Todd Bentley

[Biblicist]

Tobias,

Personally, I dodge the issues over doctrine because I expect they are mostly just denominational differences. I don't care to hear anybody's anti-charismatic or anti-NAR hate slung around again, so I sidestep the issue.

I've always seen the big issue as an unbelief in the possibility that God can use an imperfect man for a while, until the sin overtakes him and God can use him no longer. It's like it's supposed to be understood, that if any sin, or any doctrinal error is pointed out, then it proves that the Anointing we all felt on the guy was not real but fake.

At least now you are being honest. Now that you have openly stated that you do not care about truth and that personal experience or more correctly with hype is your standard then there is really nothing that we can say to you. You can take heart that there are many others out there who have jumped on the same bandwagon as you have but as history and experience has all too frequently shown it is a bandwagon where the wheels keep falling off and people suffer greatly.

Maybe you are simply content to watch the travelling sound and light shows and if you are lucky you might even be able to hear about how these ‘ministries’ have been able to arrange for a few angelic visitations.

No wonder the Church is struggling to encounter the Spirit of God when the spirit of this world is so prevalent within todays church.

 

[Biblicist]

A farewell,

I think that it is now time to say farewell to the forum; it has certainly been an interesting experience and I have learned a lot from many. For me, it does seem that maybe it is simply following the way of things in that we are moving just a bit too far away from the centrality of Scripture and of the Spirit and are a bit too inclined to accept esoteric practices; as for me I think that this means that my own time is up and of course we all have to carefully assess how we spend our time.

I trust that you will all gain much from your time on the forums.

Regards,

Barry

 

[MadameGuyon]

The above post is a classic example of a "strawman", as in, you create an imaginary opponent and then argue against that opponent. Sorry, but you are wrong on several counts.

This was not my intention.

You say "obviously, you are one of those that believes angels and men have NO encounters today". Actually, what is obvious is that I DO believe in such things, because I stated that plainly earlier in this thread. What is obvious is that you have jumped to a rash conclusion and now you have egg on your face.

So you believe that angels and men do have encounters but that the angelic encounters that Todd had were wrong. Can you give one example?



I do not object to Bentley teaching about angels. Angels are real, both in the Bible and today. Angels are sent by God to interact with mankind. I believe all of this. However, what I object to is Bentley teaching false doctrines, lying about his encounters with angels, and also being very unBiblical in his supposed "encounters" with angels. Oh, and I object to him being "restored" to ministry in what appears to be the most unBiblical way possible.

Again, give an example of one his 'lying about his encounters' or 'unbiblical encounters'

Ironic that you bring up the end times. Do you know what the end times will be like? *Pssst* I'll give you a hint: it won't be a time when people disbelieve miracles. It won't be a time when the church is led astray by disbelief. The Scriptures say that in the end times, Christians will be led astray by SIGNS AND MIRACLES. Dun dun dun! So, if you're so worried about the end times, then you'd best stand right next to me and be on your watch against false teaching like the stuff Bentley promoted.

I'll ignore your condescending tone here, and just state the obvious....that the devil will need to counterfit end-time signs and miracles because the REAL ones will be in abundant supply.

Especially ironic that in the post of mine that you quoted, I was talking about this very thing: I'm fed up with the pro-Bentley crowd dodging the issue of his falsehoods.

Give us one or two specific lies or false teachings and I'll address them.

 

[Tobias]

Tobias,
At least now you are being honest. Now that you have openly stated that you do not care about truth and that personal experience or more correctly with hype is your standard then there is really nothing that we can say to you. You can take heart that there are many others out there who have jumped on the same bandwagon as you have but as history and experience has all too frequently shown it is a bandwagon where the wheels keep falling off and people suffer greatly.

Maybe you are simply content to watch the travelling sound and light shows and if you are lucky you might even be able to hear about how these ‘ministries’ have been able to arrange for a few angelic visitations.

No wonder the Church is struggling to encounter the Spirit of God when the spirit of this world is so prevalent within todays church.

My theology is quite simple, really. When God speaks, I listen!


Matthew 11:15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear

Rev 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.


I don't really care who He uses to speak through. I don't take the time to check the person out fully, like I'm expecting them to be my new spokesperson from God. I take what is said, and move on.

Balaam heard from God through his donkey. How was he expected to verify that his ass was holy enough to speak on behalf of God? Check for blemishes, or see if it was a firstborn? Sometimes we just need to know how to recognize our Lord's voice, and not spend so much time evaluating the messenger!

 

[mrmccormo]

So you believe that angels and men do have encounters but that the angelic encounters that Todd had were wrong. Can you give one example?

One easy-peasy example is Emma, which is well-known both by his detractors and his fanbase. There are others, several of which concern "prophecies" delivered to him by angels that turned out to be false.

Again, give an example of one his 'lying about his encounters' or 'unbiblical encounters'

The "Hotel Incident" is another easy-peasy, well-known example of Bentley lying about his encounters, or at the very least, fudging the details. As mentioned above, Bentley made several prophecies that turned out to be completely false. As far as 'unBiblical encounters' go, we are commanded to be wary of spirits, to test the spirits, and to not accept everything that angels say on their word alone. Bentley applied none of the typical checks and balanced that even other Charismatic contemporaries would have been careful to apply to any "angelic encounter". I also consider services where Bentley spent the better part of an hour shouting "angels! Angels! Angels! Angels!" while trying to summon angels to be rather unBiblical, but I'll let that one slide.

I'll ignore your condescending tone here, and just state the obvious....that the devil will need to counterfit end-time signs and miracles because the REAL ones will be in abundant supply.

Why is that "obvious"? You've asked me to prove my points, so now I'm going to ask you to prove yours: where in Scripture does it say that real signs and miracles will be in abundant supply in the last days?

I would also like you to prove another point: show me how Bentley qualifies for being a "prophet" or an "apostle". According to Scripture, he does not qualify. Also, show me how Bentley qualifies for being "restored to ministry". A man like him that has been caught in sin, caught in lies, and unrepentant of these things should not be "restored" to ministry according to the Bible, but maybe I'm just missing that one special verse that tells you we should "restore" him. Oh...I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you are trying to restore him, because you're not. It's actually Bentley's bosses (who made a pretty penny off of him) who pushed for the whole "restoration to ministry" thing. Interesting...

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

My thoughts on Todd Bentley:

While in the Lakeland meetings, the worship was some of the most angelic and reverant that I have ever experienced. There were moments when the worship team just stopped playing because the crowd was caught up in the presence of God and angelic sounding worship was coming from the lips of people there. It was heavenly. I still remember it to this day, several years later, how glorious it was.

His preaching was excellent. He said nothing, while I was there that disturbed my theology, but I admit that all his tattoo's were very different than what I was used to in a preacher on a platform. He is definitely not a polished sophisicated guy, having come to the Lord from the streets. I think we better get used to this, as God is saving a lot of 'street' kids these days and they are bold and radical, just what we need for this decadent evil time inwhich we live.

Since Lakeland, I have seen and heard Todd several times as he has visited the church I attend. I see changes in him since his fall from grace in Lakeland. He seems much more mature and very humble. Still very bold preaching, but much more meek in character.

As for visitations from angels, this is becoming quite common in certain church circles these days who accept that God is restoring the office of Prophet and Apostle. For those who don't, the idea of visitations is false doctrine. Each must make up their own mind. But I will only add..does anyone think that we the Church will be able to face the present increasing darkness on this earth without the kind of Pentecost walk and experiences that the early church had? Much that the early church experienced was lost during the Dark Ages and is being restored in our day. The charismatic movement wasn't the end of what God is doing in the earth today.

Your post is very interesting because you are describing the Todd Bentley meetings after actually being a part of them. I just wonder if the other critics on this thread have been to an actual meeting, or are they getting their information from second-hand gossip?

it would be useful to get a consensus opinion from more people who actually went to the meetings.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oscarr,
Even though I understand your sentiments for suggesting what you have, I would probably lean more in the other direction in that we should discern a given individuals ministry first by his character and his theology. Having been in many meetings since the early 70’s where I have experienced not only the presence of God but where I have also experienced the presence of the ‘hype’ or atmosphere within a highly expectant group of believers – the two at times can be very hard to differentiate between.

If we had of known of Bentley’s wickedness and odd doctrines before he walked onto the stage then undoubtedly we may have had a chance of adverting much of the damage that has come out of his so called ministry. A clear mind is best maintained by keeping our distance from the ‘atmosphere’, as this can help us to avoid being confused when the Spirit of God does seem to be working upon individuals in spite of the wickedness and evil that may be present within the venue coordinator.

I don't think that Todd Bentley has come out to Australia or NZ so you might not have had the experience of being present in his meetings to get a first-hand idea of what is really happening. If he came out to NZ I would go to his meeting so I can make a more reliable assessment of him and his ministry.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Personally, I have no doubt he's talking to angels, just of a fallen sort.

Same with Joyner, who "restored" Bentley. He's also telling about his discussions with similar angels as well.

I am reading Rick Joyner's book on the Prophetic Ministry and there is nothing in it that is questionable. In fact, he makes a lot of sense. Have you ever emailed Rick and put your questions and concerns directly to him? I thought that would be the right thing to do before accusing him of talking to demons - that's what you mean by "of a fallen sort", isn't it?

 

[Yitzchak]

Personally, I dodge the issues over doctrine because I expect they are mostly just denominational differences. I don't care to hear anybody's anti-charismatic or anti-NAR hate slung around again, so I sidestep the issue.

I've always seen the big issue as an unbelief in the possibility that God can use an imperfect man for a while, until the sin overtakes him and God can use him no longer. It's like it's supposed to be understood, that if any sin, or any doctrinal error is pointed out, then it proves that the Anointing we all felt on the guy was not real but fake.


However, I am starting to get curious as to what these horrible doctrinal errors are. I'm starting to second guess myself, and my ability to recognize them when I hear them. Though probably, they are nothing more than your own personal objections to stuff that is taught by thousands of churches across the nation. In which case, expecting Bentley to humbly repent is a bit far fetched!

I think that it is a conservative versus liberal issue. Not a Charismatic versus non charismatic issue. Of course there are many ways to be either conservative or liberal. There are also degrees of liberal or conservative.

People can be liberal or conservative about doctrine. Liberal or conservative about Sanctification issues ,Liberal or conservative about financial issues , etc. What appears liberal to one person appears as moderate to another.

I have noticed that Bentley is somewhat liberal about many of his doctrinal views. Even many of his stories and testimonies tend to exagerate and play up the dramatic element rather than an understated conservative telling of the events.

The subject of angels is one good example of the liberal tendencies. Divorce and remarriage would be another example. Style of dress , including tatoos and piercings would be another example. Even extended alone time with members of the opposite sex for neutral purposes is an issue that one can take a conservative or liberal stance on.

Even issues like allowing manifestations that push the limits or accepting at face value testimonies of odd supernatural experiences could be considered as a liberal position.


I would classify Bentley as a Liberal Charismatic. There are pros and cons to being more liberal. It does allow a bit more flexibility and appeals to a wider base. The supporters of more liberal Charismatic practices often cite not wanting to quench what the Holy Spirit might want to do. Bentley is a bit more reckless and chooses to not play it safe. Some really like this and see the good side of that. Others see the danger in it.

I think that even Bentley's supporters would have to admit that he is hardly considered a conservative. He is controversial because he is more liberal on a lot of things. To put it bluntly , he is more likely to do something weird or unexpected which makes some people uncomfortable.

Obviously millions of Charismatics like the freedom that a more liberal approach brings. We all have to make up our own minds on that. Personally , I feel uncomfortable with how far Bentley pushes things. It is not my style or comfort zone. I tend to lean more towards being conservative on most issues. Although I like to consider myself more of a moderate.

 

[Tobias]

Samson was very liberal when it came to interpreting and obeying the Law. Yet at the same time, conservative in his keeping of the Nazarite vow. I think it is hard to see from the outside just what issues it is a person is being cautious on, because that is the foundation of their relationship with God. God didn't abandon Samson for taking a foreign wife or sleeping with Philistine prostitutes, but for breaking the Nazarite vow -- which is something most Israelites were not expected to follow.


Whether we are liberal or conservative, it still is a matter of obedience. For some, God has asked them to walk a path that includes following ministers that are considered radicals and unsafe. Yet the only safety there is, is in obedience to the Master. By encouraging them to "play it safe" and not listen to these God ordained leaders (who may be under extreme fire from others for unorthodox teaching), these people are left unshepherded and unprotected by their disobedience.

Others are asked to walk a more conservative path; but feel it burdensome and wish to compromise some of the details with the World. Here we have true liberals, who water down the Gospel in hopes of it becoming more acceptable to the unrepentant sinner.

 

[MadameGuyon]

One easy-peasy example is Emma, which is well-known both by his detractors and his fanbase. There are others, several of which concern "prophecies" delivered to him by angels that turned out to be false....

Okay, let's talk about Emma.

Most people would say there is no Biblical precedent for believing in a female angel. But Zechariah 5:9 gives us one...."Then I looked up--and there before me were two women, with the wind in their wings! They had wings like those of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between heaven and earth."

Now if that verse said.."and there before me were two men...with wings", then people would have no problem identifying them as angelic creatures. But the verse says 'two women....with wings'.

Notice something in that verse. The two women with wings were carrying something and doing something that was a symbolic, prophetic act of what was a reality to soon occur.

When Todd Bentley saw Emma in the church where he was holding a meeting, the angel held bags of gold dust (carrying something) and was spreading them around (doing something) in the midst of the congregation. Todd asked God what this meant and reported that God said revelation and prosperity was being released to this people (reality soon to occur).

But I realize that if a person's mind is already made up on this issue, this precedent in scripture will not change anything. They will go right on bashing Todd Bentley.

 

[Complete in Christ]

Obviously to speak with the dead it doesn't sound right....but in my mind comes the instance where Jesus talked with Moses and Elijah.

 

[mrmccormo]

Okay, let's talk about Emma.

Most people would say there is no Biblical precedent for believing in a female angel. But Zechariah 5:9 gives us one...."Then I looked up--and there before me were two women, with the wind in their wings! They had wings like those of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between heaven and earth."

Now if that verse said.."and there before me were two men...with wings", then people would have no problem identifying them as angelic creatures. But the verse says 'two women....with wings'.

Notice something in that verse. The two women with wings were carrying something and doing something that was a symbolic, prophetic act of what was a reality to soon occur.

When Todd Bentley saw Emma in the church where he was holding a meeting, the angel held bags of gold dust (carrying something) and was spreading them around (doing something) in the midst of the congregation. Todd asked God what this meant and reported that God said revelation and prosperity was being released to this people (reality soon to occur).

But I realize that if a person's mind is already made up on this issue, this precedent in scripture will not change anything. They will go right on bashing Todd Bentley.

Red Herring. I have nothing against the concept of a female angel. I can't say either way that they do or do not exist, but I'd bet that somewhere in heaven there are angels that look "female", even though we know angels are neither male nor female in gender. That isn't the crux of the issue, though.

First of all, there is no word whatsoever as to what Bentley did do (or did not do) to discern that "Emma" was from God. There is no discernment of spirits. No testing of spirits. Nothing. Even if we give Bentley the benefit of the doubt, he is not being a good example to his followers. As a leader, he should be setting the example of testing all spirits and messengers.

Second of fall, Emma's involvement is...suspect. Bob Jones said that Emma resided in Kansas City and helped bring about the prophetic movement in the '80s. Okay, that's fine. Then, we are told that Emma is "a mothering-type angel that helped nurture the prophetic as it broke out". Now, this is a bit odd. Since when did angels need to "nuture" the Holy Spirit as it breaks out? After all, "the prophetic" comes from the Holy Spirit, yes? Later, Bentley says "When she came, she began to mentor, nurture and opened up a prophetic well. The people in the church began having trances and visions and the pastor began getting words of knowledge and moving in healing"

Before in the story, there's some cause for suspicion. However, this is a bit disturbing. Why is an angel bringing about trances, visions, words of knowledge, and healing? These are not the domain of angels but of the Holy Spirit. There is never a place in Scripture where angels are "nurturing" the Holy Spirit nor bringing about these manifestations of the Spirit.

Bentley has also made references to other "angels" that he has seen. One of them was named "Healing Revelation" or something like that, according to Bentley.

Anyway, based on your posts and the posts of some others here, I doubt you'll care. You put your faith in the material, in the fantastic, in the touchy-feely-goodie emotions of all this stuff. All I can say (as someone who has gone down that road) is that it won't last unless you keep chasing after super-preachers, and history indicates that you'll be burned by liars, charlatans, and frauds over and over again while chasing after your spiritual fix.

Just because something feels spiritual, doesn't mean it is spiritual. And just because something is spiritual doesn't meant that it is from Christ.

 

[Ajax 777]

Anyway, based on your posts and the posts of some others here, I doubt you'll care. You put your faith in the material, in the fantastic, in the touchy-feely-goodie emotions of all this stuff. All I can say (as someone who has gone down that road) is that it won't last unless you keep chasing after super-preachers, and history indicates that you'll be burned by liars, charlatans, and frauds over and over again while chasing after your spiritual fix.

Just because something feels spiritual, doesn't mean it is spiritual. And just because something is spiritual doesn't meant that it is from Christ.

This is why I mourn.

 

[Tobias]

Red Herring. I have nothing against the concept of a female angel. I can't say either way that they do or do not exist, but I'd bet that somewhere in heaven there are angels that look "female", even though we know angels are neither male nor female in gender. That isn't the crux of the issue, though.

First of all, there is no word whatsoever as to what Bentley did do (or did not do) to discern that "Emma" was from God. There is no discernment of spirits. No testing of spirits. Nothing. Even if we give Bentley the benefit of the doubt, he is not being a good example to his followers. As a leader, he should be setting the example of testing all spirits and messengers.

Second of fall, Emma's involvement is...suspect. Bob Jones said that Emma resided in Kansas City and helped bring about the prophetic movement in the '80s. Okay, that's fine. Then, we are told that Emma is "a mothering-type angel that helped nurture the prophetic as it broke out". Now, this is a bit odd. Since when did angels need to "nuture" the Holy Spirit as it breaks out? After all, "the prophetic" comes from the Holy Spirit, yes? Later, Bentley says "When she came, she began to mentor, nurture and opened up a prophetic well. The people in the church began having trances and visions and the pastor began getting words of knowledge and moving in healing"

Before in the story, there's some cause for suspicion. However, this is a bit disturbing. Why is an angel bringing about trances, visions, words of knowledge, and healing? These are not the domain of angels but of the Holy Spirit. There is never a place in Scripture where angels are "nurturing" the Holy Spirit nor bringing about these manifestations of the Spirit.

Bentley has also made references to other "angels" that he has seen. One of them was named "Healing Revelation" or something like that, according to Bentley.

Anyway, based on your posts and the posts of some others here, I doubt you'll care. You put your faith in the material, in the fantastic, in the touchy-feely-goodie emotions of all this stuff. All I can say (as someone who has gone down that road) is that it won't last unless you keep chasing after super-preachers, and history indicates that you'll be burned by liars, charlatans, and frauds over and over again while chasing after your spiritual fix.

Just because something feels spiritual, doesn't mean it is spiritual. And just because something is spiritual doesn't meant that it is from Christ.

So when you said: "I'm fed up with the pro-Bentley crowd dodging the issue of his falsehoods," you aren't concerned with the adultery, you do believe in angels, and you don't care if the angels are female? What exactly are we dodging again???

You have reservations about the idea that an angel can teach people about the prophetic, right? That an angel, who's job is to carry messages from God and deliver them to people, can't be used to take things a step further and teach this skill to humans?

The way you talked I thought there were biblical problems with Bentley's doctrine. Or that scripture would at least be a part of what you had to offer in opposition to what he said or did. But it seems, that your theology simply cannot accept the possibility that something could happen in our day that didn't already happen to someone else previously in the Bible? That God is limited by what was done in the Bible, and may only speak the exact same words to us again, and do the exact same things; because that is the only way something now a days would be considered "biblical"? (I know, I know, red herring. But if you'd actually state your position we wouldn't have to guess and spend so much time arguing points that you never claimed to believe!)


Where does it say in the Bible that angels cannot teach humans? (Oh wait, I don't think Bentley claimed to be taught anything by her, or did he?) Where does the Bible limit the works of angels, or lay out the proper format for "discerning" an angel? Do you fault Bentley because he didn't tell us how he asked the angel if Jesus had actually come in the flesh or not? (Which btw, was a question to ask humans concerning the gnostic heresy, and doesn't really cover any of the major problems we deal with today! )

Oh, and seriously, how are your issues with Bentley we are discussing, anything but petty differences???

 

[mrmccormo]

So when you said: "I'm fed up with the pro-Bentley crowd dodging the issue of his falsehoods," you aren't concerned with the adultery, you do believe in angels, and you don't care if the angels are female? What exactly are we dodging again???

You have reservations about the idea that an angel can teach people about the prophetic, right? That an angel, who's job is to carry messages from God and deliver them to people, can't be used to take things a step further and teach this skill to humans?

The way you talked I thought there were biblical problems with Bentley's doctrine. Or that scripture would at least be a part of what you had to offer in opposition to what he said or did. But it seems, that your theology simply cannot accept the possibility that something could happen in our day that didn't already happen to someone else previously in the Bible? That God is limited by what was done in the Bible, and may only speak the exact same words to us again, and do the exact same things; because that is the only way something now a days would be considered "biblical"? (I know, I know, red herring. But if you'd actually state your position we wouldn't have to guess and spend so much time arguing points that you never claimed to believe!)


Where does it say in the Bible that angels cannot teach humans? (Oh wait, I don't think Bentley claimed to be taught anything by her, or did he?) Where does the Bible limit the works of angels, or lay out the proper format for "discerning" an angel? Do you fault Bentley because he didn't tell us how he asked the angel if Jesus had actually come in the flesh or not? (Which btw, was a question to ask humans concerning the gnostic heresy, and doesn't really cover any of the major problems we deal with today! )

Oh, and seriously, how are your issues with Bentley we are discussing, anything but petty differences???

I will put it plainly once again. Bentley was lying and promoting doctrines based on those lies (the very definition of "false doctrine" if I've ever seen it).

A recurring theme in this thread (and in a few others) is the faith some people are putting into the "possibility". Could an angel deliver a teaching? Eh, I suppose, but why would they need to if we've already been given the teaching within the Church and within Scripture? Heck, why would we need an angel to teach us if the Spirit of Truth leads and guides us in all truth? Why does the angel have to enter the equation? You're willing to entertain the possibility, but I am compelled to put this "possibility" through the lens of Scripture and Truth before I entertain it. We are told that if even an angel was to bring us a message contrary to that passed down by the apostles, that angel would be accursed.

We are told that false prophets have gone out into Christ's people. We are told that there will be false teachers and false teachings who lead people astray. But where are we told to keep a listening ear open because angels might want to instruct us? Wasn't David instructed day and night in his heart by the Lord, not angels? And that was PRIOR to the Holy Spirit, so why would spirit-filled people today need an angel to deliver doctrinal/instructional messages? I'm just curious because I ain't seeing it in Scripture.

My theology can accept something that has occured outside of the Bible. For instance, I believe in the miraculous things that occured to our early church fathers, and to the Desert Fathers in ~400 a.d. The problem is that the Bible seems to be pointing in the opposite direction that you want it to: the Bible continually cautions us to be careful of spirits, of angels, and of false teachers. The Bible continually tells us that signs and wonders are not the fruit you should be looking at, and it even says that signs and wonders will be used by Satan to lead astray faithful Christians. That's what the Bible says. I'm confident that God is not limited by the Bible and that He can do many miraculous things beyond what the Bible has recorded. I'm also confident that God would not contradict Himself by telling us in the Bible that His Spirit will lead and guide us into all truth and then 2,000 years later say "Eh, I'm a bit tired today. Emma has some spare time. Lemme give my Holy Spirit a rest and then I'll send Emma to teach you some stuff". The idea is absurd! Since Bentley and his bosses (like Rick Joyner) and their ministries are so chock-"full of the Spirit" and all that, I completely reject the idea that they would need an angel to give them a message. If the Spirit is near and dear to them, then just perk up your ears, folks, and listen to Him. The overblown emphasis on angels throughout Bentley's ministry reeks of mysticism and New Age theology. There is not a single chapter, not a single book in the Old or New Testaments, nor in any annals of any segment of the early Christian church that placed such an extreme and obsessed emphasis on angels as Todd Bentley did. The only other groups that have done that were labeled heretics and gnostics.

The excuses necessary to prop up Bentley and his ministry and those who promoted him have formed a massive, grotesque edifice of double-talk, side-stepping, and turning a blind eye to blatant falsehoods. It's a modern-day "idol" in every sense of the word. This idol has been many years in the making, and it continues to grow. You can continue defending the idol.

Or you can turn to Christ - your Savior, the giver of the Holy Spirit that I hope dwells in you - and abandon the falsehoods that wolves have used to capture your attention and your time.

 

[Tobias]

I will put it plainly once again. Bentley was lying and promoting doctrines based on those lies (the very definition of "false doctrine" if I've ever seen it).

A recurring theme in this thread (and in a few others) is the faith some people are putting into the "possibility". Could an angel deliver a teaching? Eh, I suppose, but why would they need to if we've already been given the teaching within the Church and within Scripture? Heck, why would we need an angel to teach us if the Spirit of Truth leads and guides us in all truth? Why does the angel have to enter the equation? You're willing to entertain the possibility, but I am compelled to put this "possibility" through the lens of Scripture and Truth before I entertain it. We are told that if even an angel was to bring us a message contrary to that passed down by the apostles, that angel would be accursed.

We are told that false prophets have gone out into Christ's people. We are told that there will be false teachers and false teachings who lead people astray. But where are we told to keep a listening ear open because angels might want to instruct us? Wasn't David instructed day and night in his heart by the Lord, not angels? And that was PRIOR to the Holy Spirit, so why would spirit-filled people today need an angel to deliver doctrinal/instructional messages? I'm just curious because I ain't seeing it in Scripture.

My theology can accept something that has occured outside of the Bible. For instance, I believe in the miraculous things that occured to our early church fathers, and to the Desert Fathers in ~400 a.d. The problem is that the Bible seems to be pointing in the opposite direction that you want it to: the Bible continually cautions us to be careful of spirits, of angels, and of false teachers. The Bible continually tells us that signs and wonders are not the fruit you should be looking at, and it even says that signs and wonders will be used by Satan to lead astray faithful Christians. That's what the Bible says. I'm confident that God is not limited by the Bible and that He can do many miraculous things beyond what the Bible has recorded. I'm also confident that God would not contradict Himself by telling us in the Bible that His Spirit will lead and guide us into all truth and then 2,000 years later say "Eh, I'm a bit tired today. Emma has some spare time. Lemme give my Holy Spirit a rest and then I'll send Emma to teach you some stuff". The idea is absurd! Since Bentley and his bosses (like Rick Joyner) and their ministries are so chock-"full of the Spirit" and all that, I completely reject the idea that they would need an angel to give them a message. If the Spirit is near and dear to them, then just perk up your ears, folks, and listen to Him. The overblown emphasis on angels throughout Bentley's ministry reeks of mysticism and New Age theology. There is not a single chapter, not a single book in the Old or New Testaments, nor in any annals of any segment of the early Christian church that placed such an extreme and obsessed emphasis on angels as Todd Bentley did. The only other groups that have done that were labeled heretics and gnostics.

The excuses necessary to prop up Bentley and his ministry and those who promoted him have formed a massive, grotesque edifice of double-talk, side-stepping, and turning a blind eye to blatant falsehoods. It's a modern-day "idol" in every sense of the word. This idol has been many years in the making, and it continues to grow. You can continue defending the idol.

Or you can turn to Christ - your Savior, the giver of the Holy Spirit that I hope dwells in you - and abandon the falsehoods that wolves have used to capture your attention and your time.

So, not a single scripture to support your position against Bentley's doctrine? Not even a little one?

Making personal and suggestive comments concerning my character will not prove your point. I have already stated why I defend Bentley, and only to what extent. If I thought it was spiritually profitable, we could probably talk all day about they guy's personal flaws and be in complete agreement.


I do not fully understand the phenomenon where God uses an individual to minister to His Church. Why He would pick Bentley when He did, I still wonder to this day. But I stand behind my assessment that this is exactly what He did do. Those who question Bentley's integrity and doctrine carve into the possibility of God doing what I know He did, which was use this man for a short while.

If I seem angry, it is because I take offense to those who claim to have damning evidence against him, but really have nothing substantial. Those who do this present themselves as authorities on the matter, whether they imagine themselves as Bible scholars or close acquaintances who have inside knowledge of Bentley's personal affairs. Each time I feel compelled to expose these people and their hyped up exaggeration for what it is.

There are real and valid issues with anyone God uses. These things need to be brought into the light. But the venue for doing so is accompanied with respect; acknowledging what they have done for the Lord despite being human. This is the way the Bible deals with most of our heroes we learn about in Sunday School; and sets a very good example of the proper way to deal with anyone new who comes on the scene, IMO.

 

[mrmccormo]

So, not a single scripture to support your position against Bentley's doctrine? Not even a little one?

Making personal and suggestive comments concerning my character will not prove your point. I have already stated why I defend Bentley, and only to what extent. If I thought it was spiritually profitable, we could probably talk all day about they guy's personal flaws and be in complete agreement.


I do not fully understand the phenomenon where God uses an individual to minister to His Church. Why He would pick Bentley when He did, I still wonder to this day. But I stand behind my assessment that this is exactly what He did do. Those who question Bentley's integrity and doctrine carve into the possibility of God doing what I know He did, which was use this man for a short while.

If I seem angry, it is because I take offense to those who claim to have damning evidence against him, but really have nothing substantial. Those who do this present themselves as authorities on the matter, whether they imagine themselves as Bible scholars or close acquaintances who have inside knowledge of Bentley's personal affairs. Each time I feel compelled to expose these people and their hyped up exaggeration for what it is.

There are real and valid issues with anyone God uses. These things need to be brought into the light. But the venue for doing so is accompanied with respect; acknowledging what they have done for the Lord despite being human. This is the way the Bible deals with most of our heroes we learn about in Sunday School; and sets a very good example of the proper way to deal with anyone new who comes on the scene, IMO.

I'm sorry, but saying "you don't have Scripture? Not one?" comes off as a tad bit ignorant. The New Testament talks consistently about false teachers and false doctrine. Now, if you disagree with my use of those Scriptures, or if you think I interpreted them incorrectly, that's another thing entirely, but trying to discredit my post simply because I didn't provide verse references is the domain of someone who knows they are arguing from a losing position and now they'll try anything to fight back.

But I'll be happy to spend 60 seconds to find the oh-so-difficult-to-find Scripture passages that I paraphrased in my above post. A ten-second "False teachers Bible verses" search on Google comes up with the following (and more):

Titus 1:10-16
Matt. 7:13-23
2 Cor 11:13-15
Ezekiel 13
Jeremiah 23
2 Tim 4:3-4
Jeremiah 8
2 Peter 2
Mark 13
2 Timothy 3:5

That took me longer to type than it took to find them.

Okay, now that I've offered plenty of Bible verses, let's stop dodging the issue. Bentley's ministry was full of false teaching, and there is no precendent in Scripture of a minister of the Gospel leading people astray as a part of the will of God, unless you mean to admit that God does send a spirit of confusion and blindness to His people when they refuse to turn to Him.

 

[Tobias]

I'm sorry, but saying "you don't have Scripture? Not one?" comes off as a tad bit ignorant. The New Testament talks consistently about false teachers and false doctrine. Now, if you disagree with my use of those Scriptures, or if you think I interpreted them incorrectly, that's another thing entirely, but trying to discredit my post simply because I didn't provide verse references is the domain of someone who knows they are arguing from a losing position and now they'll try anything to fight back.

But I'll be happy to spend 60 seconds to find the oh-so-difficult-to-find Scripture passages that I paraphrased in my above post. A ten-second "False teachers Bible verses" search on Google comes up with the following (and more):

Titus 1:10-16
Matt. 7:13-23
2 Cor 11:13-15
Ezekiel 13
Jeremiah 23
2 Tim 4:3-4
Jeremiah 8
2 Peter 2
Mark 13
2 Timothy 3:5

That took me longer to type than it took to find them.

Okay, now that I've offered plenty of Bible verses, let's stop dodging the issue. Bentley's ministry was full of false teaching, and there is no precendent in Scripture of a minister of the Gospel leading people astray as a part of the will of God, unless you mean to admit that God does send a spirit of confusion and blindness to His people when they refuse to turn to Him.

You do know that's a completely invalid argument, don't you?

"Todd Bentley is a false teacher. And here are a dozen verses proving that false teachers should not be listened to."

Can you see any problems with that statement? Surly I don't have to spell it out for you, do I?

 

[mrmccormo]

You do know that's a completely invalid argument, don't you?

"Todd Bentley is a false teacher. And here are a dozen verses proving that false teachers should not be listened to."

Can you see any problems with that statement? Surly I don't have to spell it out for you, do I?

No,those verses were not just "here are a dozen verses proving that false teachers should not be listened to". The verses also pertain to the character traits of a "wolf"/false teacher (which might as well be a biography for Bentley) as well as instruction not to listen to angels without testing the spirits.

At this point, I'll just say "don't be deceived" and leave it at that. Clearly, you'd like to engage this on an intellectual level based on your questions, yet you refuse to acknowledge the cold, hard facts that have been presented throughout this thread. It tells me that you want to believe what you want to believe, regardless of what might be said to challenge what you believe.

Go for it. Bentley's a false teacher. You want to put your faith in a man with exposed character issues and exposed lies? Be my guest. But don't throw a fit and put on a false air of intellectualism when people don't go along with you.