Archive for January, 2012

False Teacher on The Elephant Room

// January 29th, 2012 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

The issue brought up from “The Elephant Room” is NOT a new issue — very sound people in the faith have been denouncing the false teacher T.D. Jakes as a false teacher for many years now. It’s only now being brought to public attention. Please don’t at all be confused about T.D. Jake’s views — he verbalized that he was trinitarian, but he is very, very clearly not. Despite what he’s verbally said (and the seemingly well-meaning people who he’s dooped into believing what he’s said), he is NOT trinitarian, and therefore NOT Christian. In the same breath that he used to falsely state that he’s Trinitarian, he also used to affirm his modalist view.

The following quote is the black heart of Jakes’ views:

Quote: “Here is why I am there. I am not crazy about the word ‘persons’ … most people who know me know that … my doctrinal statement is really no different from yours except for the word ‘manifest’ instead of ‘person,’ which you describe as modalist and I describe as Pauline,” Jakes insisted, before quoting 1 Timothy 3:16. (This quote is from the Christian Post.)

The title of the Christian Post article is: “T.D. Jakes ‘Breaks down’ the Trinity, Addresses Being Called a Heretic.” He broke it down alright: he denied it, repainted it in modalistic view by re-explaining what “person” means, proclaimed his right to use unbiblical descriptors such as ‘”manifest” as three persons’, then confused everyone by saying he’s a Trinitarian when he’s not.

Listen, the very black heart of the modalist view of Oneness Pentacostals is in this one statement — they deny the Personhood of God in the way that the Bible describes. To say that God is merely manifest as 3 persons is to say that God is 3 persons eminating from 1 person, which is a modalist view.

If the issue of the Doctrine of the Trinity (which defines the God we worship — uh, that’s pretty important, if you deny it you deny who God is and the deity of Christ) weren’t enough, Oneness Pentacostals, unlike other Pentacostal denominations, believe that you have to speak in tongues in order to be saved. They also believe that you have to be baptized only in the name of Jesus (and not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as it says clearly in Matthew 28:19) to be saved. Oneness Pentacostalism is NOT a Christian denomination, it’s an apostate or spurrious counter-Christian group. It is NOT orthodoxy, it is heterodoxy (professing the non-mainline, esoteric, spurrious offshoot teaching not originally professed by Christians throughout church history or by the original apostles or holding to Biblical Christianity).

He added, “We are taught in our society that if we disagree within a movement, we leave … we sever. I still have fellowship associations, relationships and positions within and without Oneness and Trinitarian movements because I believe that until we bridge the gap between our thinking, and humble both sides and say ‘we’re both attempting to describe a God we love

Jakes explained that his father was a Methodist and his mother was a Baptist, and that the Oneness Pentacostal church is just where he ended up after his “religious experience.” My question is plain: if there were plenty of people who were in false religions and worshiped idols, then upon hearing the Gospel and believing in Jesus abandoned the falsehood and became faith-filled followers and believers in Jesus — that trusted in His to the point of martyrdom — then WHY is it okay for T.D. Jakes to say he’s not only a Christian but a Bishop, and continue on in a spurrious denomination?

Mark Drisoll rattled off points of doctrine on a faith statement. It was very easy for him to just affirm them. Anyone can do that — even lost people and counter-Christians can do that. T.D. Jakes is no more Christian than…let’s see… Deepak Chopra. No, let me pick someone that’s more obviously not Christian… Joel Osteen, who said that Mormons were Christians and believes that when they affirm their faith in their version of Jesus they’re somehow affirming faith in God revealed by the Bible.

They never asked him any probing questions that would bring him to the point where he had to very clearly examine what he believes against the historical teaching of the Doctrine of the Trinity. They didn’t expound scriptures and examine his view of “personhood,” which he admittedly denied. Not at all. Until they do that, don’t believe this man is genuine at all.

I think it’s very silly of James MacDonald to invite this person for an Elephant Room discussion. I’d be more interesting to invite the Elephant Man to the Elephant Room to be honest. The point of them is to “[feature] unscripted conversations between various Christian leaders who may not see eye-to-eye doctrinally, but agree that talking openly about their differences could assist in edifying the Church…” Wait a second, Christian leader? T.D. Jakes is a proven heretic, not a Christian leader. Why invite heretics on your show, ask them a bunch of questions, and expect a body of Christians to be edified? All this has done is generate confusion. It is NOT edifying. It will only separate the discerning from the undiscerning. Pastors, evangelists, and teachers are to edify by sound teaching, not heterodoxy. It’s sad — Paul was so careful to teach new believers about false teachers, false prophets, false apostles… Peter had such strong words against false teachers in 2 Peter. John said not even to associate with them in his little epistles. Yet, these guys give them a sympathetic ear and full reign. Sad. What a waste of time. They could have grilled him on actual Trinitarian issues, but they just gave audience to his deception instead.

If anyone would like to learn about the Doctrine of the Trinity and why it’s so, so important, please listen to the following messages that I put together a while back for just this occasion, as well as some messages by friends and people I respect:

1. Joseph Pittano – Foundations of the Faith 3. The Trinity (107 min) –
2. Joseph Pittano – The Doctrine of The Trinity (26 min) –
3. Matt Slick – What is the Trinity? –
4. Matt Slick – Essential Doctrines of Christianity –
5. Rose Publishing – The Trinity Pamphlet –
6. Isaac Dodd – Scriptural References to the Three Persons (24 min) –
7. Isaac Dodd – The Deity of Christ (52 min) –
8. Isaac Dodd – The Deity of the Holy Spirit (13 min) –
9. Isaac Dodd – The Personhood of the Holy Spirit (13 min) –
10. Isaac Dodd – The Word ‘Trinity’ (22 min) –
11. Isaac Dodd – Time: An Illustration of the Trinity (14 min) –

This teaching goes into it very thoroughly. Once you’ve been through these, you’ll never be dooped by phoney balogna “preachers” again.

Golgi Tendon

// January 26th, 2012 // 1 Comment » // Medical Science

I was looking around YouTube for a demonstration of muscle contractions for something that we’re studying in school and stumbled upon something interesting that we didn’t cover: The Golgi Tendon. Its job is to protect certain muscle tendons from an overexertion or greater force than can be tolerated by the muscle. If I’m living weights and I’m lifting way more than I can handle, I’d rather my body tell my arm to stop for me than to rip the tendon off of the bone — wouldn’t you? Well, that’s what it does. It sends signal to an inhibitory interneuron that shuts down the muscle to reduce the force. It’s called the GTO — Golgi Tendon Organ.

The first part of the video covers the monosynaptic stretch reflex. In school they taught us this differently from what the video demonstrates. We learned a 4-step process with certain steps that occur simultaneously. They sort of show a signal that’s delayed in its traveling — that’s more confusing for a demonstration of a reflex. But, after that, is the Golgi Tendon at about 1:44. Well worth seeing.


Well, no wonder! My area — the most stressful city

// January 24th, 2012 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

The Most Stressful CityI just found out that the area where I’ve spent the passed 20 years and went for my undergraduate education has been rated the most stressful area in the United States.

The Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL area is a major metropolitan area of the Southeast. Tampa is the fifth most diverse city in the United States. However, it is also in the 97th percentile for suicide rates. A recent survey on MSNBC’s BottomLine assessed several factors for an area: “divorce rate, commute times, unemployment, violent crime, property crime, suicides, alcohol consumption, mental health, sleep troubles, and the annual amount of cloudy days.”

Some of the things that come to mind about my area for me that makes this survey make sense… The average commute time was 28.3 minutes, but my commute time was 50 minutes to 1 hour and 20 minutes, depending on the traffic. Tampa is constructed differently and has major streets that dump huge amounts of traffic into one couped little area, such as “East Fletcher” and “East Fowler Ave.” and “Bruce B. Downs” and “Dale Mabry Hwy.” Tampa Bay is home to some of the worst drivers in the world. It says there are annually 127 cloudy days, but I like cloudy days! They make me happy! They remind me of England. Violent crimes is 500 per 100,000. Someone recently told me that in New York they would scarcely think about coming to south St. Petersburg because it’s more dangerous.

I commuted between Tampa and St. Petersburg for over 4 years for my undergraduate education. The Lord got me through it. I’m so thankful for the gift of salvation — Christ helps me day by day in everyday affairs. If I weren’t aided by the Holy Spirit in every area of my life I don’t know what I would do.

Maybe I should get a t-shirt that says, “I survived the Tampa Bay area.”

Link to the Survey:

Increased Pressure = Increased Benefits

// January 24th, 2012 // No Comments » // Random Thoughts

This image most appropriately summarizes how I’ve been feeling lately in school (though I’m no dad). But, though this program I’m in can be tough at times, I’m extremely thankful! It’s a great priviledge to do what the Lord has me doing with school, and it’s working for me a far greater good — both here and into eternity. 🙂 And I love what I’ve been learning.

This program is like being at the gym — It’s tough and sweaty training, but there are so many rewards ahead that the permanent benefits definitely outweigh the transient pains. I love it.

Finger Dislocation – Video

// January 21st, 2012 // No Comments » // Interesting Videos

You have to see how ugly this dislocated finger looks and how easy it looks to get it put back into place. Man…

Desk Organization

// January 20th, 2012 // No Comments » // Uncategorized


Just a snapshot of some of the organization in front of my desk.

Expositional vs. Entertaining Preaching

// January 16th, 2012 // No Comments » // Interesting, Interesting Videos, Random Thoughts

There’s a huge difference between expositional preaching and just entertaining preaching. It’s okay to use an illustration from one’s life every now and then in a sermon. A preacher or pastor is supposed to be an example to the flock. But, it’s the Word that sanctifies (John 17:17), and the most effective sermons are those that reveal Biblical truth to the people.

Take Home Message: 40 years from now what kind of sermon illustrations are you going to remember — the faithfulness of Moses being applied to how faithful we should be and the holiness of God OR that one time you and your wife went shopping down at Costcos and bumped over a shelf of cans? Clearly, 40 years from now what will minister best to the congregation most is clearly taught expositional Bible teaching as their foundation. Wouldn’t you agree?

Entertainment vs. Exposition – John MacArthur


The Biblical Christian – A Series on Reformed Theology

// January 16th, 2012 // 2 Comments » // Reformed Theology

Part I – Introduction to this Series


This study is on Reformed Theology. It was written to properly introduce the reader to what it is, and to defend it against its opponents. 2 timothy 3:16 states, “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.” (NKJV) The Apostle Paul in this passage states clearly that the scriptures can be used to demonstrate doctrinal teaching, because the Bible contains doctrine – formal arrangements of teaching regarding specific topics. We can derive doctrine, or Bible teaching, from the scriptures. It is also useful for what’s called “reproof.” A reproof is a conviction, like a rebuke, that shows a truth beyond dispute. It’s to say, “There’s no way that this can’t be true, and here’s the evidence.” A correction is setting something straight – it is fixing error. It is to these concepts that this writing intends to appeal in order to show the biblical truth of Reformed Theology.

Some people tell me that the doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical because the scriptures never mention or contain the word ‘Trinity.’ I often mention to them that even the word ‘Bible’ isn’t in the scriptures as that isn’t a term the scriptures applies to itself, yet no one will dispute the use of this term to refer to the scriptures. Where does this term come from? It comes from ‘Biblos’ in Greek, which means ‘Books.’ It’s in verses 2 Timothy 4:13, Revelation 20:12, Acts 19:19, and John 21:25 to refer to something else. Why do we use the word “Bible” to refer to the scriptures today? It is because of church history. It is a historical term that Believers have accepted. It is a referential term. It is merely a word we use to refer to something. Is the word Bible in the scriptures used to describe itself? No. Is it safe to use this word to refer to the scriptures? Why, absolutely. Is the word ‘Trinity’ in the scriptures? No. However, the teaching of the Trinity – that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet God is one Being – certainly is in the scriptures. Therefore, is it safe to use this word to refer to this teaching in the bible? Yes it is. There is no harm in using referential terms to refer to Bible teachings. We use them clarify what we mean when we refer to Bible teachings or concepts in the Word of God. Church history is a history of men of God rightly dividing or ‘cutting straight’ the Word of God (2 Timothy 2:15). This was done so as not to entangle ourselves with the common errors of interpretation and twisting of scripture of wolves throughout history. Though nothing outside of God is inspired at all, clarifying what we know is inspired by referring to proper teaching and interpretation specifically certainly is right and intended by God (1 John 4:1-4). The verse references weren’t in the original manuscripts. The Old Testament books appeared in a different order than we have it ordered in our Old Testament. There were no headers above passages introducing areas of scriptures as we have in our Study-Bibles. However, these are all legitimate uses if the Word of God is being rightly divided, cut straight, or the interpretation of the Word is provided for its reader more accurately with the sense that what’s in the text is authoritative and inspired and everything else is not. A “Theology” is a systematic arrangement of Bible teaching. And it will usually include referential terms to those teachings. We need not be afraid of these terms when tackling the “Biblicity” of Reformed Theology — to coin a neologism and ironically create an adjective referential term to describe it.

We may worship together, we may open the scriptures together, and together we can talk about God. However, I’ve found that there are certain scriptures that many of us can’t talk about together. And there are certain parts of our study of God where we can’t go with many of us. For what I’m about to present to you, many of you may take heavy offense. I’m reminded of the passage in Luke where Jesus is reading to His hometown congregation from the passage in Luke. He declared that He was there to fulfill the passage He read to them. Everyone marveled in awe at what he said and at his amazing voice. However, at his next statement, they drove him out of the congregation and to the edge of town, and nearly off of a cliff. Now, what offended them? It’s debatable as it’s not directly explained in the passage what part of his statement offended them or why they were so angry with His statement – whether it was because the widow of Zeraphath and the guy with leprosy were both Gentiles or because of the seeming impartiality of God to only relieve some and not others or do miracles to only some. But, it’s clear that they were offended when Jesus tried to explain or interpret scripture. They disagreed with His interpretation. And who tried to drive Jesus off of a cliff? Those dear members of His hometown that saw Him grow up, witnessed Him take care of his mother and family as the first son with the birthright, those who had routinely seen Jesus at the synagogue week after week. I consider that likewise this will probably be the case with me at my attempt to interpret or explain scripture on this most offensive topic. And, like Jesus, I must learn how to take offense, continue to deliver truth, and praise God – whether I pass through the crowd or am driven off of the cliff.

Familiarity will always be a great enemy of God’s work as people cling onto the old wineskin and prefer the taste of old wine over new. Contrary to what our worldly conformity and conventional wisdom may tell our senses about old wine, we find that with Jesus the new wine He created at the Wedding at Caina actually tasted sweeter than the old and exactly the reverse was true. However, we find in His actual words that both the wine and the wineskin alike needed to be changed. In the same respect, we must conform to the scriptures. It is not the scriptures that must conform to us.

Oftentimes truth is very difficult to bear. We see a Job facing a reality where all 10 of his children were killed along with all of his livestock. He could look into a stream and see as his reflection a man covered from the top of his head to the soles of his feet with worm-filled sores that disgusted everyone. That was cold, hard truth. It was neither pleasant for Job to hear nor easy for him to hear as even a devout man who feared God.

To some, Christian Theology seems like a race for influence. Who can take a newborn Christian first and teach them their persuading influences over theology?

For a lot of people, this is a refutation and clear defense against Reformed Theology. However, it doesn’t work when one inspects the object of what it is. Let’s appeal to an extreme example of a counter-Christian cult. We can clearly see that the Oneness Pentecostals are in error. Why? It’s simply because the Bible disagrees with Baptismal regeneration. Everyone of their interpretations of the verses they address is an eisegetical perversion of what is there when that verse is isolate. The co-text surrounding the verse and the context of the entire passage and book clearly defeat this doctrine. Therefore, one of the major tenets of Oneness Theology is defeated.

Now, let’s look at Calvinism’s scriptural underpinnings. When one goes to study Reformed Theology, whole chapters of the Bible can be exposited to prove it. All of Ephesians 1 speaks of Election. All of Romans 9 speaks of Limited Atonement, and so on. Reformed Theology, to those who disagree with it, isn’t as easily dismissed because it is expositorily scriptural. While people who are in error have certain verses that they can pick here and there to quote, the Reformed Christian has whole chapters and books. And, in their proper context. How can this be error? It’s the case of a resistance of people to believe the rightly divided Word of God. Why? Only because it’s hard to believe.

More to come on: Reformed Theology

// January 16th, 2012 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

I forgot… I have another website with a friend of mine. It is: That friend is Joseph Pitanno. I post sermons and messages that that I’ve come up with. Joseph has greater than 130 sermons there. They’re relatively short – check them out! Joseph just graduated from Liberty Seminary (I think with his M.Div). So, there are some pretty cool things to learn there.

Hello world, my name is Isaac D.

// January 15th, 2012 // 2 Comments » // Uncategorized

My name is Isaac D. No one I know probably knows about this blog yet. I had a previous blog at tBlog: I’ve had that one since the day I was saved and became a Christian back in 2003. But, the creator of tBlog is sort of Anti-Christian. So, I’m starting a new blog here. I just need a place to sort of put different thoughts for historical purposes (the purpose of any journal). Please, stay tuned for more posts. 🙂