April 21, 2008...
Ask Away Part 2.5
Jump to Comments
Sorry everyone, I was hoping I could move Ask Away part 2 without doing any damage, but this didn’t happen. I had to move it because it didn’t fit in the tabs without hiding our Vindication of Ernie Gruen page, so here it is as a post.
And oh yeah, I didn’t lose the comments, they are in the first comment of this post.
325 Comments
April 21, 2008 at
9 Responses to “Ask away. part 2”
1.
Chairos Seeker
Cheryl: “Has anyone ever wondered if the verse in I Cor. that talks about judging prophecy isn’t perhaps a New Testament “upgrade”, for lack of a better word in the way prophecy was to be judged?”
In the OT, there was maybe one prophet for every g’zillion people. In the NT, we see multiple prophets in a single congregation. Doesn’t that alone point to a different dynamic? And, bear in mind that Paul doesn’t instruct the congregation to stone the errant prophet. Apparently, his/her prophecy is to be disregarded but he/she is free to try again. This doesn’t look to me like OT prophecy.
If you want to go down this road, I think the better argument is to identify NT prophecy with preaching, as MacArthur does. I don’t agree with his view. But, it has greater logical consistency than some of the alternatives, including in particular identifying OT and NT prophecy.
2.
mbaker
“Has anyone ever wondered if the verse in I Cor. that talks about judging prophecy isn’t perhaps a New Testament “upgrade”, for lack of a better word in the way prophecy was to be judged? In the Old Testament, prophecy could only be judged after the fact or if the prophet was leading the people to worship other God’s. In the New Testament, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit, have been told to test the spirits and to test all things. This would provide a more immediate test to weed out the true from the false without indicating that less accuracy is acceptable from prophets in the New Testament.”
I think this is valid point, Cheryl. While the office of prophet has been revived by the modern day apostolic/prophetic movement and their lack of control over each other is usually the subject of controversy, I don’t believe God has lifted the restrictions against His expectation of 100% accuracy, no matter who chooses to prophesy. We are simply given more tools to guard against false prophecy.
We know that false prophecy has always been an ongoing problem. Even in Paul’s day there were obviously several false prophets whom he castigated for adding to or changing the gospel. That’s why I believe if those who call themselves modern day prophets are going to be accepted as such by other church leaders, then they should and could demand more accountability from each other, and publically call out the chronic offenders of the truth like Jesus and Paul did.
3.
Tim H
I think this whole idea of “I think the better argument is to identify NT prophecy with preaching, as MacArthur does is something to look into also.
I mentioned not to long ago that my KJV bible used the translation of the word prophecy in Corinthians with “infallable preaching” or preaching infallably”.
I think there is something to this.
4.
Bill
Well, I’ve heard quite a few sermons that were not infallable.
J. Vernon MaGee on “women’s appare and men’s hair length.”
Chuck Swindol on “Is tounges for today”
Jerimiah Wright on “God Bless America.”
wait… he never preached that.
-Alf
5.
mbaker
Tim,
I agree that infallible preaching certainly does enter into it. Many times I have heard sermons that were not preached or even thought of being taken as prophecy, such as so much of Spurgeon, for example, that you look at these sermons years later and marvel at the accuracy of them.
But we aren’t talking about the prophets who preach infallibly (Are there any nowadays?), we are talking about prophets who pontificate from their own agendas, and how we are to deal with that.
But I agree this would be a great subject to pursue further.
6.
Chairos Seeker
mbaker: ” That’s why I believe if those who call themselves modern day prophets are going to be accepted as such by other church leaders, then they should and could demand more accountability from each other, and publically call out the chronic offenders of the truth like Jesus and Paul did.”
I can agree with that statement. If big, impactful prophecies are not nearly 100% accurate, I wouldn’t bother to listen to them, let alone act on them. So, I don’t. I don’t know of anyone that I personally recognize as a “prophet” in that sense. What I have in mind are small prophets/prophecies, even smaller than Agabus/Agabus’ prophecy in Acts.
But, your view seems inconsistent to me. If modern prophets are like OT prophets, shouldn’t they be stoned rather than merely called out for prophesying falsely?
7.
cheryl U.
In my mind the argument that Paul didn’t tell people to stone the errant prophet doesn’t hold any weight. Neither did he tell people to stone adulterers, idolaters, blasphemers, those involved in the occult, or disobedient children! All of those categories were to receive the death penalty in the OT. And where it comes to adultery, Jesus obviously removed that requirement. That didn’t mean that any of those behaviors were approved.
8.
mbaker
CS,
Er…Are you forgetting that Jesus frowned upon stoning folks? And, nowadays under the new covenant we hold to the same accuracy of truth He did, we just don’t physically stone folks to death anymore for false prophecy.
9.
Chairos Seeker
Tim, just to be clear, I don’t recognize routine preaching as prophecy. I do recognize NT prophecy as including preaching when the preaching occurs under a special illumination of the Spirit, such as sometimes would be true of Spurgeon, in particular. But, I also recognize NT prophecy taking forms other than preaching.
I think that the best view for a continuationist is to distinguish OT and NT prophecy by viewing NT prophecy as something other than the very words of God. I think that the best view for a cessationist is to identify NT prophecy with preaching, even routine preaching.
Another possible way to go is to suggest that the OT mentions both canonical prophets who spoke the word of God and non-canonical prophets who spoke with less authority/accuracy. But, I haven’t read anyone explore that line of thinking, so I’m unsure where it leads.
April 21, 2008 at
This is a big huge open blanket statement without any back up but just for the heck of it I want to say it… huh????
It’s lunch time and I am hungry but I can’t leave yet!!!!
Maybe stoning is taken out of the equation because the penelty comes later as one stands before the Lord. Even if that penalty is simply that our works upon the foundation is burned up, but we escape or are saved as one from the fire.
April 21, 2008 at
cheryl, mbaker: point taken re stoning. Paul didn’t even suggest that the Judaizers be stoned. The NT economy is not a theocracy. I was merely curious how you work out that issue.
Depending on how one fleshes out the notion of “calling out,” I could possibly agree with your position re NT prophecy. I don’t want to be “called out” for erroneously suggesting that the next prayee to whom my team will ministry is suffering from some sort of oppression. OTOH, so far I’m about 5 for 5 on such “prophetic words.” So, I suppose I don’t need to worry about penalties yet.
Would you see this sort of impression as one that should be 100% accurate? Would you label it with a term other than “prophecy?” Would you insist that all such impressions must be demonic counterfeits? Etc.
April 21, 2008 at
Tim, just to be clear, I don’t recognize routine preaching as prophecy.
Neither do I and let me state here I am not a cessationist either, but, where does that translation come from for the word prophecy. If it is a good translation then to me it makes a prophetic word not necessarily a “prophecy” of future events but more in line with forth-telling. And what is the forth-telling, the gospel?
I think the video of Paul David Washer (that his name?) at the youth conference was a sermon but it certainly was very “prophetic” in the way I heard it.
Check your private e-mail later….
April 21, 2008 at
Tim, I forget: which verse was translated “infallible preaching?” I’ll take a look at the Greek and a commentary or two later today/tomorrow.
April 21, 2008 at
If you are in a church and have a prophetic word and you give that word to the body at large whether verbally or written and the pastor and elders judge it to be an ok word. They judge it to be a good prophetic word then I suppose whether it was correct or not, if that church accepts it, then is it good word?
But, what if you feel led to give the same word to another church and they judge it to be not acceptable. who is in error? The one giving it or those who judge it?
April 21, 2008 at
CS,
I Corinthians 12 - 14
April 21, 2008 at
Tim, I think it could go down either way. Here’s one scenario.
A prophet gives a word that tells a church what God wants to do in their midst, say recalling them to reaching the lost. The word is accepted and the prophet is stoked. In fact, the prophet is so stoked that s/he gives the same word to another church even though God didn’t given her/him the word a second time. As it happens, the word is not on target in the second context and is rightly not accepted by the second church’s leaders. The prophet has dished up “hamburger helper” and deserves at least mild censure but probably not stoning or excommunication, IMO.
April 21, 2008 at
Tim, you mean the translation uses the term “infallible prophecy” in many instances across several chapters, right? Sorry for my poor memory.
In that case, there’s no need to check the Greek text. That’s theological interpretation rather than translation. Some of us may happen to agree with the translation. But, the translated meaning isn’t found in the grammar or words of any sentence. One who supports the translation would have to argue that it’s found in the context or in the greater body of theology. That may be, but I don’t see it. This use of the word “infallible” seems to me to have fallen from heaven, so to speak.
It’s an interesting notion that we can all aspire to “infallible preaching.” Even as a continuationist, that’s outside my personal comfort zone. And, if it’s infallible, why does it need to be judged and why might it be despised, thus quenching the Spirit? This makes my head hurt. . . .
April 21, 2008 at
CS,
I think there is such as being perceptive and words of knowledge that might be taken as prophecy perhaps, but are not.
For instance, let’s say I am praying for someone who is undergoing marriage problems. I hear and see some things that I believe need praying for far more than what the person is asking for. If I pray what I am perceiving from observation as the real need, then I’m not prophesying or receiving a prophetic word so much as I am focusing on what the person is needing in prayer. I don’t know whether to call that experience or intuition, but I believe it is valuable, because if I decline to pray what I see as the real need I am being dishonest to both of us.
On the other hand, if I call my own observation a prophecy then I’m guilty of false prophecy because I’m not praying the words of God, but praying what I myself have merely observed.
I believe that we all have flashes of the future but most of us don’t look upon that necessarily as prophecy, even if it comes true. I am a continuist, but I believe we are often too quick to call things that are astute personal perceptions prophecy.
April 21, 2008 at
mbaker, in the cases I have in mind, the impressions were received prior to any knowledge of, or contact with, the prayee. But, that said, I have no quarrel with anything you wrote.
April 21, 2008 at
I think Tim is talking about that Lame cessasationist work called the “Open Bible”. Its in the notes, the text, of course, is in KJV, because that’s what Jesus used.
April 21, 2008 at
CS,
I want to expand a little on what I believe are personal impressions given to us by God that may specifically target the needs of an unseen, unknown prayee. I believe that He sometimes gives us a form of foreknowledge so that we can convince someone of a need or problem they have that they may not be aware of, or want to face.
This has happened to me on occasion as well. However, I never did the “Thus saieth the Lord” thing, or declared it as prophecy. I merely stated honestly the impression I had that was the root of the problem that needed to be addressed in prayer, and thanked God for giving me knowledge of it in His mercy and grace.
April 21, 2008 at
CS, maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me I often see sudden shifts in what you are saying from comment to comment. Perhaps it is because I don’t always understand the way you communicate things. Let me give you an example. Here is a comment made very recently on the first Ask Away thread:
(Please note the following:
* If the prophets spoke the actual words of God, it would not seem necessary for anyone to pass judgment.
* Paul doesn’t instruct the Corinthian church to stone a prophet whose prophecy is deemed not to have passed judgment.
So, the prophetic phenomenon in view here does not seem to me to resemble OT prophecy, in which the prophets spoke the words of God with God’s own authority and were subject to execution for speaking incorrectly or out of turn.”
And now in comment #3 above:
(cheryl, mbaker: point taken re stoning. Paul didn’t even suggest that the Judaizers be stoned. The NT economy is not a theocracy. I was merely curious how you work out that issue.”
Unless I have misunderstood you, in the first comment you said you believed that OT and NT prophecy didn’t resemble each other and one of the reasons given was that Paul didn’t say that NT prophets were to be stoned. In the second comment, you said you merely wondered how we worked out that difference. Did I miss something? Like I said, I have noticed similiar things before and it always kind of makes my head spin and I wonder where you are really coming from on that point. Maybe the problem is differnet style of communicating. Can you maybe clarify?
April 21, 2008 at
mbaker,
In my opinion, what you are speaking of are words of knowledge. Prophecy and words of knowledge are listed as two separate gifts I Cor. 12.
April 21, 2008 at
All of you, please pardon all of my typos lately. Guess I am in too big of a hurry these days.
And can anyone tell me why my comment above suddenly has smiley faces? I didn’t intentionally put them there!
April 21, 2008 at
Yes, Cheryl, I agree.
I think the two are often confused though in people’s minds and that’s what causes a great deal of misunderstanding about what really constitutes prophecy. Since prophecy is mentioned as “the greater gift” I would suspect that much of what we hear nowadays from the modern day prophets is sheer ambition talking, not God.
April 21, 2008 at
CS,
No, I mean that the work actually has in the notes at the end of the verse the words “ infallible preaching as a translation of the word prophecy.
Bill is right it comes from the “Open Bible” and obvious to him since it is a cessationist work, he sonsideres it lame.
CS you did mention John McArthur above using the term preaching and I understood you using it in refrence to prophesy so that is why I brought it up again.
April 21, 2008 at
Tim,
I am wondering if your friend who has the doctorate in Greek could clear that meaning up for us or define what he believes is the correct rendition of the word. I believe he is a continuationist, right?
April 21, 2008 at
/humor on
Some of the “prophets” seen today look like they have been (are) stoned.
/humor off
It seems like we keep returning back to stoning as something definitive. I’ve seen it used by both sides as if somehow is bolsters any argument. How absurd.
I keep reminding you folks that what God will do to those who presume to speak in his name, but are not, is far worse than stoning.
The “judging” of prophecies that Paul spoke of is for OUR benefit.
Telling “prohets” to be quiet when God is not speaking is for their benefit.
-Bill
April 21, 2008 at
prohets = prophets
April 21, 2008 at
Tim,
I consider any Bible with slanted notes, like the “Open Bible”, or the “Spirit-Filled Bible” lame. Its hard for young believers to recognize the difference between the Word of God and the word of man.
April 21, 2008 at
Where is Monk lately? Has he, like Elvis, left the building?
April 21, 2008 at
recovering from a bad case of mange….
April 21, 2008 at
That ought to get a reply from somebody.
April 22, 2008 at
Did anyone ever hear anything about what happened to Paul Gowdy? I keep checking his old site wondering if he will reappear.
April 22, 2008 at
I don’t understand why any of the folks that think prophecy doesn’t always have to be accurate these days think that now when we have the constantly indwelling Holy Spirit our accuracy in hearing God should be less than it was in the OT when He only came upon them for special occassions.
And another thing I think we need to consider. Prophecy is, after all, a gift of the Holy Spirit. Does He give us defective gifts?? I would hardly think so! So it seems to me that the much more likely scenario is that when “prophecies” are false, we are operating out of our own imaginations, desires, or presuppositions; or on the other hand that another spirit besides the Holy Spirit is at work. Or as someone said in an earlier comment, maybe we are referring to something as prophecy that should really be given another name.
April 22, 2008 at
Paul Gowdy is doing fine. He decided to shut the blog down. Just soemthing he felt led to do.
April 22, 2008 at
Our snarlingdogfriend is busy with school
he’s still just as fluffy as ever tho’
April 22, 2008 at
Please give him our regards when you talk to him. Devin, if you don’t straighten up that picture soon, it will drive my little photographer’s heart absolutely crazy.
April 22, 2008 at
Yes, this is the entire point.
Take it as creativity, breaking all the rules!
April 22, 2008 at
I thought maybe you were emulating Peter. I heard he asked to be crucified upside down.
I’m going to Photoshop it and upload it on your site, so be ready for some big time creativity!
April 22, 2008 at
Cheryl: “CS, maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me I often see sudden shifts in what you are saying from comment to comment.”
I have academic training, one of the blessings of which is often being able to see multiple sides of a discussion. When discussing with ignorant folk, it might be that they’ve failed to consider one argument or another. But, few here seem to fit that bill. So, I presume that their views are, at least, logically consistent. Therefore, I was curious how the issue of death for faulty prophecies was treated. But, I didn’t doubt that the issue had been considered and therefore that some account had been taken of the issue.
What you see is an attempt to be charitable in extending the presumption of logical consistency to the arguments of others. Sometimes I may seem to be agreeing with their position when actually I’m merely approving the locgical consistency. I do see how that could be confusing.
There’s also the issue of labeling. Sometimes, we’re aware of the same phenomenon but choose to label it differently. Some people make a big deal of labels. I tend not to do so: “a rose by any other name,” etc. This, too, can be confusing.
Please be assured that my own views are (mostly) logically consistent. When I converted, so to speak, from cessationism, I didn’t discard the ability to appreciate sound logic or theology, though I admit that many who share some of my views seem to have done so (or perhaps never had much logic or theology to begin with).
April 22, 2008 at
Cheryl: “Does He give us defective gifts?”
I wouldn’t affirm the word “defective,” but I would affirm the essential notion that we do not always operate in God’s gifts in full fidelity, authority, power, etc.
Consider the phenomenon of illumination, whereby the Spirit teaches us the meaning of Scripture and how to apply it to our lives. This is one of the most important ministries of the Spirit.
God could have arranged that illumination consistently yields infallible interpretation. But, He has not done so. Does this mean that the ministry of illumination “defective” in the sense you suggest? Or, that God is unable to ensure correct interpretation? Of course not. Instead, He has some larger purpose in allowing us to work it all out rather than effortlessly receive it.
April 22, 2008 at
CS,
You said, “What you see is an attempt to be charitable in extending the presumption of logical consistency to the arguments of others. Sometimes I may seem to be agreeing with their position when actually I’m merely approving the locgical consistency. I do see how that could be confusing.”
Thanks so much for the clarification. I think that was probably exactly where my confusion with your stance on some issues came in.
April 22, 2008 at
I have come to this site from a bunch of different trails. But then I began to read the comments on this site. Very interesting.
What I find from a lot of the “discernment ministries” is that they are cessationists. Kind of humorous.
What I find disturbing is that their sites seem to want to attack everything and everyone who disagree with them, “their theology.”
I’ve asked them before that when they die and they see someone in heaven that they attacked, what will they say to them?
They almost seem akin to the accuser of the brethren. Day and night accusing.
Having said all of that and from what I’ve read here, devin, greycoats, etc. don’t seem to be that way. They present logical arguements as to why they don’t believe something.
Having said that….Why am I here. Well, I first started reading on this blog about Bickle, Jones, Cain, Joyner etc. I have a few questions.
How many of you, that are against the prophetic movement, are cessationists? And, do you believe that prophets and apostles are here today.
Since I’m new here, I’m sure if this is the place to ask or post this. If it isn’t then please direct me to the appropriate place. Thanks. MikeB
April 22, 2008 at
First, How funny! Thanks. MikeB I just can’t resist, are you Mike Bickle?
Mike I am not a cessationist but a continuist yet I do not believe that Apostles or the Office of Prophet is for today. Notice I said capital (A)postle and Office of Prophet.
I do believe the gifts can be manifested today as needed and directed through man by the Holy Spirit as needed. I do not believe that the gifts are the main issue but rather are available in order to vaildate the ministry of Jesus Christ and that there needs to be moderation or we will look like fools to the world.
April 22, 2008 at
My beliefs concerning this issue in a nutshell (A/G)
We believe that God’s Spirit never goes where His Word does not. . . . We have been lambasted by elements of the electronic church and charismatic renewal as being backslidden and non-Spirit led when we have not jumped on popular bandwagons of the day loaded with the meringue of personality and spiritual excess rather than the plain meat of God’s Word. So be it! If criticism is the price we must pay for asking the question: “What saith the Lord in His written Word?”-then let us wear that criticism gladly as a sign of fidelity to Christ. and
WHEREAS, The current “river of God” includes many alleged manifestations of the Spirit which are extra-biblical. These extra-biblical manifestations have become a de facto evidence of a new level of spirituality and/or a new anointing. They are eclipsing in importance the biblical anointing called the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which is witnessed by speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance; and
WHEREAS, Latter Rain doctrines such as impartation, birthing, Joel’s Army, and the five-fold ministries taught as offices with predictive prophecy are again being heard in the new revival; and
WHEREAS, As a result, ministers and churches are being divided and members are becoming confused about the authority of the Scripture; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this General Council reaffirm the decision of the General Council of 1949, as stated: We recognize a hunger on the part of God’s people for a spiritual refreshing and manifestation of His Holy Spirit [and] That we set our hearts to seek for a continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit founded upon the clear teaching of the Word of God. Be it further
RESOLVED, That we disapprove of Latter Rain doctrines and practices such as “impartation,” “birthing,” “Joel’s Army,” and the “five-fold ministries” taught as “offices” with “predictive prophecy,” and other extraneous teachings “which, being unfounded scripturally, serve only to break fellowship . . . and tend to confusion and division.”
April 22, 2008 at
Mike,
I am a self proclaimed ’soft-cessationist’. If you are interested in my particular position I will be happy to share it with you.
April 22, 2008 at
Bill, thanks for posting that interesting AG resolution. It contains much on which to chew and discuss.
I am curious about one particular implication of the resolution: When did it become binding on AG churches? My recollection is that Bill Johnson’s Bethel church only recently left the AG, and did so for stated reasons other than lack of compliance with the resolution. So, it appears to me that the church had remained for some time in the AG despite teaching and practice that I, at least, would find inconsistent with the resolution.
Please don’t misunderstand me as challenging any of the relevant claims and facts. I’m merely curious to better understand the history, about which I’m almost entirely ignorant.
April 22, 2008 at
Hehe, no TimH, I’m not Bickle. That would be funny. Personally, I only know the name, never heard him speak or read any of his books. The others: I have heard Paul Cain speak, I’ve seen his gifting. I have heard Bob Jones speak and have seen his gifting. I have heard Joyner, Jack Deere a couple of times. I have a couple of their books as well.
To everyone: A couple of things I’ve never heard of before reading this site. A continuist or a soft cessasionist. Please explain. As far as me finding humor with some other “discernment ministries”, them being cessasionist and all. Kind of funny since they think they have the gift of discernment.
Allow me to ask the apostles and prophets a bit differently. Eph. 4 talks about how Christ gave some to be…. If you don’t believe in apostles and prophets for today, then why do you believe in teachers, evangelists, and pastors for today?
April 22, 2008 at
CS,
The rest of the resolution (August 11, 200o) is also quite interesting. It probably formed the wedge that split Bethel away.
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_endtime_revival.pdf
At any rate, the issues raised in the position paper continue to surface today. Reminds me of wack-a-mole at Chucky Cheeses.
-Bill
April 22, 2008 at
Mike
Re: Apostles and Prophets.
Yeah, that’s a big issue that has been hashed out previously here and elsewhere. I hate to keep throwing these papers out, but they state my position far better than I could (I agree with them).
Enjoy
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4195_apostles_prophets.pdf
April 22, 2008 at
CS,
Further explanation- A/G is a fellowship not a denomination and often allows quit a bit of church autonomy.
I expect when Johnson decided he was a (Capital A) Apostle, he knew they had to leave.
God’s Place in Odgen Utah is quite Bethel-esque but still remains (for the time being) an A/G church. I expect that may change since many of thier beliefs are inconsistant with Resolution 16.
-Bill
April 23, 2008 at
Bill, thanks for the additional information!
April 23, 2008 at
As far as Bethel leaving A/G . . . the offical reason through leadership is, because of wanting more direct oversight into and to continue in direct oversight of a member church in Global Legacy (Bethels’ association of churches all under Bill J.).
The A/G position is to only have input into a church for a church plant start up period. It’s somewhere between 18 months and 3 years. Because Bethel wanted to have ongoing directional involvement with a member church in Global Legacy and A/G said that does not work in A/G, they reportedly parted ways on friendly terms.
April 23, 2008 at
In Bills post 42 if you go to the link on page 7 at the bottom you will find statements of patients, grace, and desiring the good of God. They are points 9 and 10 at the end of message to pastors. The grace extended by these comments have been very helpful as I am in a church which is doing all and going beyond all the concerns in this A/G position paper.
CS
“it appears to me that the church had remained for some time in the AG despite teaching and practice that I, at least, would find inconsistent with the resolution”
Within the message to pastors section it seems to me to give some why’s of the open hand which the A/G seems to take with ‘off’ teachings. To me it also seems a way to keep an open door to those who have gotten caught up these views that they may have an opportunity in the future to assist in bring some back to sound doctrine.
Full of grace and trust in God.
April 23, 2008 at
http://www.igloballegacy.org/
April 23, 2008 at
Hey again. I was just wanting to say, I still want to write my piece on my experience with the Ramp, but school has taken up free time. At the beginning of May, I should be able to write it and send it to one of you guys.
April 23, 2008 at
I have a question,
What do you folks think of the “revival” going on in Florida with Todd Bently?
http://www.freshfire.ca/
Todd is weird and not sure i agree with him, but people are giving their lives to Christ in crazy ways, and hundreds are getting healed. I’m generally pretty skeptical of this stuff, but I know 3 personally who have been healed of things and have had doctors confirmation. Not only that 2 weren’t walking with the Lord. Now not only are they, one wants to go to Bible school, and the other the evangelising, telling people about Jesus every where he goes.
It may not last, but it seems legit even though Todd seems wierd. Where is the line of sckepisim and faith. Does the Bible saw God can’t do stuff like this? Because it sure seems like he is using a fool to confound the wise.
whats the deal????
April 23, 2008 at
Tim H.
Thanks for the link to igloballegacy.
Any “government of honor” def.’s out there?
It’s part of a quote from Bill J. in the 4th paragraph in this link.
continuist,
I’m with ya on the Todd thing. I saw Todd at the beginning of his public ‘ministry’. He was very humble and has an amazing testimony but that changed quickly as he gained experience in the conference speaker circles. I was never comfortable with his ministry. The link below is from Bill in post 42,
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_endtime_revival.pdf
The first and last paragraphs give a little perspective for us:
“As the writer of Ecclesiastes noted, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Generations come and go. Revival movements come and go. Hunger for more of God comes and unfortunately wanes. Some people prefer the routine over the unexpected. Others desperately want to see something unusual, something that has never happened before. . . . In times of revival God often reminds the Church of neglected truths. When this happens, it is easy for extremes to develop. Some will reject the revival of a doctrine, while others in their zeal will go beyond the teaching of Scripture. Both extremes are harmful and bring reproach on the cause of Christ.”
Then at the end of the paper we read:
“Reports of souls saved and lives changed should never justify wrong theology and practices. Yet Paul said about the false prophets who were causing him and his ministry frustration, “Christ is proclaimed in every way whether out of false motives of true; and in that I rejoice” (Philippians 1:15-18). But Paul obviously wanted Christ to be proclaimed from right motives and with biblical integrity. So do we.”
The position paper this comes out of is 7 pages long but well worth a slow read.
April 23, 2008 at
Continuist,
I hae a question first.
Why are you asking questions about Bently, but your screen name links to his website.
whats the deal??
April 23, 2008 at
Namaste
looking forward to your report
April 23, 2008 at
I just put it there cause I didn’t know if the link would work in the comment post. I don’t know much about Bently except for what i saw on his site.
kena I liked that quote.
So do I rejoice with my friends, or correct them in their doctrine?
April 23, 2008 at
I found it interesting that Amie Semple McPherson wrote in the 4 Square article of faith the following section;
XIII. MODERATION
We believe that 1the moderation of the believer should be known of all men; that his experience and daily walk should never lead him 2into extremes, fanaticism, 3unseemly manifestations, back-bitings, murmurings; but that his sober, thoughtful, balanced, 4mellow, forgiving, and zealous Christian experience should be one of steadfast uprightness, equilibrium, humility, self-sacrifice and Christ-likeness.
Scripture References
1. “Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand.” (Phil. 4:5)
2. “that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things
into Him who is the head–Christ–” (Eph. 4:14,15)
3. “[Love] does not behave rudely…” (1 Cor. 13:5)
4. “Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving
one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.” (Col. 3:12,13)
April 23, 2008 at
Kena,
I put that link there especially after reading the very first paragraph of the link. Seems to me that it is outright Latter Rain to me.
April 23, 2008 at
I have seen several You Tube clips of ministry times in Todd Bentley services. They look and sound more like an insane asylum or how I would think of some one being tormented by evil spirts would act than people being touched by the Holy Spirit. And I simply can not see any Scriptural support for the whole doctrine and practice of spiritual drunkenness except extreme Scripture twisting. In fact, it seems to go completely against the teaching in Scripture to be sober and alert. One other thing that I either read about or heard Todd say, don’t remember which, is that Jesus is going to tear off tiny pieces of his robe and give to people as a new mantle! Come on, Todd, get real here!
April 23, 2008 at
Tim H
So you see the A/G position paper’s thinking as a part of the latter rain movement? Or am I not hearing you correctly.
April 23, 2008 at
You are not hearing me correctly.. As per that paper I do not attribute it to LatterRain, rather hey call it a heresy.
I think reading the opening statement for (Global Legecy) Bethel Church that is at the site, there are definate “wordings”, in my opinion, that are related to Latter Rain, Joels Army, Third Wave, Prophetic Movement teaching.
Are they teaching these things? Looks like it.
April 23, 2008 at
A question I’ve always had about the Todd Bentley’s and Benny Hinn’s is why they don’t just go into hospitals and nursing homes and heal these folks without the fanfare of a big, lavish expensive look-at-me production? Why don’t they quietly go down to the ghettos, and evangelize and heal homeless addicts to get them off the streets?
Answer: personal ambition, greed, and a need to be recognized as someone important in the Lord’s and the public’s eyes, while pursuing a high paying career.
It has always been interesting to me that the Lord sought out David , a unknown sheepherder who quietly tended his sheep and sought no credit or personal recognition for risking his life for them.
By contrast, these folks above fleece the sheep for easy money, using freely given spiritual gifts to accomplish that. If I see Jan Crouch on TBN cry one more time over a letter from one of her “little praying grandmas” and thank them for their faithful “widow’s mites” for supporting the Crouch’s obviously opulent lifestyle, I think I’ll throw up.
Sorry, I think I’ve just heard this argument, “Oh, but they do good” until it’s sickening. So do non-Christians and cults.
April 23, 2008 at
>So do I rejoice with my friends, or correct them in their doctrine?
Yes.
April 23, 2008 at
Tim H,
Opps, wrong link. At the global legacy site - very latter rain.
April 23, 2008 at
continuist
but seriously, rejoice with them if they have been healed.
“correcting doctrine” would be hard to do if they are not receptive.
The two discussions probaly would have to take place at different times.
In the meantime read all you can, study and pray.
April 23, 2008 at
mbaker,
I agree with your comments in 60. Doing good should never justify wrong theology and praticies. I also,with these so called leaders, don’t see lasting fruit only more people in a fad. I do rejoice with those who have good things happen in there lives and try to open discussion to think through these doctrines and practices. Not much connection. They have their sound bite of doctrine that is enough for them.
Bill,
I ditto you in 63.
April 23, 2008 at
http://iseeitdifferently.wordpress.com/2007/01/21/the-father-wont-give-me-a-snake-or-a-stone/#comment-1797
Interesting read and statement on he above site see comment by
Karen Holland
September 16, 2007 at 5:26 pm
April 24, 2008 at
Mike,
First, I believe we could refer to modern prophecy as “preaching the message of God”. By this token we can validate prophecy without looking to any certain prophet. If this is what you mean by prophecy it could be more easily understood in today’s language as preaching. Wayne Grudem’s attempt to redefine the terms prophet and prophecy are exegetically respectable. His scholarship is winsome and valid, but I am not convinced of its cogency. For starters there are far too many in the prophetic movement who piggyback off Grudem, hijack his scholarship, and twist his original message. I’ve never heard tell of his taking issue with this kind of falsity. I wish he would.
With that stated, one difficulty for those who propose a continuation between OT and NT prophecy (albeit a less powerful , non-canonical manifestation) is the wide ranging textual occurences of the variously augmented word προφητης (prophet). My UBS lexicon notes that προφητεια(ς) may be simply translated as “the gift of preaching the message of God” or even “intelligible preaching”(see 1 Cor.14.6, 22). Therefore, in this sense I believe we could safely interchange prophecy with preaching. Even in 1 Thessalonians 5:20 , which is often cited as a warning against prophetic suspicions in Charismatic circles, the word may be translated preaching; in the exhortation “Do not despise προφητειας”.
Realizing this synonymous link between preaching and prophecy has helped me come to grips with and put to rest a problematic aspect of the biblical account. The prophetic movement (or 3rd wave Charismaticism, radical Pentecostalism, or neo-Montanism) has been a troublesome animal for me experientially, personally, and doctrinally for a number of years now–not in small part by its heightened mystical aspect and anti-intellectual climate. However, I believe that I have followed my path of prophetic inquisition to a satisfactory end.
With this in mind I believe prophecy is alive and well. Prophecy is seen in past days of the church age in the writings and messages of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Bunyan, and Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Even in this modern era I believe we can hear the direct and pertinent message of God to the entire church through the likes of A.W. Tozer, C.S Lewis (delightfully orthodox in his allegorical interpretations of biblical truth), John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John McArthur, and Ravi Zacharias. Preaching shores up faith by delivering an overpowering sense of the majestic presence of God coupled with the timely quality of a given message. Rudolf Otto comments on Luther in “The Idea of the Holy” by explaining that, “In this experience [preaching] the humanly rational is transcended, and the soul is enveloped in awe and rapture”.
One added qualification to my view is prophecy/signs and wonders are really unnecessary in regions where the apostolic authority of the Scriptures are prevalent and the Church has a well-established presence, per 1 Cor.13.8-13. Apostleship has ceased with Paul entirely as he relates in 1 Cor.15.8. However, in areas where Christianity is persecuted or unknown and where the Scripture is either not translated or unavailable it is reasonable to believe reports of miraculous phenomena since in these cases a corollary to faith would be appropriate in lieu of Church and Bible. They are not business as usual nor a power source for Christians to tap into for devotional, transcendent, or mystical purposes. They are formative in nature and foundational in purpose.
Still, transcendence does not take place through mystical means or synergistic models. Whatever your individual conclusions on this topic of prophecy may be I believe that modern prophetic visions or labeled prophetic utterances are not pertinent to the ongoing purpose of Christendom. Mysticism is strangely similar within the confines of any religion and, as D.G. Bloesch notes, suffers from an, “almost endemic synergism”. The mysticism of Plato and Plotinus rears its ugly head throughout the ages. Those forms holding biblical affinity share more in common with Pantheistic Monism than Christian orthodoxy. Perhaps it would be reactionary, but I am tempted to agree with Benjamin Warfield when he said that one could not be a mystic and a Christian.
Well, I will not go that far. Why not you ask (or who cares you ask)? This is simply because of the true help that A.W. Tozer brings (posthumously) to the corporate Body. His recognition of historic confessional orthodoxy within the context of pursuing God is unparalled. The devotional quality of his work quiets both quiets the mind and elevates the spirit. Still, it is important to note that he did not label himself with the mystic nametag even if he did loosely own the title.
One thing I cannot own is the responsibility of signing off on the seemingly schizophrenic ramblings of any self-proclaimed modern prophet—be they Rick Joyner, Choo Thomas, Lou Engle, or even the more nuanced definitions as translated through Mike Bickle and the IHOP—sanitized if you will. This position should be self-evident within a post-modern era lacking many objective frameworks to begin with. Frivolous use of the title “prophet” and “prophecy” devalue the established canon and make the slope slippery toward extra-biblical primacy. Is the word of God sufficient? The blood of the martyrs should testify to that fact. If any new revelatory message was evaluated and agreed upon by a larger (catholic–small “c”) ecclesiastical body then we should indeed include this work as a book in the Apocalyptic literature of the NT canon. However, no such body exists. Therefore, the warnings to the Church found in the NT must in some sense be individualized in order to protect oneself and warn immediate brothers and sisters against the deviation from sound doctrine and the appearance of false prophets.
April 24, 2008 at
I had read the article Tim H linked to in comment #65 in the past but just went back and reread it. It is well worth the read. I think he probably makes a very valid point.
April 24, 2008 at
Natrimony,
I have a question for you. First, if you have read my comments on here in various discussions, you know that I certainly do not approve of the whacky way the Third Wave crew believes in and promotes prophecy. But I am wondering how you can come to the conclusion that prophecy and preaching are synonymous in the NT. I believe that they certainly can be but it seems to me to generalize in that way is not correct. The words used for prophecy are often used in a way that can only mean foretelling prophecy in Acts, Paul speaking to Timothy, the Book of Revelation, etc. And there are certainly many other places that speak of preaching and use a totally different word. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that conclusion doesn’t do justice to the overall use of the words and their contexts.
April 24, 2008 at
The fact that prophecy can entail foretelling in the NT context does not mean that it cannot also be rendered as ‘preaching’. You seem to agree with me here when you say that prophecy and preaching certainly can be synonymous. I refer to a few verses specifically to illustrate my point that there is a link between prophecy and preaching. But, you are certainly right that there are instances where the context will allow for nothing less than a prediction. I don’t think that type of prophecy occurs where there is a well established church presence and easy access to the full apostolic authority of the Holy Scriptures.
April 24, 2008 at
Natrimony,
Why do you think that there is no longer any need for any type of prophecy when there is a strong church presence and people have full access to Scriptures? I certainly agree that there are to be no more foundational prophecies–the Scriptures are complete and I believe no prophecy can in any way contradict that Scripture and be valid. However, does the coming of Scripture eliminate the need for the type of prophecy given in Acts 11:28, for instance, where the church was told that there was to be a huge famine? The result was that they decided to send relief to the brothers in Judea. Don’t you see the possibility of the need for such practical prophecy in the church today? I think we still have that need. I don’t see that type of prophecy as being, “formative in nature and foundational in purpose”, as you mentioned above.
April 24, 2008 at
No I don’t.
April 24, 2008 at
Why not, Nat?
April 24, 2008 at
Alright ladies,
I don’t know how much more I can give you, but here goes. I definitely see predictive prophecy as foundational apart from the written word in a modern setting. It strengthens the initial faith of those who have not received the benefit of sound biblical teaching and access to the Holy Scriptures. That is the whole point of the aid to Judea–a strengthening of their faith. If this were a commonplace practice in the established church today then how could I possibly disregard it? Please. If predictive prophecy were still a vital and ‘practical’ means of grace then it would be evident and unavoidable. It is evidently not unavoidable to me and therefore not practical. Also, the sign gifts went (largely) unpracticed for nearly 2000 years until the Pentecostal revivals at the turn of the century. I don’t think that the church suffered without them until then.
April 24, 2008 at
Just one more comment, Nat, and I promise to quit. But how can you possibly say that the whole purpose for the aid to Judea was for a strengthening of their faith? I’m sure it did a great deal to strenthen their faith. But how about the aspect of providing practical help to the hungry families in the Judean church? I have a hunch if you and your family were going hungry and God told someone and because of that they met your need, your faith would not only be encouraged, but you would be eternally grateful for the way the Lord met your practical needs.
And how can we know if the church suffered in the past for lack of this type of prophecy? How many instances might there have been of similiar circumstances where people would of been encouraged spiritually and very real practical needs met if we had seen this type of thing more often.
I don’t know why we didn’t see these things much for many years. I have wondered if it could it be because we didn’t believe in it or receive it? One only has to look at the absolute rule the Catholic Church had on Christianity for many years to know that people can get very far off for many years from what God has for them.
April 24, 2008 at
I hope the end of that last comment didn’t come across all wrong.
I don’t mean to compare you to how far off I believe the Catholic Church was Nat! I just meant to use that as evicence that God’s truths can be not believed or practiced for many years by the church as a whole and God doesn’t alway jump right in and do something about it.
April 24, 2008 at
I don’t pretend to hold the popular position in this forum. Do not worry my skin is quite thick.
In regard to #74 I didn’t want to go here, but, we really don’t know that there was a famine in Judea. All we know is that there was a prophecy of a famine over ‘all the world’. Due to that prophecy the Antiocheans sent relief to the Judeans. Was there really a famine over ‘all the world’? Was there even a famine in Judea? The prophets thought that there was. We can surmise that there was or that there wasn’t. Frankly, I’m sure that if someone is wanting to believe that a prediction is real then they will do everything they can to make it so. So, in that sense I do see ‘belief’ as initializing predictive prophecy.
April 24, 2008 at
Nat,
I think you know my stand on prophecy pretty well by now, and how conservative I am on it’s use,despite the fact i am a continuist.
But what I want to understand how the Holy Spirit can give us valid impressions ( I call it that for lack of a better word right now) that something needs to be said or done. I am not talking about intuition or astuteness here.
If you’ve been reading some of our recent exchanges, between CS and Cheryl and I, you’ve seen our posts about the differences in words of knowledge and what folks call predictive prophecy. Would you say the Acts verses were more words of knowledge? Do you believe that words of knowledge and what is loosely labeled predictive prophecy are two different things? And how?
April 24, 2008 at
That’s really a continuationist discussion so I wouldn’t hasten to guess. But, you guys certainly have a vibrant discussion going.
April 24, 2008 at
Here is an interesting link regarding the historical evidence of the famine in question in Acts 11 and the severity of it:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QUCemT-Va2EJ:www.biblehistory.net/Acts11_Famine.pdf+agabus+famine+claudius+caesar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=us
April 24, 2008 at
The Greek word translated “prophesy” is a compound word that carries the literal meaning “speak forth” or “speak out.” Of course, it’s mostly used in contexts where the message being spoken somehow pertains to God.
My own take on the relationship between “word of wisdom” and “prophecy” is that, when a word of wisdom is spoken, the speech is referred to as prophecy. However, other kinds of prophecy also existed/exist. I would personally stretch the meaning to refer to speaking a Spirit-illuminated message. So, particularly robust preaching would satisfy my personal definition of “prophecy.”
Nat: “If any new revelatory message was evaluated and agreed upon by a larger (catholic–small “c”) ecclesiastical body then we should indeed include this work as a book in the . . . NT canon.”
I generally agree. I think this is a strong argument against 100% inspiration of modern prophecy.
Nat: “Also, the sign gifts went (largely) unpracticed for nearly 2000 years until the Pentecostal revivals at the turn of the century.”
Because Catholics appealed to miracles as evidence of the authenticity of the Church’s teaching, the early Reformers felt they had to deny miracles. However, numerous historical accounts throughout church history are inconsistent with this view. Augustine’s recantation of his earlier denial of ongoing miraculous healings would, I think, be a good counter-example.
In the modern era, such accounts are often dismissed because of an anti-supernatural bias. In the context of this discussion, doing so would amount to a circular argument. So, IMO, one would have to disregard such accounts on some other basis/bases. I won’t say that it’s impossible to do so. But, a great deal of church history must disappear in the process.
Nat: “I don’t think that type of prophecy [i.e., predictive prophecy] occurs where there is a well established church presence and easy access to the full apostolic authority of the Holy Scriptures.”
Do you derive that doctrine based on Scripture, experience, or both? I can see how one might infer such a doctrine from Scripture. But, the inference would entail quite a few assumptions and would therefore seem to me to be rather shaky.
Would you consider as an instance of predictive prophecy a spoken word that someone having a blood/bleeding disorder and a close connection with the name “Sam” would present for prayer on a particular evening (presuming, of course, that the speaker had no way of knowing these facts via natural means)? In any case, how would a spiritual operation such as this be rendered unnecessary by the complete, closed canon?
April 24, 2008 at
Kena, thanks for the addition information on the AG and the Bethel church. I find it at least a bit odd that rules for involvement with a planted church are more rigorously applied than those involving doctrine and practice. But, I don’t want to make too big a deal of it, since human organizations–even fellowships and denominations–tend to host all kinds of pathologies that cause odd results.
April 24, 2008 at
Cheryl,
Thank You. Your linked source, while being non-authoritative (Internet sources often lack credibility–except for this blog of course) did point me in the right direction. Although scholars disagree over the chronology of the Acts 11 trip to Judea (see Robert Funk’s “The Enigma of the Famine Visit” ). In John Calvin’s commentary on Acts 11 he relates the following info. from vs. 28. ‘Suetonius also maketh mention of this famine, who saith that there were crusts or shards thrown at Claudius’ head in the midst of the market and that he was so sore afraid of stoning, that he had a singular care afterward, during his whole life, to make provision for victual. And Josephus, in his Fifteenth Book of Antiquity, saith, that Judea was sore oppressed with scarcity, by reason of continual drought.’
Please forgive me for confusing chronology with historicity. My interpretive counterexample to your use of Acts 11 was flawed (though I still think that people believe what they want to believe). Misshandling the word of God won’t get me too far around here it seems. That is a good thing. Please keep checking up on me–it keeps me humble.
April 24, 2008 at
Chairos,
I really don’t have the energy right now. My finals week is beginning and I have no doubt that I could continue this conversation at pretty much anytime around here. I probably will also. You raise good questions and that is why honest Christians are continuationists.
April 24, 2008 at
Natrimony,
Apology accepted. I guess that it is one of the blessings of the type of give and take that exists here. It does tend to point out flawed thinking or misshandling of the Word when we are caught in that trap. I hope that when/if I am the one that is guilty of such that someone here or elsewhere will point it out to me.
May God give you grace, strength, and good memory for you finals week. We won’t be surprised if we don’t hear much from you for awhile!
April 24, 2008 at
I ask for your opinion on the following verses. Are they a “Prophecy” or are they a “Word of Knowledge ?
Based on how they looked on them 2000 years ago and how we look at them today, say given a modern day meeting somewhere and a similiar event happens.
15The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
16Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
17The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
Love in Christ Jesus
Jake
April 24, 2008 at
Hi Jake…
Word of Knowledge — A supernaturally inspired utterance of facts.
Prophecy — A supernaturally inspired utterance from God. A genuine prophetic utterance never contradicts, neither is equal to, the written Word of God. To forthtell or foretell. To speak from the mind of God. Prophecies are to be judged (1 Cor. 14:29, 1 Thes. 5:20-21).
What do you think? Did Jesus “foretell” anything here or did He “forthtell” anything? He did seem to have supernatural “facts” about this women.
I would imagine that if we look at the lives of the people before Christ and we continue to see that the Holy Spirit only came upon those that God specifically chose, her knowledge maybe that the Holy Spirit fell upon “prophets” and therefore that is why she called him a “prophet”, which she only precieved because of the facts that he presented about her. Also I believe in the O.T. they were considered (that is prophets) “seers” and that might be what she was calling Him.
That’s my take on your question…
April 24, 2008 at
CS,
Thanks for a thoughtful post on predictive prophecy, in comment number 80, and understanding these are questions which address more than just the same old, same old arguments about whether the gifts continue or not.
There are instances of which we speak that don’t conveniently fit into the norm, which I believe are of God and have nothing to do with the bizarre picture we have been given of prophecy by the modern day prophetic camp . I fear in order to divorce ourselves from false prophecy/prophets we often go too far to the other extreme, and reject genuine God given prophetic moments such as we have spoken of previously.
While this is understandable, I don’t think it is wise to reject or condemn a biblical premise strictly on the basis of avoiding a negative. And, while I believe great caution is necessary before using prophecy as casually and as broadly as it used nowadays, I don’t believe we can call legitimate instances of foreknowledge by Christians a lucky accident or a coincidence.
I just think we need to learn where God draws the line scripturally. So thanks again for a good and thought provoking answer to my questions.
April 24, 2008 at
TimH wrote;
“Also I believe in the O.T. they were considered (that is prophets) “seers” and that might be what she was calling Him.”
It’s funny [not really] how people today that use the name of a “seer” is almost instantly label a mystic [which was interchanged in OT times for seer], and then they are catagorized as heretics, etc.
No wonder we have so much chaos in The Body over labels and titles. Maybe that’s why I don’t use them for who God has called me to be. I am just a Child of His, doing what He has told me to do, amen?
Love in Christ Jesus
Jake
April 24, 2008 at
Nat, all the best on your final exams!
April 24, 2008 at
Ok so you picked out that one sentence to respond to but what about the rest of the response I made?
To Answer your question, I think that was a form of “Word of Knowledge” by Jesus not a prophecy. I wanted to also cover the base of why I thought she may have called him a prophet.
You asked the question, what do you think? Was there a purpose behind the question you asked?
April 24, 2008 at
Continuist,
You asked about Todd Bently, This was in my mailbox this morning from Andrew Strom. (see below)
-Bill
********************
A FALSE HEALING REVIVAL?? -Florida
-Andrew Strom.
Many of you will have already heard about the “Healing Revival” that has purportedly broken out in Lakeland, Florida. Today Charisma Magazine put out a piece on it entitled ‘A Holy Ghost Outbreak in Florida’ - “…Charismatics are flocking to the sleepy town of Lakeland, Fla. to attend evangelist Todd Bentley’s unconventional revival services.” Is Charisma preparing to hype this one to the skies like they did with Toronto and Rodney Howard-Browne? It seems perhaps they are.
But why am I opposed to this ‘Healing Revival’ so soon after it has been announced? -It is because I already know Todd Bentley’s ministry all too well, and this whole thing centers around him.
Todd Bentley actually has deep roots in the Prophetic movement, and he is one of the very few ministers that I have ever felt I had to publicly warn people about by name. -His ministry is that bad.
False “angel” encounters of the weirdest kind, gold dust, guided visualizations of the “Third Heaven” that are straight out of the New Age, etc. And yet there is a “power” with it that makes it all the more dangerous.
Here is how Charisma describes his Florida meetings-
“His methods are far from polished. When he prayed for people in Lakeland, he usually began by laying his hand on their heads and then yelling, “Bam!”
Often the people fell backward to the floor. After one elderly woman fell, Bentley told the audience: “She doesn’t know why she fell down.” The woman then laughed and said to him in the microphone: “Because you pushed me!” He prayed for her three more times that night, and she said she could hear better…
During the past three weeks people have testified of being healed from heart conditions, skin rashes and back problems, and many said scars disappeared…
Many charismatics are wondering if the protracted meetings will become a phenomenon similar to what happened in Rodney Howard-Browne’s meetings in Lakeland in 1993, at the Toronto Airport Vineyard Church in Canada in 1994 and at Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola in 1995…” [END QUOTE]
Sadly, the Charismatic movement is in such a sick state today that it would not surprise me at all if this happens. (-I say this as a strong Spirit-filled, tongues-speaking believer myself. I am by no means opposed to genuine miracles). Have we completely forgotten the warnings of “Lying signs and wonders” in the Last Days?
Below is a testimony by Lynn Clark who is a Moderator at our website ‘RevivalSchool.com’. This is what she wrote about her involvement with Todd Bentley’s ministry:
“I decided to check out Patricia King and Todd Bentley and,
ignorant of their ‘third heaven’ guided visualizations, attended a five day conference of Patricia King and then two of Todd Bentley’s conferences and began to imagine third heaven visitations - guided visualization - still not realizing that these are actually spirits of darkness - the New Age calls them spirit guides - demons is what
they are. And so I bought Todd Bentley’s teaching on third heaven visitations and brought it home to listen to.
“I was in my living room laying on the floor listening to the teaching on how to visualize the third heaven and what to say and was getting caught up into his teaching and all of a sudden I began to shake uncontrollably and jerk and groan, and no sooner had this taken place I became frozen stiff - I could not move any part of my body and I knew this was a demon trying to take hold of me, and so with all the effort I could muster I cried out, “God save me - Jesus help me” - and as soon as I cried out to the Lord my body went limp.
God spared me that night and I will be forever grateful.
“I spent much of the night in tears asking God to forgive me - and renouncing all the hands layed on me and all the awful deception I had opened myself up to…” [END QUOTE]
ANDREW AGAIN: I myself have heard the tapes of Todd Bentley’s “Third Heaven Visualization” teachings, and I want to tell you - they are straight out of the New Age handbook. -Terrible stuff. And yet so widely accepted by thousands of Christians today.
Do these kinds of practices (above) produce a genuine ‘Healing Revival’? -These are the kinds of questions that we need to be asking Charisma Magazine. I leave it for you to decide.
URGENT - PLEASE FORWARD This EMAIL TO OTHERS.
Send feedback to- prophetic@revivalschool.com
God bless you all.
Andrew Strom.
April 24, 2008 at
Bill, citing Strom: “Often the people fell backward to the floor. After one elderly woman fell, Bentley told the audience: “She doesn’t know why she fell down.” The woman then laughed and said to him in the microphone: “Because you pushed me!””
I saw that segment and confirm that it’s being reported correctly.
April 24, 2008 at
Tim,
I wasn’t responding negatively about your post, i meant that overall in todays modern vocabulary, the word seer, prophet, and yes, even mystic is often looked at in a negative way, YET in OT times those were interchanged often and those gifted in those gifts were often looked at as the same.
It was just an “in general” response to your comment. Nothing personal .
BTW, How is your family doing?
Love in Christ Jesus
Jake
April 24, 2008 at
From a more personal note,
A TRUE Prophet of God is neither OT or NT, but a voice being used as a willing vessel from God.
Just my two cents!
Jake
April 24, 2008 at
CS,
I’m just wondering if an email like the one from Andew Strom above with the enclosed testimony makes you rethink at all about the issue of various manifestations we have talked about? The reason I ask is because one of the reasons you gave for not thinking these things were from the enemy even if they strongly resembled phenomen in the occult, was because they happened to Christians in a Christian setting. (If I am remembering what you said correctly.)
April 24, 2008 at
Cheryl: “One of the reasons you gave for not thinking these things were from the enemy even if they strongly resembled phenomen in the occult, was because they happened to Christians in a Christian setting.”
Actually, I don’t find that apologetic for phenomena very solid. I don’t doubt that demons operate in Christian settings. So, I don’t doubt that the phenomena surrounding the Lakeland meetings are of mixed origin.
The phenomena associated with the Lakeland venue are definitely outside my comfort zone. But, the healing testimonies–at least those from the first several nights–were compelling. More recent testimonies seem less convincing. For instance, people claiming to have been healed of diabetes, who can provide no evidence other than they’re sure God has healed them.
I’ve adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward Todd Bentley and Lakeland. It really upsets me when God uses folks who have bad theology and practice to do His work. If that category didn’t include all of us, I’d be even more upset. You have to wonder, though, where is the limit of His grace?
April 24, 2008 at
Jake,
Family is fine thank you…
Your questions was…“I ask for your opinion on the following verses. Are they a “Prophecy” or are they a “Word of Knowledge ? Based on how they looked on them 2000 years ago and how we look at them today, say given a modern day meeting somewhere and a similiar event happens.
What do you think? Are you saying in post #94 that it was neither but rather both? Prophecy and Word of knowledge?
April 24, 2008 at
http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/todd-bentleys-and-prophet-bob-jones-angel-emma/#comment-4922
April 24, 2008 at
Given the current threads of discussion going on here, to me it looks like we would be helped by looking for a definition of discernment of spirits.
April 24, 2008 at
http://www.cyberspaceministry.org/Services/Gifts/Eng/eng-disc.html
Have fun with this site on discernment…. Seems pretty good and defining the gift…
April 24, 2008 at
One def. I don’t see as useful is Bill Johnson’s of Bethel.
“Your devil is too big. If a person is looking for God, God won’t give him a snake.” That’s it. He referencing Luke 11:5-13 which concerns persistent prayer.
April 24, 2008 at
Tim H,
Thanks. good page.
Are we needing to find a person with the gift of discernment or is there a level of discernment which all believers have?
April 24, 2008 at
Kena,
I have seen that scripture and the one in Matthew regar