| Lakeland garbage|
Hello everyone..I would just like to vent more than anything.:)...I am a Pentecostal. I am absolutely ashamed how the Pentecostal/Charismatic world has gone crazy for this guy! He is not of God. He has said that he speaks with an angel named Emma on a regular basis. He has also said that he has been possessed by a demon while saved, which is impossible for a child of God! I wish that the Pentecostals/Charismatics would please wake up!
| 2008/7/15 22:10||Profile|
| Re: Lakeland garbage|
If you are going to criticize a man you must at least be factual and accurate in your critique. I understand fully peoples problems with Todd Bentley and the Lakeland movement. However, the way in which people are going about it is completely unscriptural. Some have valid points. Others are grossly misinterpreting the man's words and making him out to say things he never said.
For instance, you say he has spoken with an angel named Emma and in fact claims to do so on a regular basis. The truth is that he claims to have seen in a vision an angel named Emma. As far as my research goes he has never claimed to speak with her even once. (I could be mistaken...) However, the one vision he claims to have had of this angel is the only one that I've come across. A man saying he has had a single vision of this angel and saying that he claims to have regular conversations with it are completely different.
I am not against godly "criticism", which is in fact an oxi moron. Let me rephrase . . . I am not opposed to biblical discernment and Berean like research. However, we cannot lie and exaggerate in the name of discernment. For instance, if Bentley has claimed that he had a post salvation demonic deliverance experience, we then turn it and say,
"This man clearly claims and teaches that Christians can have demons and can in fact be possesed long after their conversion to Jesus Christ! This is abominable heresy!"
The truth is he gave testimony to what his experience was. To say he claims this happened to him and to say that he teaches this regularly as if it were the hallmark of his "ministry" is dishonest and ungodly to do. It is ungodly to lie and be dishonest EVEN about someone you believe to be a false prophet.
Another classic example of this is the claim that Bentley has stated God told him to no longer preach Jesus but instead to preach only on angels. This again is bogus and a lie. I have personally listened to the audio clip in question dozens of times and educated myself with Bentley's other angel teachings for context. I can say quite objectively that htis is not what the man teaches.
Please understand I am not giving a for or against stance on Todd Bentley here, I am only trying to be honest and frank with you about the dishonesty going on in the name of "frankness" and the exposing of heresy. The Bible tells us to speak the truth in love. Without even emphasizing the command to speak the truth in LOVE, I simply here emphasize the Biblical command to speak the TRUTH! You cannot effectively expose heresy by exaggerating and lying. If the man is teaching falsehood than let it be clear. But we cannot and must not make people say what we wish they were saying so that we could really lay the proverbial "whammy" on them. Doing that only makes us look stupid, and not like sons and daughters of God.
Just my thoughts...
| 2008/7/15 23:07||Profile|
| Re: Lakeland garbage|
The Lord Jesus commended the apostles in Revelation 2:2 for having tested and tried those men who came claiming to be apostles themselves and were not and found them to be liars? "...thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." Now how do you think these false apostles appeared unto these people at Ephesus? Do you think they came with horns on their heads and looking like the ravenous wolves that they were (see Matt. 7:15)? Of course not. These false apostles came looking just like true apostles, no horns, no wolfish attire, no badge declaring them to be members of the union of false apostles, nothing but a sweet countenance and Jesus name on their lips, who "...by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom. 16:18).
The people of Ephesus had nothing personal against these men when they first appeared on the scene. The Ephesians did just as those noble-minded people of Berea did who, despite being approached by men of the calibre of Paul and Silas with teachings they claimed to be the very Word of God, "...searched the Scriptures daily, (to see) whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). They incurred no rebuke for making sure what they were hearing was in fact the Word of God. Does not the apostle John, in 1 John 4:1, implore every believer to "...believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world"? And does not Paul the apostle, in his opening remarks to the Galatians, warn that if any came to them, no matter their reputation, even if it was one who is mighty in appearance such as an angel from heaven, bringing any gospel other than that great and mighty Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation that Paul had preached to them, they were to let them be accursed! "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that which WE have preached unto you, let him be accursed." As if that wasnt clear enough, and so that there would be no way his words could possibly be misinterpreted, Paul immediately repeated this warning to the Galatians in the following verse, thus emphasizing how vitally important this rule was that he was seeking to establish in their minds: "As we said before, so say I now again, if ANY MAN preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8,9).
They are accursed people who speak a cursed gospel. Paul was not saying that if any man who came preaching any other gospel than the one they had heard from the mouth of Paul was a true believer who just needed a little correcting, for was it not Paul who also warned the Galatians that "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Gal. 5:9)? If the whole lump be leavened, so too is the one who brings it. He who speaks a false gospel has not been made free by the Truth, but is still in bondage to a lie. He is not a man of God who brings a gospel that is not of God. Paul told the Galatians that it did not matter who it was, not even if he himself or those with him were to return at a later date to Galatia saying that what they had preached to them previously was wrong and what they were now going to preach was the real Gospel, or even if an angel was to come down from heaven, they were not to be listened to if their gospel differed in any way, to any degree, from that single definitive message they had heard.
The situation was, and still is, so serious that if a man brings a gospel differing from that great and only Gospel of God that reveals the true Savior and His Righteousness, he shows himself to be an accursed man, that is, a man who is in a lost state, a man who has never heard from God, for he does not teach Gods Gospel. Likewise is the situation for any who believe a gospel other than the one Paul the apostle preached. He who preaches and/or believes a false Gospel, according to the apostle Paul, shows that he is a man under the curse of God. According to Paul, "The great system of salvation had been taught; and no other was to be admittedno matter who preached it, no matter what the character or rank of the preacher, and no matter with what imposing claims he came. It follows from this, that the mere rank, character, talent, eloquence, or piety of a preacher, does not of necessity give his doctrine a claim to our belief, or prove that his gospel is true. Great talents may be prostituted; and great sanctity of manner, and even holiness of character, may be in error; and no matter what may be the rank, and talents, and eloquence, and piety of the preacher, if he does not accord with the Gospel which was first preached, he is to be held accursed....The object of Paul is to express the greatest possible abhorrence of any other doctrine than that which he had himself preached. So great was his detestation of it, that He casteth out very flames of fire; and his zeal is so fervent, that he beginneth to almost curse the angels. It follows from this (1) that any other doctrine than that which is proclaimed in the Bible on the subject of justification, is to be rejected and treated with abhorrence, no matter what the rank, talent or eloquence of him who defends it. (2) That we are not to patronise or countenance such preachers. No matter what their zeal, or their apparent sincerity, or their apparent sanctity, or their apparent success, or their real boldness in rebuking vice, we are to withdraw from them.
Especially are we to withdraw wholly from that instruction which goes to deny the great doctrines of salvationthat pure Gospel which the Lord Jesus and the apostle taught. If Paul would regard even an angel as doomed to destruction, and as held accursed, should he preach any other doctrine, assuredly we should not be found to lend our countenance to it, nor should we patronise it by attending on such a ministry. Who would desire to attend on the ministry of even an angel, if he was to be held accursed? How much less the ministry of a man preaching the same doctrine! It does not follow from this, however, that we are to treat others with severity of language or cursing (2 Tim 2:24,25). They must answer to God. We are to withdraw from their teaching; we are to regard the doctrines with abhorrence; and we are not to lend our countenance to them."
If a man does not abide in the Gospel of God he does not have God, so how could such a one be considered a man of God, a follower of God? "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, HATH NOT GOD. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (2 Jn. 9). And, echoing Pauls warning in the first chapter of Galatians, John the apostle continues his proclamation: "If there come any unto you, and bring not THIS doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 Jn. 10,11). The Holy Spirit of God is the Spirit of Truth and He inspires His ministers to teach His Gospel and no other. It is the Message by which we can ascertain whether or not a man speaks the truth of God, or speaking his own words. Even when it is established that a man is speaking the true Gospel, never are we to cease our examination of what he teaches. Never believe something based on the fact that a certain individual said it. BELIEVE IT ONLY IF IT IS THE TRUTH, only if it is in accord with the Scriptures.
| 2008/7/15 23:21|
I'm not sure if you were addressing me or the original poster here. However, I do not disagree with what you posted above. I was only trying to make the point that we cannot lie and exaggerate in order to make the perceived darkness look darker. This is undeniably what is happening concerning Lakeland and Todd Bentley. I have witnessed and personally read one lie and exaggeration after another. Though we may think it to be for a good cause, lying is still lying. We must not participate in such behaviour.
| 2008/7/15 23:51||Profile|
Am I correct in saying that the name Emma is a woman's name?
I say this, because in scripture, angels are referred to as male, not female.
I could be mistaken, but if I'm wrong, no doubt someone will show me my error.
| 2008/7/16 4:20||Profile|
I don't believe there is any malice in the exaggerations or the 'lyings' here. We've been hashing threads on Bentley since April. If the intent here is to deceive then yes there is lying. You say 'one after another' as if there is an ongoing pattern. If so I don't understand why the specific information isn't cited each time and then corrected. After this it should be determined if this information changes the overall facts of extra-biblical facets of Bentley. Let's keep this in context. If something is dark to begin with then basically that makes anything beyond it moot in the context of the falsehoods of Bentley. Let judgment come upon the individual who maligns the facts with the intent to deceive.
Or perhaps everyone should preface every point on Bentley with 'as far as I know' so as to acknowledge that some information may be missing... and perhaps we should also acknowledge that just because we haven't found the information to be totally factual, we ourselves may not be fully informed. If we're going to split hairs let's be open about it.
| 2008/7/16 8:38|
| Re: Lakeland garbage|
I wish that the Pentecostals/Charismatics would please wake up!
Does this broad stroke statement reflect the Love of God?
Biblically speaking there were prophets
there were prophets who accepted a lying spirit from the throne of God
there were prophet who spoke out of thier own imaginations
and there were false prophets who biblically speaking drew the peoples away from the true God to worship and serve false gods. Something to think about.
| 2008/7/16 17:16||Profile|
Coley, about this,
"If the intent here is to deceive then yes there is lying."
But Coley, shouldn't we be carefull to gaurd and protect the reputations of others? Is it honest to repeat damaging things about others in public that we are not [b]sure[/b] are true?
And if they are false, and destructive to them, what then?
In the law it says,
"Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
- Exodus 23:1(KJV)
Would the Lord Jesus Christ approve of our repeating falsehoods in the course of condemning others, or proving them false?
"A false witness shall perish: but the man that heareth speaketh constantly."
- Proverbs 21:28(KJV)
[i]...the man that heareth[/i]
Is it wise to repeat things second and third hand that we have heard, especially in public, and especially if those things are harmfull or destructive to others?
How do we demonstrate to others that we stand for the cuase of truth if we are anything but [b]carefull[/b] with the lives and reputations of others and the facts we report about them?
"For thus saith the LORD of hosts; As I thought to punish you, when your fathers provoked me to wrath, saith the LORD of hosts, and I repented not: So again have I thought in these days to do well unto Jerusalem and to the house of Judah: fear ye not. These [i]are[/i] the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates: And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbor; and love no false oath: for all these [i]are things[/i] that I hate, saith the LORD."
- Zechariah 8:14-17(KJV)
Grace and peace,
Christopher Joel Dandrow
| 2008/7/16 18:12||Profile|
Bentley is not Scriptural. Pure and simple. First off, the born again believer is a new creation. OLD things have passed away, all things have become NEW. Just one look at the man will show you what he represents. It seems that we are trying to bring Christ down to our level, instead of us trying to live as holy as we can before the Lord. Our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. We are not supposed to pierce it, and tattoo it. Many have said, "Well, he is just trying to appeal to the NEW generation." I'd just like to say that I'm not going to do crack just because I want to reach a drug addict.
Second, the brother said it right earlier that there is no such thing as a female angel. There is no eveidence of such in scripture. They are all fully developed, and masculine. Therefore, Bentley is may be communicating with an angel, but it is not an angel of God. It is a familiar spirit. He has even stated before that it looks like Kathryn Kuhlman.
Third, he is a proponent of the Lord giving people "gold teeth". Unscriptural. There is no evidence in God's word about such foolishness.
Many have claimed that he is of God for the simple fact that people are getting healed in the meetings. This brings no authenticity to his ministry. Satan can remove a sickness, as soon as he can put it on. Authenticity is only brought about by scriptural preaching.
If its not the Cross, it is not the Gospel.
| 2008/7/16 18:29||Profile|
Coley, about this,
"If the intent here is to deceive then yes there is lying."
"But Coley, shouldn't we be carefull to gaurd and protect the reputations of others? Is it honest to repeat damaging things about others in public that we are not sure are true?
And if they are false, and destructive to them, what then?" ChrisJD
I understand and agree. My point is simply to be careful about calling someone out on 'lies' when the intent is not to deceive. For example I hear or read that Bentley spoke with the Apostle Paul in a Cabin and I repeat it. If however what I read was technically not true and Bentley actually met with Paul in the home of a friend then this is splitting hairs. The context of the original point remains the same in terms of this 'meeting'. The real issue in question is someone said that Bentley SPOKE with the angel Emma to which this person was corrected in that he DID NOT SPEAK with the angel, he just saw her. Besides the question of how he knew her name if he didn't speak to her (perhaps Bob Jones told him), the original point was the same...THERE IS NO SUCH ANGEL IN THE BIBLE. My point is that this technicality doesn't detract from the point made nor do I think it classifies as a 'lie'. To be honest Bentley has told so many tall tales and stories the details are hard to keep track of. And the manner of which this accusation came I don't think was in a spirit of rebuke for complete and utter falsification, but to split hairs by changing the focus from the point at hand. So I questioned the motive. I'm all for being accurate but I'm not ready to make a judgment of intent unless the same person repeats the same behavior over and over again. This was not that but an indictment of more than one on this site and among many instances but no real specifics to each. Whether or not Bentley spoke to Emma or just saw her hovering or whatever the accurate specifics may be, he SPOKE OF HER and thereby injected this encounter as part of his ministry among many who may be open to deception. My intention was to add context and perspective to what was going on.
| 2008/7/17 8:54|