Is Jakes Jake With Orthodox Christian Thought?

Joe Carter has a profile of TD Jakes up as part of his ongoing series "Know Your Evangelicals." The comment section lit up with people pointing out his Oneness Pentecostal background; Jakes looks at the three members of the Godhead as manifestations rather than persons, taking him out of synch with classic Christian doctrine.

The Jakes Trinity issue goes well back. Here are some Christianity Today pieces from 2000, one calling Jakes on the carpet for his Oneness doctrine, and another from Jakes laying out his stand.

I remember musing about the Oneness issue a year ago, after stumbling into the factoid that the CCM trio Phillips, Craig and Dean were/are United Pentecostal pastors; the Yoopers UP follows a oneness theology; I mentioned Jakes in passing in that piece.

Before we go any farther, here's my orthodox take on the Trinity from 2002. That being said, I'm still wondering whether that Oneness philosophy is disqualifying. What would normally scare me off is applying the word unitarian to that view, which ushers in the Unitarian Universalists into the picture. The UUs go off base on two fronts (at least, but here's the big two), both treating Jesus as merely a person and throwing out the need for his substitutionary death on the cross.

Neither seem to apply to Jakes or other Oneness folks. They definitely aren't universalists-here's part of the Potter's House (Jakes' church) belief statement

-Jesus Christ--Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He died on the cross, the complete and final sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

So far, so good. I'll skip their blurb on the Holy Spirit (that's OK too) and check out what we need to do to get saved

Man--Man was created in the image of God but fell into sin and is therefore lost, and only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can salvation and spiritual life be obtained.

Salvation--The shed blood of Jesus Christ and His resurrection provide the only ground for justification and salvation for all who believe, and only such as receive Jesus Christ by faith are born of the Holy Spirit and thus become children of God.

Any charges of universalism are thrown out on summary judgment.

Here's where we get into the dicey theology, other then him being Pentecostal; let's go back up to the top of the belief statement-

God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The grief here is over one word-Manifestations. Had he used persons, we'd not be having this post. Here's the best part of Jakes' case, where he's quoting scripture to back up his manifestations view-

The language in the doctrinal statement of our ministry that refers to the Trinity of the Godhead as "manifestations" does not derive from modalism. The Apostle Paul himself used this term referring to the Godhead in 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 12:7, and 1 John 3:5-8. Peter also used the term in 1 Peter 1:20. Can this word now be heresy when it is a direct quote from the Pauline epistles and used elsewhere in the New Testament?

I'm not sure if he has the 1 Timothy cite correct; he's off by a verse. In the King James-1 Timothy 3:16 is

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

the NASB has "revealed in the flesh" and the NIV "appeared in a body."

Give one point to Jakes. Now onto the 1 Corinthians 12 cite-here's the NASB (a good word-for-word translation, more so than the NIV or KJV) Let's look at verses 6-11

6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,

10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

Here, the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself in people through various "gifts of the Spirit." To use that to take away the Holy Spirit's personhood is a bit of a stretch. Point to the Trinitarians.

Let's go to the 1 John cite-

5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

The KJV does verse 5 as "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." However, the NIV meshes with the NASB, going with "But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin." It looks like "appeared" is a better take on the original Greek than "manifested." That doesn't quite make his point too well.

Trinitarians 2-Jakes 1. On to his 1 Peter cite; here's the NASB; I'll throw in verse 21 to finish the sentence-

20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

Here's the KJV for 20-"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you[.]"

We have a difference that may stem from the KJV translation coupled with (in the back of my mind) some thoughts from other pantheons. If I recall my theology database, the Hindu gods would have various "manifestations", as would Greek gods. Those would show the god or goddess in different forms; for instance, Zeus appeared as a bull to Europa and a swan to Leda. That doesn't mean that there are two Zeuses (even if he weren't just a myth).

If you couple that King James translation with the idea that the name of God in his entirety is Jesus (see this post for more), you can try and make Jesus merely a manifestation of a unitary God rather than an infinite subset of God.
Thus, Jakes and his crew have a off-kilter view of the Godhead, seemingly biased by the King James using manifest rather than appear.

Make it Trinitarians 3-Jakes 1. Sorry, TD, can't buy your line of argument.

I think that's poor theology, but not a disqualifying one. I wouldn't be comfortable with him as a pastor, but I don't think that his flock are Hell-bound for being off on their thoughts on the Trinity.

The answer to the post title-No, he's not jake with orthodox Christian thought, but not enough so to be put in the cult catagory.