It's official, T.D. Jakes is Trinitarian

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Sam

This is from Bro. Dan Segraves' blog of January 2009.
http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2...1_archive.html
Bo. Seagraves is a respected minister and teacher in the UPC

He quotes Alister E. McGrath, a trinitarian, on the subject of God being 3 "persons" or 1 "person"

So, after reading this, do we believe in a God who is 3 persons, or who is 1 person, or who can be defined both ways depending on the meaning of the word person?
----------------------------------------------------------

Alister E. McGrath’s simplified answer to the question, “How can God be three persons and one person at the same time?” may be helpful.

The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask—and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. . . . Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee . . . .

tertullian was a modalist..

[Dordrecht]

Whatever Jakes is....people are getting saved through his ministry.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by acerrak

Tertullian was a modalist..

Actually, Tertullian was a Trinitarian, and is often credited as being the father of the belief. However, he was not well received.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by houston

I don't know how anyone will come away from reading that and think that Thomas Dexter is a Trinitarian.

Back in the 1970's Bro. C.C. Gosey preached one Sunday night in our ALJC church that trinitarians and oneness really believe the same but they just explain it differently.

[tv1a]

My experience is both sides rarely shut up long enough to listen what the other person is saying. Both sides say the same thing using different terminology.

Originally Posted by Sam

Back in the 1970's Bro. C.C. Gosey preached one Sunday night in our ALJC church that trinitarians and oneness really believe the same but they just explain it differently.

[crakjak]

Sounds like the seven blind men explaining what an elephant is, each had only "felt" a different part of the elephant. Yet, completely disagreed with each other as to what an elephant is like.

Jakes gave a great definition of our inability to explain God, yet all the others wanted was to hear him confirm what they believe, so they could claim him. Reminds me of my own attitude in the past, only from the other side of the fence.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Sam

This is from Bro. Dan Segraves' blog of January 2009.
http://danielsegraves.blogspot.com/2...1_archive.html
Bo. Seagraves is a respected minister and teacher in the UPC

He quotes Alister E. McGrath, a trinitarian, on the subject of God being 3 "persons" or 1 "person"

So, after reading this, do we believe in a God who is 3 persons, or who is 1 person, or who can be defined both ways depending on the meaning of the word person?
----------------------------------------------------------

Alister E. McGrath’s simplified answer to the question, “How can God be three persons and one person at the same time?” may be helpful.

The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask—and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. . . . Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee . . . .

Tertullian OPPOSED the Oneness doctrine in his day.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

Whatever Jakes is....people are getting saved through his ministry.

Isn't that awesome?

Many people want to deny this fact and deny his influence.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Isn't that awesome?

Many people want to deny this fact and deny his influence.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Jay

Actually, Tertullian was a Trinitarian, and is often credited as being the father of the belief. However, he was not well received.

no you need to study him. he was not a trinitarian.(by todays view of the trinitarian Godhead) though they acredited him to be the father of the trinity. he was a modalist through and through.

his definition of the Godhead was very similiar to oneness (modalism) and no where even close to the trinitarian definition today.

instead of three modes, Tertullian used three masks(actors mask) the co equal co eternal doctrine was some time later after his death. he did not formulate any of that.

his term of personea was like the manifestation Oneness use. eventually he became a montanist.

he was against his modern modalist of the day but it was over terminology usage.