28 January 2012

Voddie Baucham's Scheduled Appearance at Harvest Bible Chapel Men's Conference Canceled Due to "Differences Regarding ER2"

Voddie Baucham, pastor at Grace Family Baptist Church, is known for his clear exposition and teaching of Scripture and for his no-nonsense way of preaching the truth. Indeed, he is a trusted teacher of God's Word, and someone who many would be eager to hear preach and teach live. In the midst of the T.D. Jakes "Is he a Trinitarian or not?" controversy, an interesting revelation was noted earlier this week on Baucham's Facebook page.
(Online Source)
There's two points of interest here. First, it is commendable and important to note that Baucham was actually invited to participate in this year's Elephant Room 2, but rejected the invitation because of T.D. Jakes. Well done, sir, thank you for standing firmly upon the truth of the Word of God.

The second interesting point is found in Baucham's response to a request for more thoughts regarding Jakes. He clearly notes that Jakes "dodged the question," and was allowed by Driscoll and MacDonald to "use modalist language." He then makes this interesting observation: "He [Jakes] was NEVER going to be confronted. He was an honored guest. He was not going to be penned down." Baucham nails it here. By bringing in big-name Jakes, the men of the Elephant Room were able to widely expand their audience, and there was little chance that they would actually confront Jakes in his multiple heresies. I appreciate how Baucham highlights that, even if Jakes had clearly affirmed Trinitarianism and renounced Modalism, there still is one problem that was utterly ignored, and that is Jakes' propagation of the prosperity gospel. In the words above of Voddie Baucham, "Jakes does not hold to the biblical gospel. He is a false teacher." Well, if the men of ER2 saw that statement, I'm sure they breathed a sigh of relief that Baucham wasn't on the panel last Wednesday. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been if he had confronted T.D. Jakes, MacDonald and Driscoll's "honored guest," with such harsh words!

This story gets more interesting, however. For quite some time, Voddie Baucham has been scheduled to speak with James MacDonald at the Men's Conference taking place this weekend at Harvest Bible Chapel.
(Online Source. Following this screen capture,
the above post was removed from the HBC website.)
We found out this morning, however, that Baucham, after traveling to Chicago to participate in this speaking engagement, has found himself on a plane back home.
(Online Source)
The reason for this was offered just a few moments earlier on Baucham's Facebook page.

(Online Source)
From this, it seems that the cancellation of Baucham's speaking engagement was indeed a mutual decision between him and MacDonald. Nevertheless, can we now conclude that James MacDonald would much prefer the embrace of a money-shilling prosperity preacher than that of a sound, trusted preacher of God's Word? Indeed, it seems that James MacDonald has clearly demonstrated who is allowed to join the new "tribe" that he sought to create with the Elephant Room, and this writer fears that it is not a membership roster of which he ought to boast.

I hope I speak for many when I say to Voddie Baucham, thank you, sir, for placing your commitment to God and His Word above all else.


  1. Praise the Lord for men who stand for truth!!!!!!!! It is a balm to my troubled spirit of these apostate days to read of such men, and I am glad that one of my favorite preachers is so verbally clear and strong regarding truth. Doing so means he is clear and strong FOR JESUS.

  2. PS: Congratulations on some great reporting, there!

  3. Um, Bachman himself seems to ha e described this as a mutual decision. It is not fair to present it as MacDonald kicking him out.

  4. Many thanks, Elizabeth.

    You said, "Praise the Lord for men who stand for truth!!!!!" to which I offer a hearty AMEN.

  5. AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! There is still Hope! As the above poster said, praise God almighty that there are men of God in our generation who are willing to love people and the Lord so much that they refuse to see them led astray by false teachers like TD Jakes. I can asure you that Voddie Baucham did not do this because he is negelecting Biblical unity (as he will probably be accused of) but rather he is actually demonstarating what true Biblical love and unity look like, and that it a unity in which the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not sacrificed. Thank you Voddie for caring about God, men, and truth so deeply that you would be willing to do this. THANK YOU JESUS!!!

  6. Anonymous,

    I agree, it is presented as a mutual decision. It was not my intention to present it as Baucham being "kicked out" as you say. Nevertheless, it is telling that the reason for the cancellation was due to "differences of opinion," especially considering that Baucham traveled to the conference with the intention of honoring his commitment to speak.

  7. In hearing that it was a mutual decision, it would appear that Bauchum must have discussed the issues concerning Jakes with MacDonald. For that, I'm glad, even if MacDonald is still defending Jakes. I'm so thankful for Voddie Bauchum and his defense of the truth.

  8. To avoid confusion, I have added a sentence pointing out that it does indeed seem that this was a mutual decision.

  9. Thank you Jesus!! And thank you Voddie!

  10. Lines are being drawn and this is good for the health of the church. Glory be to God and thank you Voddie for taking a stand.

  11. It is SO refreshing to hear from men who are SOUND in the faith and stand for the truth. That's my kind of Soldier!

    Holy is the LORD! Go Voddie my dear brother and praise God for HE delights in such men who uphold HIS Justice, His righteousness, HIS kindness -Jer.9:24. For "the LORD is known by his justice"-Psalm 9:16a

    Upright men shall see his face-Psalm 11:7

    Psa 11:7 "For the LORD is righteous, he loves justice; upright men will see his face.

  12. MacDonald and group are seeking to establish an Harvest church in Chattanooga TN, and I sense the very same teaching here, refusing any accountability and denying any responsibility for their associations.

  13. I hope those who were there for Baucham were given at least a partial refund (I know, it's unlikely from Prosperity and Profit preachers).

  14. My family attends Harvest and have been concerned with the direction taken by the leadership there. I did not attend the Men's conference (though I strongly considered it just because of Voddie).

    Harvest is very intentional in what they do and JMac is strong willed. His twitter mentioned that Charles Jenkins subbed in at the men's conf which leads me to believe that they knew this could happen and had backup plans.

    My wife and I love Voddie and heard him speak on numerous occasions at the homeschool conference and the national bible bee. He is biblically grounded and willing to speak the truth.

    Whether this was mutual or Harvest wanting to silence him from speaking his thoughts about TD / ER (if asked by others attending the Men's conference remains between these two parties.

    As followers of Christ, we need to pray for Harvest pastors, elders and the members to see the light and speak the truth. We are concerned about the doctrinal direction of the church and how it will affect both mature and especially new believers who are not strongly grounded in scripture.

  15. Anonymous said, "As followers of Christ, we need to pray for Harvest pastors, elders and the members to see the light and speak the truth. We are concerned about the doctrinal direction of the church and how it will affect both mature and especially new believers who are not strongly grounded in scripture."

    Amen, Anonymous. Indeed we ought to be praying.

  16. Thank you so much, DO NOT BE SURPRISED, for you good work on keeping us informed. Also to the others who work diligently. GOD BLESS.

  17. wow. I am a member of Harvest and am deeply troubled by the direction the church is going. Have not left yet but on the verge. Anyway, I heard Voddie Baucham speak at a conference last fall and his presentation was so GOD honoring and NOT man-centered that he brought the house down. I recommended to anyone and everyone to attend the Harvest men's conference just to hear him speak. Wonder how all this is going to cash out? (pun intended)

    Thank you EBENZ for the time you are expending in your reporting. Sadly, I am checking in with you every day to keep up with the events in my own church.

  18. If Jakes had suddenly changed his view to a Trinitarian one, that would necessarily require repentance which was totally missing. A false god only has a false gospel. The fact that he remains a modalist, a WOF teacher, with a nasty understanding of Ruth and Naomi, merely proves he is unregenerate and a spokesperson for the enemy (see this: http://www.gcmwatch.com/838/td-jakes-becomes-a-conduit-for-false-homosexual-theology)

    Mourning over his sin and heresy is utterly missing b/c he hastn't repented. He was just given a platform to teach his hersy with men embracing him as a Christian, violating 2John 9-11. I'm glad Voddie took a stand AND was vocal against the heresy and the heretic.

  19. Good article, and Praise God that there are at least *some* who are standing strong for biblical truth.

    My consistent thought this week, in light of the Code Orange "Revival" and the ER, James MacDonald's resignation, etc, has been 'the chaff is being separated from the wheat.' And in a profound way, too.

  20. You should be concerned about the direction of your own lives, churches, and our God who you are ultimately responsible to.

    The purpose of the Elephant Room seems to be to discuss differences in an intelligible fashion, not cause as many splits as possible in the church so we can create a denomination after our own image (which denomination that suits "your God" are you a part of?). In addition, one group trying to sway influence over the concept of that shouldn't be tolerated (as occured in this previous one apparently).

    All I can say is.. thank God that he is good and faithful to us. Nut jobs that profess to be Christians that are on the warpath constantly with other Christians should find something useful to do with their time. Perhaps going out and doing some soul winning might please God more than your attempts to stamp out herecy by looking for witches to burn at the stake.

    I don't need to attend the Elephant Room (which, I don't) to tell you to get your heads screwed on straight. You're being ridiculous as that nut job over at apprising.org.

  21. I'd post something... but this blog will only post something that is in 100% support to the person hosting the blog.

    A stance befitting of communism in China, and really not Christianity. No wonder you don't support the Elephant Room.

  22. Anonymous @ 5:33 pm and 5:45 pm,

    I have opted to post your comments even though you have already broken the comment policy by referring to my readers and myself as "nut jobs" and, in the case of Anon @ 5:45, equating me with a communist. If you wish to disagree, that is fine, but please do so with intelligent discussion and Scripture. Name calling and ad hominem attacks are not welcome here. In addition, I'm not sure why you are so upset over a posting that is merely reporting on an interesting and curious event.

    Anon @ 5:33, you say, "You should be concerned about...our God who you are ultimately responsible to." It is precisely because I esteem the Word of God above men that I write anything here. Scripture calls us to expose false teaching and, while the body of Christ is to be in unity, we are never to cling to unity at the expense of Truth. Sadly, that is what we saw happening at the Elephant Room.

  23. I hope those two comments from Anon were made out of ignorance......please say they were made out of ignorance...........

  24. Just came back from the Harvest Men's conference and I want to clarify some things. I'm a big Voddie fan. I'm a homeschooler. I'm for the gospel of Christ. First, Jenkins was asked late last night when Harvest elders became aware of the public comments by Voddie. It was not planned as if it was some conspiracy. Second, Harvest graciously paid Voddie. Third, the cost I paid was worth it to worship Christ with many other men. Fourth, MacDonald spoke well of Voddie and confessed it was his idea.

    Voddie proved the whole need for the Elephant room when he spoke publically based on what he has pieced together without speaking to the man in person. Would you have been against the Council of Rome in 250 AD because modalism was debated or that the church was still trying to clarify what they believed about the trinity. MacDonald was clear at the ER2 and today that his having a conversation has not changed his doctrine. This is the problem with making "guilt by association" claims. People jump to the conclusion that a person's doctrine must be changing. That is a false inference.

    I guess I don't know what the fear is about Harvest Chatanooga. I know the pastor there personally and trust him whole-heartedly. There is accountability amongst Harvest pastors and elders. James does not direct where Harvest churches are planted. The fact is that some believers in Chatanooga sought a church plant there. I get the impression that Anonymous has not gone to a service or met Pastor Dubard in person.

  25. Just got back from the Harvest Men's conference and I wanted to clarify some things. First, Jenkins was asked late last night to fill in. There was no consipiracy. Second, Voddie was still paid per the agreement with Harvest. Third, James honored and spoke highly of Voddie when he made the announcement.

    Voddie actually proved the need for the Elephant room because he spoke critically without meeting the man in person. This is the problem with rejecting people "by association". You probably would have protested the Council of Rome in 250 AD because the modalism topic was discussed. James clearly said in ER2 and today that his doctrinal positions have not changed. But when you start to link associations you begin to believe that people have changed. It is a false inference and to my shame a way that I have acted in the past.

    I don't know what the fear is about Harvest Chattanooga. I know the pastor personally and he is a godly man that is trustworthy with the gospel. Am I correct to assume that anonymous has not been to a service or met Pastor Dubard in person? James does not direct where Harvest's are planted. Believers from Chattanooga are the owners of that plant.

  26. Anon @ 5:33,

    I assume by your (Biblically ignorant) post, that you assume "soul winning" can not occur by calling out heresy for what it is through proper exposition of the Word of God.

    EBenz - thank you for being faithful to our calling as Christians, to warn of false teachers, identify the error in their ways and point to the truth as revealed through God in his Holy Scripture!

  27. I take it then, Christy, that you have no problem with Pastor James turning over his pulpit to Steven Furtick? I take it that you have no problem with him running to the defense of Perry Noble? How about when he pronounced T.D. Jakes to be biblically solid at the ER2? That is more than guilt by association. That is guilt by endorsement. None of those 3 men are solid in their theology and, therefore, are to be rubuked, not invited to preach from a pulpit ot have a hand holding unity session at the expense of the truth.

  28. Sorry, but I'm using my wife's email account. I'm Joe. Did you attend E2? Did you hear from Steve himself? I don't know anything about what you might think there is between Perry Noble and him. I heard some excellent thoughts and confirmation of the gospel from Steve. I also know that Harvest pastors do not let the pulpit over to just anyone. Here is the problem: you are not even willing to sit down, get to know these people you think you know so much about, and have a great discussion of understanding before you would rebuke. If you were at E2 you would know it was about GRACE AND TRUTH. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

  29. Christy/Joe,
    I was just about to form a response to you, but I see that Dave has already expressed many of the same questions that I would have posed. I do thank you for sharing the additional information, however, as one who attended the Men's Conference.

    You said, "Voddie proved the whole need for the Elephant Room when he spoke publicly..." Actually, I would argue that he proved precisely what ER2 failed to deliver...truth founded on Scripture. None of the accusations against Jakes have been formed upon bits and pieces of random information. The man has a very public ministry. All you have to do is turn on TBN to hear him shilling the prosperity gospel (something that the men of ER2 completely failed to address before embracing Jakes as a "brother.") It is no secret that Jakes has associations with Oneness groups and, from his comments at ER2 that he doesn't want to "throw stones at the other camp," we ought to seriously consider the fact that he still has not renounced his association with groups that hold to a heretical teaching.

    The difficult questions were not asked at ER2, and personally I commend Voddie Baucham for having the courage to speak the truth at a time when such a thing is obviously grossly unpopular.

    Anon @ 8:18,
    Thank you for your kind words - it is all for the praise and glory of God!

    Thanks for "beating me to the punch" with your questions. :)

  30. I have listened to Furtick on more than one occasion. The gospel he preaches is not the gospel found in the Scripture. It is man centered. Nothing of repentance, maybe a little sin here and there but nothing that would drive a person to their knees crying out to God for mercy. No regeneration, no wrath, nothing of the holiness of God. It is devoid of anything that means anything.

    As for Jakes and ER2, Erin hit the nail on the head. The hard questions were never asked and he was allowed to skate. Why were his blatant WoF teachings not discussed?

    I may be totally and completely out in left field on this, but if Pastor James' thinking isn't shifting somewhat then those men wouldn't be allowed in the church he leads. I know that I would not allow men who do not hold to solid biblical teaching into my church if I were a pastor. All that does is give them the appearance of credibility where there is none.

    I didn't intend to steal your thunder, so to
    speak...... :)

  31. I'm not dismissing his Oneness connections and prosperity gospel teaching (I'm not sure James is dismissing they exist either). So are you saying that you ask every person you encounter (the grocery store, McDonald's, etc.) whether they repented and believed in Christ AND what heretical teachings they hold to, before are seen as endorsing them?

    What do you think about the similar attitude that you have but on TD Jakes side?

  32. Dave,
    No problem, I appreciate the help. :) It's often difficult for me to engage in the comment string as much as I would like.

    You're presenting two entirely different situations. A Christian pastor giving the "thumbs up" endorsement to someone who has spent his entire ministry propagating a false gospel is entirely different from me questioning the cashier at the grocery store about whether or not they adhere to heretical teachings! Not to mention that there's no need for me to "endorse" such a person. Surely you can see the straw man in your argument here...

    A pastor with the celebrity of James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll, by affirming T.D. Jakes as a "brother" can potentially do great harm to the church. In the words of Voddie Baucham, Jakes completely dodged the issue on Wednesday, and that entire panel let him get away with it. Whether they did so intentionally or out of ignorance, I do not know. And by ignoring his prosperity gospel, yet giving him a pass as a "brother," Jakes has now been given the "green light" by some extremely influential men. Surely you can see the danger in that? Doesn't that cause you even a tiny bit of concern?

  33. The point I was making is that you have an a'priori definition that speaking with someone is endorsing them. Yes, I would have a problem with Jakes ministering to the sheep via the pulpit. E2 was a different context. A few years ago I would have not recognized the difference. E2 was not a discipling event where a majority of Harvest members attended. I don't think there was a dodge as Voddie claims as he clearly affirmed what Driscoll asked him plus the truths of the GOSPEL. A pastor cannot worry about and defend himself for every critic that might say something on the internet which church members might see. I trust Harvest members will be able to discern the difference between engaging for understanding and endorsing. Again the point was to model this, similar to the engagement that happens on this blog.

  34. @Christy Myers

    " So are you saying that you ask every person you encounter (the grocery store, McDonald's, etc."

    This above is a straw man made up with rather rotten straw...

  35. Christy/Joe,

    "So are you saying that you ask every person you encounter (the grocery store, McDonald's, etc.) whether they repented and believed in Christ AND what heretical teachings they hold to,..."

    You do know ER2 is a church event, not a secular setting, and that they embraced the heretical T.D. Jakes as "brother," right?

    "What do you think about the similar attitude that you have but on TD Jakes side?"

    I'm not sure what that sentence means exactly. However, you're committing the logical fallacy of the false analogy.

    You're speaking of a secular setting (apples) but we're Biblically discussing a religious setting (oranges).

    the "nutjob at apprising.org" :-)

  36. Dave, I appreciate your passion for truth and protection of the church. I will have to look into Furtick's messages. I think you and others have a right to have a different "threshold" for what you think is endorsement or not. I was actually surprised that Jakes was asked about modalism when I saw the topic schedule so I don't see it as getting off easy. Again, I don't know of any instance where TD Jakes was allowed in the church James leads. If you mean the building then know that the site which this was filmed was not inside a church. He has not preached, served, or had authority at Harvest as far as I'm aware. Lastly, James does not make the sole decisions about these things. He has a great group of elders in the fellowship and church who make the decisions. Just because there are these risks of perception doesn't mean you don't take the risk to reach out (Jesus with sinners, Paul reaching out to the Jews). Why doesn't anyone look at the possibility that James could be an influencer in TD Jakes life and ministry?

  37. **ALERT!!** **ALERT!!** There is a "nutjob" on the loose in the comment string! :-)

    Thanks for weighing in, Ken. You precisely reiterated my point. The above comparison shouldn't even be engaged, because it is an apples to oranges scenario.

    I think you're misunderstanding that, at this point, it is less about the extended invitation to T.D. Jakes and more about the fact that he was affirmed as a "brother" at ER2, yet he did not seem to renounce any of the heresy he's been known to propagate. Benny Hinn would likely also affirm the questions that Mark Driscoll asked, yet would you embrace him as a "brother" in Christ? As I said before, the difficult - and necessary - questions were not asked. It largely appears as though T.D. Jakes duped his interrogators, and apparently a lot of other people along with them.

  38. I don't mean it to be a straw man. I'm trying to make it practical. Would you avoid all sorts of people if you knew that there might be one little theological point you differed on? If you think this is straw then tell me where is the limit? Why does talking to someone mean endorsement?

    I was not trying to commit a false analogy. I'm just curious what you think of those who are pounding Jakes for meeing with MacDonald?

    Is this blog a church event? If so then I might want to check into your contacts to see if any heretical skeletons lurk. People from churches were invited and I won't say it is completely independent from Harvest.

    I havn't seen much Bible being used to say that such a setting is not possible. I understand you want to label one as a heretic first so that you can claim scriptures about not coming close to false teachers.

  39. The doctrine of the Trinity is not "one little theological point," it is the very nature of God. To deny the doctrine of the Trinity as taught in the Bible is to deny the God of the Bible.

    The prosperity gospel is also not "one little theological point." It is a false gospel.

    No one here has said that talking to someone is endorsement. If you read the transcript of the conversation in question, you know that, upon answering Driscoll's weak questions, Jakes was basically given the thumbs up as being orthodox. He was seemingly affirmed by the men on the panel as being a "brother" in Christ. Yet, if he holds to even one of the heresies mentioned above, he is not our brother. I know it's not politically correct to say such a thing. After all, it does seem to be all about love these days, even at the expense of truth. But nobody at ER2 asked him to renounce these things and, as I have already pointed out, Jakes clearly stated that he didn't want to "throw stones" at the Oneness crowd, meaning he did not desire to separate from them. Yet, if they are denying the Trinitarian God of the Bible, then he must disassociate from them. To embrace false teaching even while denying that you yourself believe it is just as grievous.

    You asked for more Bible, even though you have not used any yourself. In 2 Corinthians 6:14ff, Paul calls us to be separate - "What fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial?" Or, perhaps even more to the point:

    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

  40. @Christy M.

    "if you knew that there might be one little theological point you differed on?"

    The doctrine of One Triune God (that is a primary subject of this issue) is not a "little point" in any possible sense, especially theological... It is rather the ULTIMATE LINE between truth and falsehood and the highest revelation of truth. You not understanding this and minimizing it as you do is a very indicative for MacDonald listener and Phony Rut 2 supporter... I will not even go to pseudo gospel pimping, looting and pillaging done by ex ditch digger turned sabellian "prophet" TD Jakes newly found kindred soul of MacDonald.

  41. Ok, So I've read the post and all the comments. Here is how I see ER2, and how it differed from ER1, and the mistakes James wanted to avoid from the first one.
    For the first ER, he went in with a debating type of energy. There were things he wanted to get across, and he was aggressive, sometimes to a fault.
    He realized how damaging this was, as he desired to *maybe* build relationships with some of these guys. Remember, James doesn't know personally all these pastors, from ER1 or ER2.
    So these events, not Harvest events btw, were a way to START some relationships.
    And if you are going to correct someone, doesn't it make sense, if your desire is for the correction to take root, that you have a relationship and a trust with the person first?
    What happened on Wednesday is not the be-all-end-all. In this fast-paced world, microwave-attention span, we want thing resolved NOW! We want Jakes to repent NOW! Gee whiz, James met the guy for the first time, like 12 hours before the filming.
    I think all this had happened because people have misunderstood what ER is about. It ain't about having conversations with people you agree with. What would be the point of that? Who knows if James will form any alliance with Jakes. I doubt he'll ever allow him in his pulpit, given James' very firm stance on the prosperity "gospel."
    But not having someone in your pulpit doesn't exclude you from an invitation to The Elephant Room.

  42. Regarding TD "Velcro" Jakes in this 1997 PFO article (link below) so much of this is widely and publicly known about him.
    Any proclaimed Bible following leader should have immediately dismissed Jakes as someone qualified to embrace in fellowship. -In fact that was hatred; they should have rebuked Jakes publicly using scripture in love. Now that is if they just figured it out you'd think in 15yrs since the article I am linking they would have! This one is not a stand-alone piece.

    The acceptance by these so called 'leaders' brings their doctrine, character and integrity into grave question -on where they stand in Christ to embrace such a man. They have been caught in a wrong and what I am reading and witnessing in response is a very defensive ungodly response by the leaders themselves and worse by their followers even threatening a FELLOW BELIEVER with arrest!? Come on! If they indeed believe their Bibles, they have left their first love... it is as grave as it gets!


  43. I am extremely disappointed in James MacDonald and will be reconsidering any support given to his families ministries. Thank you Dr. Voddie Baucham for being the instrument of God that you are and taking the "non" popular stand!

  44. Bridgett said ~"doesn't it make sense, if your desire is for the correction to take root, that you have a relationship and a trust with the person first?"

    Unbiblical. You wouldn't get near a wolf would you??

    Jesus said specifically that we are to "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." By their fruit you will recognize them."-Mat.7:15-16

    Jesus didn't say, "You shall know them by spending time with them and getting to know them on a personal basis by letting correction take root. ~~You wouldn't go near wolves and befriend them do you?

    Someone wisely put it this way--"If what is coming out of their mouths is deceit, bad fruit, on a (consistent basis), then you know the man is false! It's that simple! You don't have to personally know the man.”

    after all these years 35(+,-) that Jakes has been a modalist, and to say we have to meet with him in order to know if his fruit is good or bad is being either biblically ignorant or willfully obtuse and/or quite naive. He needs to REPENT of his modalism and his prosperity gospel and THEN we meet not beforehand.

    the apostle John-the apostle of love would suggest that anyone who gives a heretic a greeting becomes a participant in his evil deeds-2John 1:11.

  45. Thank you to Pastor Voddie Baucham for not backing down and taking a firm stand for our King. As someone above said, Pastor Baucham is my (and the Lord's) kind of soldier: a no compromising man of God.

    I am withdrawing all financial support to James MacDonald and his ministries.

  46. @Bridgett and all the others of MadDonald's ecumenism...

    Your ideas of "getting together", meeting with people are fine for a social context but are erroneous and damaging when giving a platform for heretics and scam artists in the Church that suppose to stand on and defend the Gospel. As such and in this instant yours and MacDonald's ideas are not biblicaly originated but culture and politics originated. Many ask about the Biblical teaching. Here is one of so many and in its immediate context. Pay very close attention to 1 John 2:23 in its proceeding immediate context of 1 John 2:18-23

    "Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.
    Nevertheless you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.I have not written to you that you do not know the truth, but that you do know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who DENIES THE SON DOES NOT HAVE THE FATHER EITHER. The person who confesses the Son has the Father also."

    ~ 1 John 2:18-23 NET

    Jesus of Jakes is a MODALISTIC Jesus who did not existed prior to Betleheem as a DISTINCT and DIVINE Person. Jesus of Jakes is not Jesus but Father who dressed up as Jesus only. To restate a question of Dr.White that he asked Jakes on Twitter which he of course ignored:

    "Sir, did the Son, as a divine Person, distinct from the Father as a divine Person, exist prior to the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem?"

    Jakes does not have a Biblical Jesus and therefore according to above Word of God does not have Biblical Father therefore cannot possibly have a Biblical Holy Spirit resulting in not having a Biblical Gospel. Jakes is a dangerous LIAR per above Scripture and of the spirit of antichrist.

    Instead of truth Jakes has a canny and scummy abilities in neuro linguistic programming which serve Mammon (as a being) and him only and MacDonald gave that demonic filth a platform in his church under misguided false pretense of kumbaya ecumenism and falsely understood "love"... There will be a price to pay and he and Harvest will pay it.

  47. Um...ER2 wasn't a church event. It is not under the authority of The Church. That is the point. You might have *wanted* it to be, but it wasn't.

  48. I go to Harvest, I was at the men's conference James admitted he met with the elders and pretty much decided to kick Voddie out of the conference. If and this is a big if any of this is true, both about TD jakes and the fact that he at minimum was not confronted then we, I have a huge issue with my leader's Discerment abilities and question in which place he's at currently, James is a man of god and he's not perfect, but this is huge in leading a flock.

  49. @Bridget,

    "Um...ER2 wasn't a church event. It is not under the authority of The Church."

    You sound like Bill Clinton: "It all depends on your definition of..."

    You can play semantics with yourself but let me ask you this: Was Phony Rut 2 known as ER2 a Golf Clinic where MacDonald, Driscoll, Jakes and the rest of them discussed their golf handicap and what are they doing to cut down on it? Or was it a PLATFORM where views on God and Gospel where presented and proselytized or rather muddled, obscured and twisted?

    The level of self deception and self manipulation planted in you by Harvest is clearly growing and mutating as they would expect to do.

  50. Bridgett said...

    "Um...ER2 wasn't a church event. It is not under the authority of The Church. That is the point. You might have *wanted* it to be, but it wasn't".

    -Mat.7:15-16 doesn't just apply within Church walls.

    2John 1:11 doesn't just apply within Church walls neither

    False teaching is sin, therefore it should be dealt with publicly -"in the presence of all,"-- 1 Timothy 5:20.

    If the man or woman has an identifying mark of a false teacher, Jesus warns NOT to confront him privately (Matthew 7:3-6). False teachers are to be dealt with publicly. Jesus did this in both Matthew 23 and Luke 11.
    To have this Clandestine meeting which was what ER2 turned out to be-was disingenuous to the body of Christ as a whole, unbiblical and dealt with improperly as according to God's word.

    You keep arguing that since it wasn't in a "Church setting" that it didn't need to be treated as such. James MacDonald is a pastor and his obligation is to Jesus Christ in being faithful to Him first and foremost according to Scripture and then to his congregation as their SHEPHERD and thirdly to the BODY of believers around the world as a whole no matter where he is. Shepherds are supposed to protect their sheep not fleece them to heretical teachings by befriending false teachers whether inside the Church or outside the Church. Mac Donald's greatest error is that he granted Jakes (a platform) in the first place. Many Pastors(rightfully so, wrote to James of his error. Problem was James made up his mind what he wanted to do regardless of the many loving rebukes of his error by his brothers within the BODY.

    James is the one who carried the Church(the Body) and joined (the body) with a heretic-TD Jakes along with others in the ER2. This is spiritual adultery

    Would you approve of your spouse committing adultery that you made a covenant with between you 2? Would you confront your spouse of his/her adulterous ways or approve of them?
    The same goes with the true Body of Christ. Why would we join our body with a heretic-TD Jakes at the ER2? You're commending ER2 and then approving of it because it wasn't in a Church.

    Well what if your spouse commits adultery somewhere else rather than your own home it's not adultery anymore? Your logic is not sound in that James committed spiritual adultery outside the Church just the same and so it's not to be considered as such and it's okay..

    adultery is adultery period whether it be physical adultery or spiritual adultery.

  51. "You keep arguing..."

    I didn't know we were having an argument.

  52. I did attend the conference. No there was no back-up plan. Pastor Jenkins was called at 10pm Friday night about filling in. Mr. Baucham was given his full honorarium for coming. I'm not sure where people see a prosperity ministry at Harvest. The reason given was not so much disagreements. MacDonald was ok with Baucham disagreeing with ER2, but it was his public comments against MacDonald that led to the decision. Comments for which Baucham apologized. 10 years ago MacDonald would have been the one openly condemning Jakes with no attempt at grace, and he has since focused on speaking truth with grace. MacDonald also had nothing but highest praise for Baucham at the conference and was actually crying when he told of the decision. How many times have you seen James MacDonald crying? Maybe before going on the attack in this post, or report as some call it, you should have reached out to those involved and gotten the most accurate info you could. That would be reporting. This is simply slamming someone you already dislike.

  53. To this guy who calls himself Jehovah Something: you are judging your very savior with your words. You're right, why would we engage in conversation with someone who does not believe what we believe, who teaches false gospels? I don't know. It's pretty much what Jesus did. It's why he was called a glutton and a friend of sinners. Because they were who he reached for. MacDonald is reaching out to Jakes in the best way to encourage him to respond rightly. And you call him an adulterer.

  54. Okay, everyone. Obviously I have been unable to participate in the comment string today, and I will be unable to moving forward. As such, I will be closing the comments shortly, so get your final thoughts in soon.

    I appreciate the input that has been given from both sides. I do find it unfortunate, however, that though this post did nothing more than report a fact and pose a couple of questions, it has been met with some rather defensive responses. I urge everyone to remember...nobody is above the test and authority of Scripture. Not even your favorite pastor.

    To those who attended the conference yesterday, thank you for sharing your experience. To those who expressed concern, I also thank you. It is always refreshing to watch the dialogue that can happen even in a comment string and, with a few exceptions, I'm thankful that everyone was basically respectful in their posts.

    Above all, may the events of the past week drive us back to the Word of God and to our Lord in prayer.

    Okay, with that - Last call for comments!

  55. I think your post did a little more than report a fact. Your second-to-the-last paragraph had some commentary, a POV. The sentence that starts with , "Nevertheless."
    Just thought I would point that out, in case you forgot that part.
    It is your blog, so of course you are entitled to write your opinion. That's what blogs are for! :)

  56. @Dan B.

    "How many times have you seen James MacDonald crying?"

    Whether MacDonald was crying or laughing is completely besides the point. This is not thread about emotional responses but about the reason for MacDonald's further cutting cords with sound teachers while at the same time joining with heretics. If you do not see this as alarming nothing else will be for you.

    "You're right, why would we engage in conversation with someone who does not believe what we believe, who teaches false gospels?"

    Let me show you a clue how Jesus was "engaging in conversation" with unbelievers... And this surely would not be a pass in Kumbaya Harvest:

    "You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell"
    ~ Matthew 23:33

    Was Jesus "slamming" those poor love starved Pharisees who just wanted to "engage in conversation"? Too bad MacDonald was not around. He would show Jesus how to be more "loving and engaging"...

  57. I will just end with the reminder that truth matters. Who God is matters. His Word matters. One good that will come out of this is that some folks will actually start studying the issues from God's Word and quit leaning on their own understanding.