Santa Clara, CA
| Re: Misnomers|
Would hate for you to lose the greater point in all this. There is no offense, or being offended nor great worry over things being contentious. It is ultimately not about my opinion or Wigglesworth or any of these subcategories.
Somewhere along the line there was a mention of times where both the baby and the bathwater have got to go. And this is one of them. This thing is so lopsided as to have broken the scale and if anything it is the very issue that you bring forth, that;
... it seems as though he sees emerging pentecostals as mindless maniacs who would begin en-masse using such violent prayer methods that people will beging dropping dead. This is not only an offense to the thousands of God-fearing, Jesus-exalting, balanced by the Spirit Pentecostal people out there, it's also tragically imaginative.
That those could be deceived just as well. "Emerging Pentecostals" ... I fear the word structure to tell you the truth, yet another label for something unnecessary, already conjuring ideas and ... imaginations of their own. Why must things be squared off into these camps? We are, or ought to be Bible believing Christians and nothing more, nor nothing less.
Putting things this way gives one a leg up on the other and squares off, seemingly, into separate realms of those who have differing ideas of the supernatural to put in great sweeping generalities. If we must push the 'balance' it ought to be here. The leaning or over leaning is codified by what R.C Ryle stated;
[i]There is a silly readiness in every direction to believe everybody who talks cleverly, lovingly, and earnestly, and a determination to forget that Satan often masquerades himself "as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). There is a wide-spread "gullibility" among professing Christians: every heretic who tells his story plausibly is sure to be believed, and everybody who doubts him is called a persecutor and a narrow-minded man.[/i]
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=24530&forum=35]The Best Safeguard Against False Doctrine[/url]
What is tragically imaginative is that which is passing for Christianity in this day and that it is being led by and promoted, taught by these men of dubious distinction [i]is the issue[/i]. The are the focal point and seem to love it to be so. There is little getting past it. But it is those things that they allow their vain imaginations to run with and then turn out as teaching or as 'matter of fact' that is causing all these alarms and bells and whistles to go off amongst, dare I say the more sober minded amongst us.
Brother, this word is what is "coming to me" lately;
[b]AP'ATHY, n.[/b] [Gr. passion.]
Want of feeling; an utter privation of passion, or insensibility to pain; applied either to the body or the mind. As applied to the mind, it is stoicism, a calmness of mind incapable of being ruffled by pleasure, pain or passion. In the first ages of the church, the christians adopted the term to express a contempt of earthly concerns.
Quietism is apathy disguised under the appearance of devotion.
Was talking with a brother about this and [i]maybe it is quietism after all that is the larger issue, at least by this definition. More concerned over appearance and Christian sentiment (a very contorted one at that) then at what all this spells.[/i]
So rather than outrage at the outrageous the thing is given a balance treatment. It is beyond my comprehension. This is not preaching and it is not the gospel and it is neither the Lord nor anything that the scriptures teach. It is a show and one for Christians that have not trained their conscience to discern truth from error. Dear brother, I was once caught up in this similitude of the faith, taking in these notions as that which is representative of the faith once delivered to the saints. But thank God He did not allow me to dwell there long. There is an obligation to anybody that comes to this setting to try an educate them to where this is in error and where it all leads.
My concerns are those of Art Katz;
[i]From identical meetings others report unmistakable benefit, instant release from depression and other dogged personality disorders and disabilities upon receiving the blessing. We are not in a position to categorically condemn as deception the ostensible benefits to which many testify. God is always free to bless whom He will bless. But our point is that if the enemy can succeed in bringing the Church to viewing benefit as the determinant by which something is judged to be of God, we may well have been brought to the very ground of deception itself.
For myself, I would choose to keep my distance from such phenomena, trusting that whatever I might be missing is not greater than what I am protecting ...[/i]
[i]Whatever the future will reveal of the present revival phenomenon, perhaps the greatest will be the profound repentance of broken thousands upon recognizing their susceptibility to deception, their lack of elementary discernment, and their haste to run after demonstrations of power in atmospheres so contrary to Gods known holiness and character.
Clearly, a power is at work. The question is, whose? Who is it that is mediating an alternative and lesser joy to the immature, the carnal, and the undiscerning? We are already discomforted to learn of the loss of interest, even the repudiation of apostolic vision once held by those who have received the blessingas if the one were somehow antithetical or opposed to the other! Assuming that our fears are exaggerated and that the present phenomenon is of God, though admittedly marred only by certain excesses, in what ways will future lying signs and wonders be different from that with which we are presently being confronted? By what criteria will these differences be identified? Are we presently at the level of maturity and discernment by which these important distinctions can be made?[/i]
"Taken from Ben Israel Newsletter Spring [i]1995[/i]"
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=23439&forum=40&post_id=&refresh=Go]Some Cautionary Thoughts on the Present Revival -katz[/url]
And I don't think they are even strong enough in this situation.
The comparisons again, before I forget. If you go back through the postings on even the men mentioned (Finney, Wigglesworth) there is no sparing or undue, lavish supporting of them. They are subject to those same criticisms and questions as any. There is no dodge. The comparisons stop at character flaws and in this case and others like it, in flawed character. These are characters indeed, ones that shouldn't be given any heed except to denounce their antics and teaching and making a mockery of the faith.
| 2008/7/20 21:26||Profile|
Santa Clara, CA
| Re: Roots|
This rewiring of our moral sense is a psychological ability of cult figures. They are able to do things to people, and to us, that if we did them to others, we personally would feel some measure of guilt or at least uncertainty. Yet they do these things with our approval, and even admiration. Rather then convicting us, their ministry causes us to enlarge our own capacity for moral ambiguity to accommodate them. This is a subtle bargain that is sold as a "new thing."
Didn't see this as I went to post. Well said, it is these things and that desensitizng that Ginnyrose spoke of ... I would never have belived it, though the scriptures speak to it so well, that in the last days ... that it would look like this.
Edit: It's a strange thing that this is so overt that we haven't even delved into the finer aspects of pride, boasting, of exageration and lying. Those things that would normally fill up pages of content. The whole facade is too glaring to even approach it.
| 2008/7/20 21:39||Profile|
More concerned over appearance and Christian sentiment (a very contorted one at that) then at what all this spells.
A few weeks ago I was with a friend in his store one night late after hours. A man walks in through the unlocked front door, and explains that his car had broken down and needed some money to call a cab. Without hesitation I handed him some cash and shook his hand. He thanked me, left with a surprised look on his face.
After he left, my friend commended my generosity. It felt good to be thought of as generous.
But a few minutes later the Lord convicted me over the reality of my own heart. He showed me that the real reason I gave that poor fellow some money to was to get rid of him. Ever since then I keep thinking about that incident. How deep does the corruption in my heart persist?
I find that such pitiful disinterest carries over into spiritual issues as well. Being nonchalant is a wonderful way of slipping away from conflict and discussion.
Meanwhile, I would never dream of allowing those I honestly care about near such ministries as TB. (I didn't reach that conclusion instantly.) Therein lies the hypocrisy of having a too "generous orthodoxy." By being outwardly liberal towards terrible things others are tragically being snared by, things I privately wouldn't allow my own children to even look at, I can appear sympathetic and generous all the while I don't give a darn about people.
Brothers it isn't always arrogance that sparks debate...sometimes it takes a selfless love to be willing to risk a fight. Engaging people sincerely, contending for their well being earnestly, takes time, and energy. It interrupts the plans I had for myself today. Yet I would do that for my own children without hesitation...I should be willing to do so for others to some extent as well.
| 2008/7/21 0:34||Profile|
I suppose it best that we may agree to disagree.
As this statement of mine has come into question privately to me let me clarify that I do not casually "agree do disagree" when topics are of sufficient warrant to cross swords. Those that have known me in these forums over the years will know this. My original posts were to discuss Dom's points as he set a few of them out as some had questioned him. I had no intention of creating a polemic debate on Genesis 6. As I stated in my posts the view of antiquity, as far as we know, was that the sons of God in Genesis 6 referred to the angels.
The world that then was was destroyed with a mighty judgment beyond our comprehension. I do not believe that God did this because sinners married saints. Fornication and unbridled lust almost always degenerates into some level of demonic activity. This is how Solomon fell. Again, this is a crisis hour and a time of apostasy. We need to beware of the extent to which man is capable of sinning.
But I cannot fight this argument. Todd Bentley is already assisting folk in promoting the idea that Muslims and other false religions 'know Jesus', they just [u]don't[/u] (edited) know him sufficiently. his latest Sid Roth appearance affirms this. 'That' is going to be the front lines of this battle, in my opinion. The enemy has tried before to introduce Universalism through so-called Charismatic leaders. This is where our sights have to be, I think. I will stand shoulder to shoulder in that contention for the faith. ;-)
Robert Wurtz II
| 2008/7/21 10:12||Profile|
I'll just say it plainly... while it is true that we can not judge another's heart, out of the mouth the heart speaks. And out of Bentley's mouth have come spiritual lies (aka false doctrines), and violence (relating stories about kicking people in the face etc...), as well as cussing from the stage.
So according to scripture, his heart is filled with lies, violence and profanity.
Since the Holy Spirit can not live in accord with such things, I think even Bentley's salvation is suspect. He may sincerely believe he is saved, but he is NOT showing the fruits of the Spirit. No fruit, no salvation.
And I'll go even further... anyone who attempts to defend this man is either totally ignorant of scripture or deceived. Period.
Stong talk, I know. But this thing is just rediculous. There is no evidence from that stage that God is in this at all.
I think this is a cult worse than the Mormons or JW's.
| 2008/7/21 12:29|