our mouth actualizes reality [when he says]: ‘And whenever you start talking more about your problem than you do your promise, you are praising your problem. And whatever you praise will be magnified in your life.’”
But Neades never explains how this is a “subtle version” of anything, nor does he address why, in his, Neades, opinion this statement by Jakes is untrue. It happens again a few paragraphs later when Neades says:
“Jakes now mocks faithful, humble, Biblical Christians, his voice saturated with scorn:
‘You’ll never get what you want from God being passive, sitting back and folding your arms and saying, ‘Well, if it’s the Lord’s will’. That woman [the woman with the issue] would have died praying ‘If it’s the Lord’s will’.’” But he, Neades doesn’t explain or even offer an opinion of how/why this statement is wrong. Where are we taught to sit back and just say “if it’s the Lord’s will”? Where does that happen in Scripture (NOTE: I’m not even saying it does or it doesn’t, I’m saying that, as a critic, Neades fails his task miserably here).

I believe I did explain both of these points in the article, though obviously not to the satisfaction of your commenter.

Peace and grace.

Ideally, T.D. Jakes would read this critique and respond warmly with the charitable heart that looks at this critique as an “iron sharpens iron” labor.

Your time could be much better spent reaching lost souls yourself than tearing apart preachers who are. Let God be the Judge.

Critics used to write letters just like this–against Mahalia Jackson. She sang the devil’s music, they said. To much jazz–which as we all know is the music of satan. We were told that rock music was a pit into hell – and told that we must stop our youth from going on that wild ride. Sheesh. Now, we freely worship with the music of Casting Crowns, Chris Tomlin, and Jeremy Camp. Based on those standards–we are all now lost. Do you not realize that there is nothing new under the sun?

For your own sakes, and I say this in love — get off of the high minded doctrinal themes, the insulting comments (He Is Not of God!), the twisted judgements that define you more than Bishop Jakes or Steven Furtick. I am seeing words that look illegal–what the heck are Pelagians? I think I know what LDS is (isn’t it mormon related?)–what what on earth is a Theophostic? Talk about humanistic.
Are these words even in the bible?

HOW DID THE GOSPEL OF JESUS COME TO THIS?
I am going to be straightforward with you–I think when you LOVE–which was Christ’s command to all of us–all this debate about who is hellbound and such becomes a little bit tiresome, and sort of small, don’t you think?
We (and I include myself in this) might want to focus on the true meaning of Jesus and his sacrifice for us. I don’t think it was to have us sitting here splitting hairs and starting wars. And frankly, I still don’t see what Bishop Jakes (or anyone else in the 12 days revival for the matter) said or did was wrong.

And by the way–all great preachers know how to work a crowd. When Jesus himself spoke, I heard you could hear a pin drop. That is not a negative.

Peace, Grace, Love AND Mercy

Wrong, to God you are valuable. He created you for his glory. That’s what the bible says. You are valuable made possible by the blood of Jesus Christ.