That’s modalism, Patrick. Actually, it is orthodox trinitarianism, at least according to the man who wrote it, who was not T.D. Jakes.The quote is actually from
“There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.“thepottershouse.org/explore/belief-statement/
One in essence, three in person.We do not have a logical contradiction here because God is both one and three at the same time, but He is not one and three in the same sense. The three divine persons are distinct in terms of their personal relationships to one another, but not in their essence. All of them are the being of God. They do not have an independent existence—you could not take away any of the three persons and still have God. Rather, the three persons subsist within the one divine nature, coequal in terms of their shared essence.www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/one-essence-three-person/
One in essence, three in person.We do not have a logical contradiction here because God is both one and three at the same time, but He is not one and three in the same sense.
I also claim to be fully trinitarian, but within a certain school of thought on the subject. I’m of the one who, three what’s camp, God in three persons (personas). The prevailing view now is one what, three who’s, not God in three persons, but three persons (beings) who are each God________________
Fully Trinitarian?From the article: Jakes said he prefers the term manifestations instead of the term persons — a position he has stated before.That’s modalism, full stop. Also, Jakes’ so-called conversation at the Elephant Room cannot be reconciled with this statement on the Potter’s House website which affirms the same:There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.thepottershouse.org/explore/belief-statement/What Russell Moore states in the article is fair — to take Jakes at his word if he claims to be Trinitarian. But even giving that, it’s clear his understanding of Trinitarianism is not mature.
I should hasten to add for my part at least, that I do not find affirmation of classical trinitarian doctrine to be a requirement for salvation. In my view, Oneness, while obviously unorthodox, is not necessarily damnable heresy. I am not saying all Oneness folks are necessarily saved. Nor am I saying that all trinitarians are necessarily saved. I am simply saying that my understanding of the New Testament is that the conditions for salvation are genuine repentance towards God and faith in Jesus as LORD. The doctrine of the trinity is a question of systematic theology, which, while certainly a valid and important endeavor, is not an essential of salvation.
I don’t know if Jake’s is really oneness. How oneness does this sound?
That’s modalism, Patrick. Actually, it is orthodox trinitarianism, at least according to the man who wrote it, who was not T.D. Jakes.The quote is actually from
“There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.“thepottershouse.org/explore/belief-statement/
One in essence, three in person.We do not have a logical contradiction here because God is both one and three at the same time, but He is not one and three in the same sense. The three divine persons are distinct in terms of their personal relationships to one another, but not in their essence. All of them are the being of God. They do not have an independent existence—you could not take away any of the three persons and still have God. Rather, the three persons subsist within the one divine nature, coequal in terms of their shared essence.www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/one-essence-three-person/
One in essence, three in person.We do not have a logical contradiction here because God is both one and three at the same time, but He is not one and three in the same sense.
TD Jakes Fully Trinitarian Since 2012 (link)
http://www.bpnews.net/37054/td-jakes-says-he-has-embraced-doctrine-of-the-trinity
I also claim to be fully trinitarian, but within a certain school of thought on the subject. I’m of the one who, three what’s camp, God in three persons (personas). The prevailing view now is one what, three who’s, not God in three persons, but three persons (beings) who are each God________________
Fully Trinitarian?From the article: Jakes said he prefers the term manifestations instead of the term persons — a position he has stated before.That’s modalism, full stop. Also, Jakes’ so-called conversation at the Elephant Room cannot be reconciled with this statement on the Potter’s House website which affirms the same:There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.thepottershouse.org/explore/belief-statement/What Russell Moore states in the article is fair — to take Jakes at his word if he claims to be Trinitarian. But even giving that, it’s clear his understanding of Trinitarianism is not mature.
I should hasten to add for my part at least, that I do not find affirmation of classical trinitarian doctrine to be a requirement for salvation. In my view, Oneness, while obviously unorthodox, is not necessarily damnable heresy. I am not saying all Oneness folks are necessarily saved. Nor am I saying that all trinitarians are necessarily saved. I am simply saying that my understanding of the New Testament is that the conditions for salvation are genuine repentance towards God and faith in Jesus as LORD. The doctrine of the trinity is a question of systematic theology, which, while certainly a valid and important endeavor, is not an essential of salvation.