False Testimony on Todd Bentley’s Website

[youthwalk]

I have the same question. It's astounding really that this stuff is being accepted by anyone professing to be a follower of Christ.

I mean, to me, this is far beyond the "warning bell" or "red flag" stage.

The only answer that I can come up with is:

For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. (2 Thes. 2:11-12)
​

I don't know any other reason why people would so readily accept what is so obviously false. But I am very hesitant to say that anyone who believes this takes pleasure in wickedness.

Yes. Exactly. I'm not comfortable saying that they take pleasure in wickedness. I don't know if they even SEE wickedness.

I think it's about deception. I think somethings, especially in the last days, will have a lovely veneer of being of God. But they will be filled not with the things of God but of mysticism mixed in with the Word. That's wrong.

Hi Youthwalk,

As a point of clarity:

Red and black is the original teaching. (red parts have been removed in the new doctored version)

Blue is the new doctored version.

Thank you! I think that's what I meant what you said is much simpler though

 

[dmhforJesus]

subscribing

 

[Simon Peter]

Yes. Exactly. I'm not comfortable saying that they take pleasure in wickedness. I don't know if they even SEE wickedness.

I think it's about deception. I think somethings, especially in the last days, will have a lovely veneer of being of God. But they will be filled not with the things of God but of mysticism mixed in with the Word. That's wrong.

I think this is a very astute statement.

I agree that they're not seeing wickedness, they are seeing, or are being told of manifestations, and those present may even feel manifestations.

The spiritually naive assume it must be God.
In some cases it may be God, but that doesn't mean God is behind Todd Bentley or this so-called revival.

I believe we live in a far more spiritual world than most of us realize, and the enemy is the master of deception.

 

[Simon Peter]

I meant to add:

I looked into this deception issue, and believe there's only one way to avoid deception of this sort. We must assess Christian leadership according to two criteria:

1. Sound Doctrine

2. Good Character

If they pass these two tests you can feel ssafe about their ministry. If they fail even one of them, keep well away.

Todd Bentley blatently fails the sound doctrine test.

The problem is that most Christians are assessing a ministry by its size, how many people are saved, number of miracles. In other words, it's apparent success!

 

[DianeL]

I looked up the meaning of the name "Emma." Most sources said its origin is from Germanic "ermen" meaning "whole" or "universal". (One source said it was Latin in origin, meaning "universal").

That's very interesting.

I have a book called "The Name Book" - over 10,000 names - their meanings, origins, and spiritual significance - Author Dorothy Astoria

I looked up Emma and this is what is says;

Emma
Language/Cultural Origin : Old German
Inherent Meaning : All Embracing
Spiritual Connotation : Absolute Faith
Scripture : Mark 11:24 KNJV
"Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, beleive that you receive them, and you will have them."

Just thought I'd add this in.

 

[youthwalk]

I think this is a very astute statement.

I agree that they're not seeing wickedness, they are seeing, or are being told of manifestations, and those present may even feel manifestations.

The spiritually naive assume it must be God.
In some cases it may be God, but that doesn't mean God is behind Todd Bentley or this so-called revival.

I believe we live in a far more spiritual world than most of us realize, and the enemy is the master of deception.

This is important. He certainly is smarter than we are -- we claim to believe that and to understand that we cannot outwit Satan, yet when presented with clear cover ups and deceptions we don't believe that they can be of evil rather than of God.

 

[probinson]

At the risk of being called gullible and worse, let me try to explain why this doesn't really get me too worked up...

First, I don't know when or why this article was edited. I took some time and did some research at the Internet Wayback Machine to look at previous versions of the website and article. You can do this yourself also at http://web.archive.org. From what I can tell, the article has also been shortened drastically from its original posting.

Second, I pulled the article from an older version of the site into my text editor and did a text comparison, line by line, one sentence at a time.

From what remains on the website today, (62 sentences in the original posting), there are 12 sentences that have been edited and another 13 that have been completely removed. Far more than just what was in the OP is edited, if you really take the time to compare the previous article with the one that is there today.

However, in a side-by-side reading of each posting, the message has not changed. What has been removed in these edits and deletions are references to the name "Emma" and/or any reference to the fact that this was a female angel.

I'm only speculating since I obviously have no firsthad information, but I sincerely doubt that the focus of that article was ever intended to be Emma or female angels, which may well be the reason for the edits, since the Internet has gone into a tizzy with the number of people all worked up about female angels and "Emma".

That said, it does indeed appear dishonest and/or deceptive to take an article that has been available for 5 years and edit it with no explanation, particularly since one of the edits is a quote of what God said to Bentley. If my above speculation has any merit at all, then certainly the Fresh Fire website could have handled it better.

So, that brings me back to the old saying "eat the hay and leave the sticks". Since, contrary to popular belief, I've never seen Bentley as anything more than an imperfect vessel being used of God, this doesn't really throw me. Some of the things I've heard from Bentley are right on the money. Other things are kinda out in la la land. And so, instead of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, I try to eat the hay and leave the sticks, a lot like I do with many posters here on CF...

Anyway, let the cries of "gullibility" and "blindness" commence!

 

[BenAdam]

At the risk of being called gullible and worse, let me try to explain why this doesn't really get me too worked up...

First, I don't know when or why this article was edited. I took some time and did some research at the Internet Wayback Machine to look at previous versions of the website and article. You can do this yourself also at http://web.archive.org. From what I can tell, the article has also been shortened drastically from its original posting.

Second, I pulled the article from an older version of the site into my text editor and did a text comparison, line by line, one sentence at a time.

From what remains on the website today, (62 sentences in the original posting), there are 12 sentences that have been edited and another 13 that have been completely removed. Far more than just what was in the OP is edited, if you really take the time to compare the previous article with the one that is there today.

However, in a side-by-side reading of each posting, the message has not changed. What has been removed in these edits and deletions are references to the name "Emma" and/or any reference to the fact that this was a female angel.

I'm only speculating since I obviously have no firsthad information, but I sincerely doubt that the focus of that article was ever intended to be Emma or female angels, which may well be the reason for the edits, since the Internet has gone into a tizzy with the number of people all worked up about female angels and "Emma".

That said, it does indeed appear dishonest and/or deceptive to take an article that has been available for 5 years and edit it with no explanation, particularly since one of the edits is a quote of what God said to Bentley. If my above speculation has any merit at all, then certainly the Fresh Fire website could have handled it better.

So, that brings me back to the old saying "eat the hay and leave the sticks". Since, contrary to popular belief, I've never seen Bentley as anything more than an imperfect vessel being used of God, this doesn't really throw me. Some of the things I've heard from Bentley are right on the money. Other things are kinda out in la la land. And so, instead of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, I try to eat the hay and leave the sticks, a lot like I do with many posters here on CF...

Anyway, let the cries of "gullibility" and "blindness" commence!

Although I don't come to the same conclusion as you Pete, I think you are resonable and fairminded in this post. I would rep you but don't have any to give right now.

 

[Watchman4hm]

Sheesh, anything to justify self!

 

[Amaryllismayfly]

Todd Bentley explains why he edited it on his site. I am not defending him, but he has an explanation.

 

[probinson]

Sheesh, anything to justify self!

I think I prophesied this post just minutes before you made it!

 

[Watchman4hm]

I think I prophesied this post just minutes before you made it!

Just trying to help you out Pete....But it does amaze me how much you want to make sure everyone hears you...lol..after all these years too..all the reports..I mean youve seen it all firsthand...lol..hehehe

 

[probinson]

Todd Bentley explains why he edited it on his site. I am not defending him, but he has an explanation.

Would you mind providing the link to the explanation? I just glanced quickly at his site, and I didn't see it anywhere.

Thanks!

 

[Amaryllismayfly]

There is a lot here~
http://www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Id=1059&pid=993

the part of editing is the third to last paragraph I think, entitled when did the devil change his plan.

 

[Simon Peter]

There is a lot here~
http://www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Id=1059&pid=993

the part of editing is the third to last paragraph I think, entitled when did the devil change his plan.

What Todd says is this:

From what I've been hearing, my heart is saddened because critical people are bringing more attention to the supposed "works of the devil" in my life, ...
For this reason, I asked my staff to remove from our website, articles that are causing such strife and division and deterring the Body from the very real and pressing focus of these last days.

Either this mention of removing articles has nothing to do with the doctored article of the OP, or he is misleading people yet again!

 

[irenemcg]

At the risk of being called gullible and worse, let me try to explain why this doesn't really get me too worked up...

First, I don't know when or why this article was edited. I took some time and did some research at the Internet Wayback Machine to look at previous versions of the website and article. You can do this yourself also at http://web.archive.org. From what I can tell, the article has also been shortened drastically from its original posting.

Second, I pulled the article from an older version of the site into my text editor and did a text comparison, line by line, one sentence at a time.

From what remains on the website today, (62 sentences in the original posting), there are 12 sentences that have been edited and another 13 that have been completely removed. Far more than just what was in the OP is edited, if you really take the time to compare the previous article with the one that is there today.

However, in a side-by-side reading of each posting, the message has not changed. What has been removed in these edits and deletions are references to the name "Emma" and/or any reference to the fact that this was a female angel.

I'm only speculating since I obviously have no firsthad information, but I sincerely doubt that the focus of that article was ever intended to be Emma or female angels, which may well be the reason for the edits, since the Internet has gone into a tizzy with the number of people all worked up about female angels and "Emma".

That said, it does indeed appear dishonest and/or deceptive to take an article that has been available for 5 years and edit it with no explanation, particularly since one of the edits is a quote of what God said to Bentley. If my above speculation has any merit at all, then certainly the Fresh Fire website could have handled it better.

So, that brings me back to the old saying "eat the hay and leave the sticks". Since, contrary to popular belief, I've never seen Bentley as anything more than an imperfect vessel being used of God, this doesn't really throw me. Some of the things I've heard from Bentley are right on the money. Other things are kinda out in la la land. And so, instead of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, I try to eat the hay and leave the sticks, a lot like I do with many posters here on CF...

Anyway, let the cries of "gullibility" and "blindness" commence!

I believe Todd has mentioned quite publically that he withdrew the Emma stuff in Lakeland.

 

[Yekcidmij]

There is a lot here~
http://www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Id=1059&pid=993

the part of editing is the third to last paragraph I think, entitled when did the devil change his plan.

When Did the Devil Change His Plan?

From what I've been hearing, my heart is saddened because critical people are bringing more attention to the supposed "works of the devil" in my life, and here in Lakeland than to the very real and wondrous works of God. Too much credit is being given to the devil and to man to the detriment of God's sovereignty and power. Some are even attributing good and wonderful manifestations of God's loving response to His children, to the devil!

I don't know if it's "from the devil" or not, it's more likely from his own head I think. The highlighted portion is what's in question, and it's much easier to just declare that it's from God - at least nobody will question it then. Not everything that is "very real/good and wonderful" is all it appears on the surface. Anyone with 1/3 of a brain knows better.

And when does God change His plan from actually healing people to pretend-healing some people?

But this exalts no one but themselves when they choose to make a ministry out of their judgments and criticisms in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Oh my goodness. Now he wants to very subtly hint that people against him are using Jesus' name wrongly. Well, I seriously doubt you could characterize everyone that disagrees with TB like that, but I'm sure there are some that have a sole ministry to point fingers at TB. Anyways, if we don't use God given wisdom and make judgments and criticisims when they are needed, then we are unwise and quite bluntly, just plain stupid.

Since when did the devil come to heal the sick, raise the dead, open deaf ears and eyes, lead people to salvation in Jesus, or preach that the Kingdom of God is at hand? Just when did the devil change his plan? Jesus promised life and life more abundantly, and that's the fruit that we're seeing in Lakeland.

I have yet to see him explain why his "miracles" (if they are indeed real) point to Jesus. His reasoning is like this: sign/wonder happened -> therefore Jesus. It doesn't work like that. Jesus warned of lying signs and wonders. This isn't brain surgery. I have yet to see him preach about the Kingdom of God. I have yet to see him explain what salvation is. He just assumes that because something inexplicable might happen people are "saved". Saved from what TB? Miracles don't save you. Signs don't save you. Wonders don't save you. Healings don't save you. Visitations don't save you. Angels don't save you. Experiece doesn't save you. All I have seen, and unfortunately I have crucified my free time to watch him, is a stage show with a guy running around screaming and yelling, shaking on the floor, saying "bam you're healed", "god is moving", "I feel the presence of the holy ghost"...etc.. etc.. That doesn't save people! It may save them from a night of peace and sanity, but that's about it.

For this reason, I asked my staff to remove from our website, articles that are causing such strife and division and deterring the Body from the very real and pressing focus of these last days. Jesus wept when people missed the purpose. Every blessing flowed and people received, but they missed the purpose. Don't miss the purpose!

Yea. The real purpose. Don't miss it.

Again I emphasize, it's good and right to search out the Truth and to discern the spirits, God expects us to do so. Nevertheless, it's also important to do so outside of one's comfortable box, not mistaking discomfort for discernment, and realizing that God is not only a God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but also a God of new things. Realize also, that if you spend time in His presence, in fellowship with Him, and if daily, you put on the full armor of God and spend time in His Word; you'll be more comfortable erring on the side of extravagance rather than quench the Spirit. A body of believers without the Holy Spirit is a breathless, lifeless body.

It's important to test for truth outside of your 'comfort box'? What the heck does a 'comfort box' have to do with testing for truth?

"A God of new things"....hmmm....."err on the side of extravagance".....so in other words, give him license to act like an idiot or you quench the spirit and you're a lifeless body. I'm afraid not TB. The Spirit indwells each believer whether they think you're a clown or not - and you are a clown - and I didn't just quench the Spirit by saying that.

 

[Simon Peter]

I believe Todd has mentioned quite publically that he withdrew the Emma stuff in Lakeland.

What does this mean?

Did Todd confess, say he was in error and was misled by Bob Jones and a familiar spirit?

Or does 'withdrew the Emma stuff' mean he's taken it off of his site because he doesn't want people to see it?

Or does 'withdrew' actually mean he's 'rewritten' it so people won't know what he really believes?

 

[Tamara224]

What does this mean?

Did Todd confess, say he was in error and was misled by Bob Jones and a familiar spirit?

Or does 'withdrew the Emma stuff' mean he's taken it off of his site because he doesn't want people to see it?

Or does 'withdrew' actually mean he's 'rewritten' it so people won't know what he really believes?

He claims in the link that he withdrew stuff because it was causing strife because people were questioning angelic visitations and his doctrine.

But why leave the stuff about angels at all and just remove the name of the angel? Why defend himself in one paragraph as to angelic visitation, but then remove the name of the angel when people question him about it?

Why is he unapologetic about it and yet still removes it?

I'm sorry, but this is very fishy.

 

[Simon Peter]

He claims in the link that he withdrew stuff because it was causing strife because people were questioning angelic visitations and his doctrine.

But why leave the stuff about angels at all and just remove the name of the angel? Why defend himself in one paragraph as to angelic visitation, but then remove the name of the angel when people question him about it?

Why is he unapologetic about it and yet still removes it?

I'm sorry, but this is very fishy.

I agree.

What he claims in his site is that he instructed his staff to remove articles that are causing strife. But at least in the instance of the Emma teaching, we know this is not the case. The article wasn't removed, it was doctored.