May 2, 2008...
Video of the week 5/2/08
Jump to Comments
Due to the exceedingly good posts this week, making it our best week ever, and due to the amazing blog posted just before this one (which you should read right now), the video of the week is not an emphasis this week… as you can tell by watching it.
72 Comments
May 2, 2008 at
HOW DISGUSTING!! Lord have mercy on them for they do not even KNOW that they’re blaspheming and bringing dishonor to Your name!
May 2, 2008 at
I weep….. my heart aches….. not funny…what happen to respect?
May 2, 2008 at
is that for real? i mean seriously is that a joke or do they mean that?
May 2, 2008 at
Speaking of Blasphemeing the Holy Ghost, I wonder would jolly ole Cristobal thinks of John Crowder’s little skit?
http://thegreycoats.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/todd-bentley-in-his-element/#comment-3377
is this for real? John Crowder’s website is worse
thenewmystics.org
May 2, 2008 at
I really love the phrase “no high like the most high”, but I wouldn’t say it like that.
These guys are for real, when I had my dreadful stint of working in a pop christian book store, in the charismatic section, I see what I thought was DAVID Crowder, cuz he writes books too, and he’s way cool. But… no, it is this John Crowder fellow with a book on the “new mystics”. Somebody posted the link to this vid in another thread, so I just had to toss it out there.
TGC-
The thing that your comment hits is this… we can’t tell if it’s a joke, or if they mean it, eventhough we know that they do mean it.
Now everyone knows that I’m down for a good joke. For example, I could see myself role playing these guys in the video any time. BUT it would certainly not be serious, and I wouldn’t use it as my entire gimmick to do conferences in charismatic circles.
Which… once again, as we’ve seen with Bentley, and so many others. Emotion vs. Biblical truth…
May 2, 2008 at
FWIW, this isn’t Crowder at his worst, IMO. I’ve seen him do a similar bit related to what some would call “hard drugs.”
BTW, his book The New Mystics includes some interesting history. But, most here would not be comfortable with his point of view. It’s still maybe worth a read if you can borrow, rather than purchase, a copy. My copy is out on loan. Otherwise, I’d be curious to re-read what Crowder wrote about Branham, in particular.
May 3, 2008 at
I ran across this the other day and about puked. It reminds me about a church near here that would imitate taking a drink (new wine) and would eventually end up drunk (in the spirit of course).
Those sort of ministry wackos need little discernment to avoid. It is the more subtle ones that scare me.
That’s my 4 cents (inflation and all).
May 3, 2008 at
No matter how you shake this, this is DEFINITELY taking our LORD’s name in vain. Blasphemy. Call me ultra-conservative or whatever but I don’t even like when people in casual conversation say, “Oh my G-d.” It’s still flippant and shows lack of reverence.
May 3, 2008 at
This is a disgusting video. What is worse is that YouTube has more Crowder videos from
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ec91wvUY7Yo
(go to related videos to see parts 2-5)
to I guess would be part 2 of the ‘tokin’ video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=h5YJPGaH_n0
I see and hear this bizarre stuff and I think after seeing it that ‘it can’t reach a new low in blasphemy, heresy, etc. ‘ and time goes by and something more bizarre, heretical, etc. comes.
We need God to interviene!!!
May 3, 2008 at
I know someone who was at a meeting or conference somewhere and she said they all stood around in a circle and sucked out of pretend straws from the middle of the circle and they got drunk in the Spirit. She thought it pretty weird but she participated in it. She also told me once that the Holy Spirit can be passed from one to another throught the eyes. Again, I know that this eye thing happens in occult circles.
May 3, 2008 at
I was just remembering sitting in church a few years back watching a video our pastor had brought back with him from a conference at the Toronto Airport church.
I remember watching a member of what I assume was the worship team tipping the violin he was playing neck down over another member of the team. Every time he tipped it, (and he did so repeatedly), it was obvious that we was pouring the “spirit”, the “anointing”, whatever, on the other man. Each tipping brought on more hysterical laughter and drunkenness in the other man until he was rolling on the floor laughing helplessly.
My emotions when watching or hearing these things varies from frustration, anger, fear for the future of the church in general, to what I am feeling tonight–deep sadness. It is almost unbelievable to me that a large portion of the church has come to such a state.
That particular incident was one of a series of tipping points for me that made me realize that the good I saw in this church situation had become seriously outweighed by where things were progressively going.
May 3, 2008 at
Does Mr. Crowder have any connection to or fellowship with IHOP?
May 3, 2008 at
Onward–
I was showing the initial post to my sister, who had come over for a visit tonight and then we clicked on your posts.
We sat here with our jaws dropped open at his irreverence and then he starts making bizarre noises while talking!
That is NOT tongues– there is no interpretation! If I were a non believer I’d think the guy had some mental issues because honestly, I know folks that have that problem! Some had it by birth and some had it by drugs.
My sister made a good point– where does this end? If there is a parallel of drug use called ‘tokin the ghost’ and having ALL the same lingo and actions as a real blitzed out user, where does it end? Will there eventually be “Murder in the spirit?” and will that be acceptable because you Christianize it?
Gaa!! This is so frustrating to me because its so disrespectful of God.
May 3, 2008 at
On Crowder’s website, linked in a comment above, if you check out their links it links to IHOP and Bethel, which doesn’t totally mean that they are partnered up, but he is definitely in support of them.
May 3, 2008 at
Ward,
John Crowder’s book may be purchased at the online IHOP web store. Look’s like recommended reading for the kiddies.
I was trying to find out if Crowder has been a featured speaker at any IHOP conferences.
-r
May 3, 2008 at
Ward,
No apparent connection to IHOP, but he ministers at conferences with Bobby Connor, Patricia Cocking>Coking>King, Stacey “Shake it” Cambell, Jil Austin, Bakers, Matt Soger… all the usual suspects.
See http://thenewmystics.org/Itinerary.html
Just the names of some of these conferences, like “sloshfest,” “Head in the barrel” “the big drink” or “glory tour” makes me sick.
May 3, 2008 at
replace “apparent” in post 16 with “direct” to be more precise.
May 3, 2008 at
Dev, Bill, Rob,
Thank you. While it appears that we live in an age where people don’t like to hold others guilty by association–(see John McCain’s flirtation with the idea of running as John Kerry’s VP or Obama’s twenty year relationship with a crazy pastor)–I still think our associations tell the world a lot about us. It is why I can’t support groups that willing associate with the likes of Bob Jones, Paul Cain, the spirit of William Branham, Crowder, etc.
May 3, 2008 at
Ward: “I . . . think our associations tell the world a lot about us.”
Sorta like Jesus’ association with fallen women, publicans, and zealots, huh?
Your point is taken. But, I suggest that we have to be very careful in evaluating people by such indirect means as their associations. Their personal moral character and doctrinal purity are, I suspect we agree, better indicators.
May 3, 2008 at
CS,
You’ve painted an unfair comparison. Using mere assocation with others as the sole criterion to judge someone is wrong. Using it in conjunction with other factors such as doctrine, moral character, etc. paints a better picture as you point out.
Yes, one can associate with known sinners with the express purpose of winning them over just as Jesus did. Jesus did not habitually hang around with these same sinners as a matter of course. He had a higher purpose.
However, this is clearly not the intention of those mentioned here as they are clearly supporting one another. Yes, guilty by continued association.
May 3, 2008 at
John Crowder likes to smoke little baby Jesus figurines. He fills up shot glasses with holy water for some of that, ‘weighty, drunken, glowwwraaah.’
Sometimes I wish Christianity were about getting wasted. Perhaps God does give some people a sort of spiritual fix for a time in order to carry them along toward true belief. However, the dark night of the soul detox is just around the corner; and that is where the real walk of faith is tested.
May 3, 2008 at
Lee: “[Association with the purpose of ministry] is clearly not the intention of those mentioned here.”
Personally, I don’t claim to know the intentions of others. I’m often unsure of my own intentions.
Rather than consider unknowable intentions/motives, I prefer to evaluate the words and actions of those who teach publicly. In most cases, there’s no shortage of such evidence on which to base a (tentative) conclusion.
Lee: “guilty by continued association”
Guilty of what, exactly? Guilty, by association, of associating with morally/doctrinally unsavory persons? That seems a bit circular, IMO.
May 3, 2008 at
CS,
If an individual has faulty or suspect doctrine and said individual hangs around with others with similar faulty doctrine, then I think it quite fair to make the not-so-difficult leap that they share and promote the same suspect doctrine. Guilty by continued association. Now, if this was only a once or twice occurrence, then I would not make that leap. In the case of Bentley, Bob Jones and their common promotion of William Branham — guilty.
Bentley said, “my friend Bob Jones (a gifted, mature seer-prophet)”
see here:
http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word/6093
So, by the above quote:
1) Bentley and Bob Jones are friends.
2) Bentley thinks Jones to be a “gifted, mature seer-prophet.
&
3)Jones is a no-doubt-about-it false prophet,
&
4)Both Bentley and Jones espouse William Branham.
= Bentley is guilty by association.
Bentley himself is either a false prophet or in deep deception. Or both.
And, as I pointed out in my post above, using “guilt by assocation” as the sole criterion for judging an individual is unfair.
May 4, 2008 at
Lee: “Bentley is guilty by association.”
Based on your logic, of exactly what is he guilty? You don’t seem to say.
May 4, 2008 at
CS,
A false prophet/teacher or in deep deception. Or both.
May 4, 2008 at
Lee, lest you’re preparing to light a fire for my public burning as a heretic, please know that I agree with your conclusion. Bob Jones and Todd Bentley regularly make statements I can explain only by considering that they’re deeply deceived on a variety of points. So, it’s not your conclusion but your logic that troubles me.
Consider the following form of argument. I’m told, and believe, that Branham taught the erroneous doctrine called the Serpent’s seed. Does Bentley’s apparent approval of Branham indicate that Bentley accepts that doctrine? For all I know, he might. But, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.
Here’s another. Some years ago, Billy Graham shared a podium with, and spoke approvingly of, LA’s Mayor Bradley, who seemed to be a non-Christian universalist of some sort. Does that mean Billy Graham was a universalist? Or, does that mean Mayor Bradley an evangelist? What, exactly, can we conclude by their comradely demeanor? Nothing, I suggest.
IMO, association is too vague and nebulous a concept to form the basis of a reliable argument. Much more specific evidence is required. For the most part, such evidence is available. Why not use it and offer a cleaner, more defensible, and more persuasive argument?
May 4, 2008 at
CS,
As I pointed out, I did not use “guilt by association” as the sole means to come to my conclusion. Bentley openly agrees with Bob Jones. Bentley calls Bob Jones “friend.” They both prophesy falsely. The’ve both seen the same angel “Emma.” They support William Branham; so, they must also support his doctrines.
This isn’t a case of “I saw Todd Bentley talking to Bob Jones a couple times.” There’s documentation.
May 4, 2008 at
Lee: “They support William Branham; so, they must also support his doctrines.”
I don’t agree that this follows in every particular. Todd demonstrates many theological errors, some of them serious. But, I’ve seen no evidence that he rejects the Trinity as Branham did.
More generally, I’m quite closely associated with my wife. But, I don’t believe everything she does. Support/association does not entail entire agreement.
May 4, 2008 at
Regarding the ongoing disucssion here of guilt by association, a couple of verses have come to my mind.
2 Jo 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into {your} house, and do not give him a greeting;
2 Jo 1:11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. NASB
These verses are speaking of those who come and do not bring the doctrine of Christ. But it seems to me the same principle must apply, don’t you think? If even greeting them is participating in their evil deeds, doesn’t speaking of a false teacher in an approving way share in their evil deeds? What do you all think?
May 4, 2008 at
CS,
OK, I thought I had posted earlier on a more direct link between Bentley and Branham; but, it was apparently on a different blog. With that in mind, I did not see the point in saying it again. However, now knowing that info was not presented here, here goes:
I caught a bit of the Lakeland “show” on Sunday including the very end in which Bentley acknowledged certain influences including William Branham. Bentley also mentioned something like, “The River came together… …the former and the latter rain…” I did not catch all of it but this is where the term “Latter Rain” comes from:
23 Be glad then, you children of Zion,
And rejoice in the LORD your God;
For He has given you the former rain faithfully,
And He will cause the rain to come down for you—
The former rain,
And the latter rain in the first month.
24 The threshing floors shall be full of wheat,
And the vats shall overflow with new wine and oil.
[Joel 2:23-24]
…as well as Latter Rain-er’s use of the term ‘New Wine.’
Also, Joel 2:1-11 is where Latter Rain’s subordinate doctrine of Joel’s Army comes from. If you go to Bentley’s website, you will see Bentley’s own Joel’s Army Internship:
http://www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Id=943&pid=994&pid=994
I do believe that makes a pretty strong correlation between Bentley and at least this part of Branham’s heretical doctrine.
May 4, 2008 at
Cheryl, in context, this teaching concerns the heretical Gnostic doctrine that Jesus was a spirit and did not actually come in the flesh. So, your suggested application is not directly supported by the text. But, I agree that the text points to a general principle that those who substantially assist others who are seriously in error may share their guilt.
Two questions arise in the application of this teaching: (1) how serious must the error be, and (2) how substantial must the assistance be? I think that only the Spirit-illuminated conscience can guide us in this.
May 4, 2008 at
CS,
I submit that the whole Latter Rain/modern prophetic/MSOG/NAR is essentially neo-gnosticism and hence the verses quoted by cheryl U. are applicable.
May 4, 2008 at
Lee, the term Latter Rain (LR) stands for a whole bundle of teachings. Some, including that known as Manifest Sons of God (MSoG), are heretical. Others are aberrant, erroneous, or merely odd.
Todd uses quite a few LR terms. But, exactly which LR doctrines Todd holds is not that easy to assess. Frankly, he’s not always especially coherent, theologically speaking. So, I don’t think it’s at all clear whether Todd holds the MSoG doctrine or other heretical LR doctrines.
A key aspect of MSoG that’s heretical is the teaching that members of Joel’s Army will possess resurrection bodies like that of Jesus, despite not having died and been resurrected. But, other aspects of MSoG may or may not be heretical. So, even an abundance of references to Joel’s Army demonstrates only flawed (IMO) eschatology not necessarily rank heresy.
My own research suggests that Branham taught, and perhaps even originated, many LR doctrines. But, I understand that he was not part of the LR movement as such.
So, IMO, the picture is way too muddy and complicated for simple association or approval to reliably demonstrate adherence to particular doctrines. One might as reasonably adduce as proof that LR doctrines, like Todd, were birthed in Canada. But, I have a good friend who was born in Canada and taught for many years at John MacArthur’s Master’s Seminary. Despite his Canadian origin, there’s no way he’d approve of LR teaching.
May 4, 2008 at
Getting back closer to the subject of this post, if you go the link I provided above to Bentley’s Joel Army Internship and scroll down a bit you will see:
“From time to time Todd will have weekly associate ministries and friends blast you in the Holy Ghost”
BAM! Get Blasted. This is so sick…
May 4, 2008 at
Lee: “the whole Latter Rain/modern prophetic/MSOG/NAR is essentially neo-gnosticism.”
I see elements of thinking between these movements/groups and Gnosticism. But, the central truth of Gnosticism is a duality of spirit and matter that is inconsistent with the Incarnation. I’m not aware that these movements/groups deny the Incarnation. If anything, quite the opposite: they might be said to exaggerate the human aspects of Jesus at the expense of the divine.
So, I’m not sure there’s grounds for labeling these movements/groups neo-gnostic. But, in any case, I do agree that the teaching cited by Cheryl has application beyond its direct context. So, perhaps our difference of opinion is moot.
May 4, 2008 at
CS,
Yes, the whole Latter Rain theology is very muddied. IIRC, according to LR, Joel’s Army will be the army of ‘perfected saints’ whose bodies Jesus inhabits spiritually (they believe Jesus will not return in bodily form) at the battle of Armaggedon.
Here’s a direct quote from Bentley’s site:
“God is raising up a Joel’s Army—a spiritual army of young and old who will not fight with human weapons but with militant love and the raw power of God. We desire to strengthen prophetic words [how does one do this?] given by many prophets about a huge revival army of millions of radical soldiers that God is training to aggressively take ground for the Kingdom of God under the authority of Jesus Christ.”
May 4, 2008 at
Lee, the bombast is not exactly to my taste, aesthetically or eschatologically. But, I can’t definitely extrapolate the MSoG heresy from Todd’s statement. Depending on the meaning of “take ground” I might even be able to affirm the essential idea of the statement. As a metaphor, I’d buy it. In that case, we wouldn’t even have dominionism (which I reject) let alone LR or MSoG.
May 4, 2008 at
CS,
Another tenet of gnosticism is secret knowledge. Gnosis in the Greek means “knowledge.” The Latter Rainers do endorse a secret knowledge — the “revelation” of the ‘modern prophets’ which supercede the Bible. Plus the obvious occultism in the angel sightings (angels of light), visits to 3rd heaven at will (astral travel) and speaking to long dead saints (necromancy).
May 4, 2008 at
CS,
But, I can’t definitely extrapolate the MSoG heresy from Todd’s statement.
And, I do believe this is by design.
May 4, 2008 at
…by design of Bentley and his cohorts, that is.
May 4, 2008 at
Lee: “Another tenet of gnosticism is secret knowledge.”
True! But, I’m not sure that’s as central as the duality. Our tastes may differ as to terms. That’s fair.
I don’t agree that visions of angels are necessarily occultic (though, FWIW, I’ve not yet had even one). But, I do agree that visions of heaven at will and necromancy (the “Great Cloud of Witnesses” doctrine) are serious bad stuff.
Lee: “I do believe this is by design.”
Point taken. I myself wonder about this. My best guess is that Todd is not quite verbally and theologically clever enough to know what to hide and what to reveal. But, I think there may be those among his peers who have, and use, the requisite skill.
But, in any case, we’re left with a circumstantial case that I see as not having eliminated reasonable doubt. I have to give Todd a pass on MSoG–for now.
May 4, 2008 at
Well, it’s well nigh impossible to keep up with the aberrant/heretical doctrines as they are constantly renamed and redefined. Check out International House of Prayers Affirmations and Denials page:
http://www.ihop.org/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=1000010501
They may deny some of the doctrines yet they teach them nontheless.
And, under Joel’s Army:
Joel’s Army
WE AFFIRM that the army in Joel 2:1–11 was an ungodly Babylonian army that destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC. We believe that this passage has a double fulfillment as it points to the Antichrist’s army that will attack Israel at the end of the age. We affirm that Joel was prophesying of the lifestyle of godly believers in Joel 2:12–17.
WE DENY Joel 2:1–11 describes the end-time church.
Explanation: The term “Joel’s Army” has been used to signify the people who walk out the principles of prayer with fasting as taught in Joel 2:12–17. The term has been used much like “Joseph Company”, “Gideon Band” or “David Company” to signify the people who embraced the godly qualities that Joel taught about prayer, fasting and wholehearted obedience. Paul Cain had a prophetic word about a “Joel’s Army in training,” referring to a group of people who would give themselves to prayer and fasting according to Joel 2:12–17. When used like this, “Joel’s Army” does not refer specifically to the destroying army mentioned in Joel 2:1–11, but to people who walk out the Joel 2:12–17 lifestyle. The misunderstanding comes from giving the title “Joel’s Army” to both the destroying army (Joel 2:1–11) and the group of people who give themselves to fasting and prayer (Joel 2:12–17).
So who gave the the original title and definition of Joel’s Army? If it was diffferent than what IHOP was referring to, then why did IHOP use the same name? IHOP’s Joel’s Army (in italics) does sound a bit different than that of Bentley’s I’d say.
May 4, 2008 at
Isnt Joel’s Army the spawn of Bob Jones though?
Since IHOP doesnt really affiliate themselves with BJ anymore, maybe they have their own adaptation and Bentley has the more extreme one since he currently sits under Jones?
As far as GBA goes, we went to a church that had been renting from another church and using their facility on Sunday mornings *The church that owned the building had a night-time service*
All of a sudden *after a mecca to Kansas City*, the host church turned into an IHOP. When ppl saw us gathering at the “Three Rivers House of Prayer” each morning, dont you think people would think we were being taught and practicing IHOP doctrine, etc since that was the giant sign on the church?
The church body was concerned. In fact as soon as the building was officially renamed, I was so uneasy being there that I couldnt even stay for the rest of the service. I didnt want to be mistaken for a heretic!
The church that was renting was not happy to be thought of as an IHOP as well, since they did NOT agree with their teachings and didnt want their flock to be influenced in that direction. There was IHOP, etc. materials all over the place, and anyone who walked into the building would never have known that the church that rented the place didnt support it– that is until they listened to the messages that came from the pulpit and the lack of freaky worship.
So now they’re in a new building because they all felt guilty by association.
May 4, 2008 at
Berean,
Thanks for your guilt by association story. It seems to me that it is a lot more powerful factor than what is admitted by a large share of the modern church. No matter how you look at it, if someone speaks of another as a close friend or recommends their work, a person can certainly think they believe the same unless there is some disclaimer made. Worse then that, if someone you respect recommends someone else or speaks highly of them and they are teaching error or heresy, you could easily be led astray by accepting what the recommended person teaches unless you are very firmly grounded.
In the church I came out of, there were several occurences of this type of thing. The pastor was out of town one Sunday and had a guest speaker in. I don’t know how much the guest believed the manifest sons doctrine, but he touched on it in his sermon. When I spoke to the pastor about it later, he said he didn’t believe that. But to my knowledge, there was never any mention from the pulpit that what had been said was false teaching. I did miss a couple of services somewhere in that time frame, so it is possible something was said that I am not aware of.
Another instance was a book that he leant me on prayer that he said was wonderful. I didn’t agree with much of anything in the book–God can not do anything unless people pray–but what really got to me was some very blatant WOF heresy regarding the atonement. When I spoke to the pastor about that, he said he didn’t agree with that and didn’t even remember reading it. But, so help me, a couple of months later that book was recommended to the whole congregation as, “a must read on prayer,” with no disclaimer of any kind. Now, in all fairness, I know newer additions of the book had the worst of that removed. But what happens to the people that may have had an older addition or gone to a second-hand book distributor and bought an old one? What terrible heresy they could of been exposed to at the recommendation of the pastor! The pastor did have a very poor memory sometimes, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how anyone could forget such a terrible heresy existed in a book in such a short time unless he really wasn’t at all concerned about it or he had altzheimers!
May 4, 2008 at
That reminds me of another of my pet peeves in the whole modern church–”Eat the meat and spit out the bones!” That line is used often to give approval to a mixed bag of teachings. What I would like to know is, what happens to the poor folks who can’t tell which one is which?
May 4, 2008 at
Aggh! I went thru some similar ‘heresy amnesia’ with my pastor from the church I left.
But I have to agree– yes if you support and recommend what a person does– then you are guilty by association!
I wouldnt say that if you are simply a friend of a person, that doesnt make you GBA. A few of my friends are affiliated with all his crud and they know very well that I dont support the things they follow after, but we have decided to stay friends anyway— probably both of us have the same thing in mind though LOL– to win eachother over LOL!
May 4, 2008 at
AAAAAAAAAAMEN Cheryl!!
What I would like to know is, what happens to the poor folks who can’t tell which one is which?
Im sure you’ll then hear some other loaded language that will substantiate grabbing onto to it anyway.
May 4, 2008 at
reading what I just said about GBA– I think that there actually is a fine line between certain things– thinking of that church that was GBA– they didnt support the IHOP but LOOKED GBA.
Yes. I think there is quite a fine line…
(BOTW is hoping she makes sense LOL)
May 5, 2008 at
I poked around the web and watched a few other clips of Crowder et al.
So how is pulling out a little plastic doll, sucking on it, and calling it his “little baby Jesus” not blasphemous?
Such irreverence toward God cannot be from God.
May God have mercy on his soul.
-r
May 5, 2008 at
I’m joing this little discussion late, having taken a sabbath rest!
I’d say the strongest link in GBA between Bentley and Branham is that they share the same “angel” (healing revival).
And Between Bentley and Jones is that they share the same “angel” (Emma).
If there wasn’t a point in this, why would Bentley repeatedly bring this up.
AFAIK, Billy Graham did not share an angel with anyone.
But seriously, if we buy the argument that Branham was unschooled, and hence not responsibe for statements like “God told me (insert heresy here)” (and I don’t buy that arguement for reasons having to do with millstones and necks), the what are the excuses offered by Baker and Bentley, both Branham groupies, who surely have the benefit of history?
May 5, 2008 at
Jones and Bentley share 2 common angels “Emma” and “Winds of change”
May 5, 2008 at
Bentley tries to make a GBA with Billy Graham in this recent video
http://www.tbo.com/video/xml/MGBUNESXPFF.html
May 6, 2008 at
hey nat i just had to say this…. when i first started watchin the video i couldnt help but think of MIKEY P…… if ya know what i mean LOLOL… completely irrelevant but i had to say it…
May 6, 2008 at
Dude,
Tokin the ghost with the electric catfish.
May 8, 2008 at
Re: Gnostic connection
Many within this movement believe that Jesus was only human, not the Christ, until after His baptism by John. The picture of the Trinity, they interpret to be the moment that Jesus received what New Agers call the Christ consciousness. He became Christ at His baptism.
Therefore (according to their doctrine) Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. Only Jesus came in the flesh. He became Christ later.
A subtle but important distinction.
In essence they deny the incarnation of God. Instead they preach the Christ anointing (identical to New Age Christ Consciousness). Therefore they can also become christs when they are anointed by the Holy Spirit.
Get it? My sentences tend to ramble.
May 8, 2008 at
Balaams’s Ass,
Do you have access to quotes or specific teachings re: this thinking? I would love to be able to prove this if it is indeed accurate. If this is indeed true, they are, according to Scripture–II John 1:7) deceivers and the antichrist. I have heard things quoted in the past that definitely sounded like this may be the case but in my mind weren’t definitive.
May 8, 2008 at
Sorry, I have no documentation.
And I am definitely engaging in guilt by association.
It’s old stuff in the charismatic movement, Hagin, Copeland, Hinn, Creflo, et al have taught the Jesus was just a man who became Christ at His baptism. I do have lots of documentation on those guys, but not on the newbies in the movement.
“We are christs!” “We have that same anointing!” I’ve heard it more times than I can count.
I even heard a preacher on TV say with contempt “You’re just Jesus, and you’re supposed to be Christ”. Yuck. I don’t remember his name. Sorry.
I have many charismatic friends who have been taught that the word Christian means little christ, which is a lie. It means simply follower of Christ. Followers of Caesar were called Caesarianos, and follower of Jesus were called Christianos, from which we get the word Christian.
But the sheeplings believe what they are told by these lying leaders.
Sorry that I don’t have links for you. If you want I can post the quotes from the old gang, Copeland et al. Will that help?
May 8, 2008 at
Balaam’s Ass,
I have read those old quotes too. If you happen to have the old links handy and don’t have to hunt for them, I would appreciate reading them again.
May 8, 2008 at
Paul Crouch : “He [God] doesn’t even draw a distinction between Himself and us. . . . You know what else that’s settled, then, tonight? This hue and cry and controversy that has been spawned by the Devil to try and bring dissension within the body of Christ that we are gods. I am a little god! . . . I have His name. I’m one with Him. I’m in covenant relation. 1 am a little god! Critics, be gone!” (”Praise the Lord” program on TBN [7 July 1986].)
(Believer’s Voice of Victory, broadcast July 9, 1987)
(Praise the Lord broadcast (TBN), recorded 2/5/86)
(Kenneth Hagin, “The Incarnation,” The Word of Faith, p.13, Dec. 1980). “Every man who has been born again is an incarnation and Christianity is a miracle. The believer is as much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth.”
Kenneth E. Hagin : “Originally, God made the earth and the fullness thereof, giving Adam dominion over all the works of His hands. In other words, Adam was the god of this world.” (The Believer’s Authority, 2d ed. [Tulsa, OK: Kenneth Hagin Ministries, 1991], 19.)
Ken Hagin: We (the church) are Christ. (As Christ is — So are we, Tape #44H06)
Kenneth Copeland : “He (Adam) was not subordinate to God even. . . . Adam is as much like God as you could get, just the same as Jesus. . . . Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh.” (”Following the Faith of Abraham I,” Tape #01-3001 side 1.)
Kenneth Copeland “[Man] was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God’s presence without any consciousness of inferiority… He made us the same class of being that He is Himself…Man lived in the realm of God. He lived on terms equal with God…[The] believer is called Christ…That’s who we are; we’re Christ” (Zoe: The God-Kind of Life, . pgs. 35-36, 41, 1989)
Copeland states “Jesus is no longer the only begotten Son of God.” (Now We Are In Christ Jesus, p.24,1980)
Ken Copeland: Every Christian is a god. (Force of Love; Tape #02-002
Ken Copeland: God and Adam looked exactly alike. (The Authority of the Believer IV; Tape #01-0304)
Ken Copeland: There is a god class of beings. (Force of Love; Tape #02-002
Kenneth Copeland (through whom Jesus allegedly delivered the following prophecy) : “They crucified Me [Jesus] for claiming that I was God. But I didn’t claim I was God; I just claimed I walked with Him [the Father] and that He was in Me.” (”Take Time to Pray,” Believer’s Voice of Victory 15, 2 [February 1987]:9.)
Ken Copeland: Jesus has a beginning and an end. (What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)
Ken Copeland: Jesus has not remained the same, he has changed. (What Happened From the Cross to the Throne, Tape #00-0303)
May 8, 2008 at
Here is an interesting article by Todd Bentley that is well worth the read to get some of his own perspective on things. I don’t know the date of this.
http://www.etpv.org/2005/mtan.html
May 8, 2008 at
Thanks for the quotes.
May 8, 2008 at
In regards to #55:
About a year ago I went to what I knew was a very charismatic home group invited by my new friend who was steeped in IHOP. I was just learning of the deception by then; but, I wanted to see first hand if this was indeed something not right as I thought. My friends warned me and prayed for me; but, I did not want to miss something truly of God if my suspicions were wrong.
Remembering 1 Corinthians 12:3, I repeatedly prayed “Jesus is Lord” for my protection [uh, not as in a mantra -- lol] as the goings-on went on. (I’ll spare you the details.) But, toward the end of the meeting came the teaching.
It was on Luke 4:1-36 and was primarily about the power and authority of Jesus after he was baptized. The following implications could be drawn about this teaching:
1) Jesus was Divinity possibly only after His baptizm. This is what it appeared the teacher was trying to convey but was not explicit.
and;
2) We have the same power and authority; i.e., we are just like Jesus if we are Holy Spirit indwelled believers. This was more explicit and it is certainly true that true believers have the same Holy Spirit indwelling us as Jesus. However, I wasn’t sure just how far these thoughts went. Did the teacher think we were equal to Jesus? I dunno.
Having already been familiar with New Age teachings after studying the movement years ago, I was skeptical. I was very familiar the ‘Christ Consciousness’ espoused by New Agers. I left feeling uncomfortable. Well, I was uncomfortable the whole time!
May 8, 2008 at
Lee,
Do you know what teachers, prophets, etc, that home group was promoting? I know the old WOF crew like the ones in comment #59 above have taught these things for years. I would still really like to know if the new prophetic crew is really pushing them too. I haven’t heard of that particular teaching–implying that Jesus wasn’t God until His baptism–coming from IHOP, etc.
May 8, 2008 at
Last year a woman spent a week with my husband and me.
We had met but I knew very little about her. Now I realize that she runs a prayer house and is part of this Apostolic-Prophetic Movement.
As we were praying together at one point she started saying excitedly “We are christ! We are christ!” over and over.
At another point we were praying together and she started hysterically calling down angels by name. She was screaming “I call down Raphael!”
It was sad. I didn’t say anything, but prayed silently for God to keep any demons away that she was summoning. We don’t summon angels. They take their commands directly from God. They are not our play things. Only demons come when called, if it fits their purpose.
It was just so pathetic. She was feeling really sick and I was trying to be gentle, so I didn’t confront her either time. I just prayed.
She stayed for a week, so I got a lot of information about her doctrine. They do a lot of “evangelism” but they don’t preach the gospel. I do. So at one point she yelled at me “You can’t just preach Jesus!” Weird. I had never heard someone professing to be a Christian say it was wrong to preach Jesus.
I am not a cessasionist, but it may be time to admit that the charismatics have left the building.
Their’s is a different religion, a different Jesus, a different gospel.
I tend to speak hyperbolically. This is actually only a sect within the charismatic church, not the whole.
May 8, 2008 at
cheryl U.,
I can say nothing definitive; however, my used-to-be friend was DEFINITELY influenced by Mike Bickle and IHOP. She and her ’spiritual mentor’ — who she referred to as Elijah (in fact, she wanted be Elisha to get a ‘double portion’ of her mentor’s anointing having misinterpreted that scripture to mean she would get twice the power) — spoke of the then recent heavy rains here as indicative of the ‘Latter Rain’ which was forthcoming.
My ex-friend also went to The Call Nashville having been ’summoned’ at a Chuck Pierce prophetic conference. She apparently reads the Elijah List as she forwarded an article to me once. She did ask me to attend a local church service with her to see guest Paula White after I invited her to see Pastor Paul Sheppard who guested at another church . (I did go see Paula White with a different friend; but, that’s another story. What a FAKE!)
She also gave me music by the following artists:
Misty Edwards
JoAnn McFatter
Robert Stearns
Jason Upton
In a ‘vision’ she had about me it is obvious that she is heavily influenced by Bickle’s Bridal Paradigm. Then there’s the elitism obvious in just one sentence in her vision which she put to words and sent to me, “I see this as an invitation to come up higher in your walk.” Apparently, I wasn’t as “high” in my walk as she was.
She also told me I had enough head knowledge but that I needed a ‘revelation.’
May 8, 2008 at
Balaam’s Ass said:
We don’t summon angels. They take their commands directly from God. They are not our play things. Only demons come when called, if it fits their purpose.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!
May 8, 2008 at
Everybody,
Please tie your discussions in to the theme of the thread–’Tokin the Ghost’. Thanks.
May 8, 2008 at
Apparently, I wasn’t as “high” in my walk as she was.
Ugh– I had a friend like that too. She was a BABY Christian yet had arrived at the highest level and tried to ‘disciple’ me– probably because she was being mentored by one of the most eccentric ladies I’ve ever met in my church that was all over in this movement– and she had felt like since she was older than me *pff, by 4 years* that she was wiser and more knowledgeable.
Not tooting my own horn and saying I cant be taught, but its not often that someone who’s just been saved would have a whole lot of advice to give.
May 8, 2008 at
No prob Nat– I didnt see that until after I posted the last thing.
May 8, 2008 at
Perhaps this discussion should go over to Ask Away 2.5?
May 8, 2008 at
Sorry Nat, I think all of us kind of took this thread off topic a long time ago. It seems that the current goings on in Florida and Todd and company’s doctrines are so much on everyone’s mind that we all tend to take all conversations back to that place.
May 9, 2008 at
Sorry too. I’ll be good. : )
Leave a Reply