Defending the Indefensible-Todd Benson apologetic - Moriel Ministries

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Why don’t we take the same criticisms to Scripture and test them there: Did Jesus “loose” the power of the Holy Spirit in weird ways? Try rubbing mud spittle on eyeballs (John 9:6), putting fingers in deaf ears (Mark 7:33), spitting on tongues or spitting on eyes (Mark 7:33; 8:23), and breathing or blowing on faces (John 20:22) (Ibid) But Jesus and the Prophets weren’t doing these things to “Loose the Spirit”- as if the Spirit is bound until the right symbolic actions are performed to “Loose” it. There is no equivalence between Jesus’ signs* and Bentley’s so called “Loosing of the Spirit”- which is basically a pagan concept. The Spirit is none less than God Himself. He cannot be loosed, nor commanded, ”thrown” as a “snowball”- He is not “IT” nor is HE “The Power” or even “The Glory”. He is the Living God. The Prophets did weird things also because they acted out the drama of the relationship with God and Israel. We are told in Hebrews that in times past God spoke in type through the prophets but has now spoken plainly through His Son. Not believing Todd Bentley’s various stories of ‘the miraculous’ doesn’t equate to not believing the signs of Jesus and the prophets. SUPPORTING SPIRITUAL DRUNKENNESS In the same section Greig “catalogues” the manifestations of God’s power on the human body. I take exception to the category he calls “intoxicated state of mind”. The Toronto influence is evident here, in that he cites as scriptural support for this category Acts 2, Ephesians 5, I Samuel 1 and I Samuel 19. *Acts 2 is a rebuttal of drunkenness- “…others, mocking said these men are full of new wine…”(Acts 2:13) something which Peter was quick to refute! *Ephesians 5:18 teaches us not to be drunken or in excess, but rather to” be being filled with the Spirit”, in other words being Spirit filled is not an alternative drunkenness, but the very antithesis of drunkenness! To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be self possessed, sober minded, thankful and submissive. * I Samuel 1 is the story of Hannah, who was so desperate for a child, praying in the temple, and yet accused by the backslidden and half blind priest of being drunk. Hardly a support for spiritual drunkenness. *Finally, his reference to I Samuel 19 is an unfortunate reference to Saul, seeking to murder David, and in the process, arrested by God and made naked, prophesying! Doesn’t look like a blessing, I believe that it is rather a judgment! These are the same misguided defenses for the phenomenon known as spiritual drunkenness that we saw and heard in the Toronto and Pensacola heresies. Greig uses what the mockers said in Acts 2, misuses Paul’s call to true spirituality in Eph 5, (forbidding drunkenness), as well as the mistaken judgment of a corrupt and backslidden priest in I Samuel 1, Eli, to bolster his defense of this “category of manifestation”. The last reference is to the judgment that fell on a murderous King in I Sam 19. I would hardly call falling down publicly, naked and prophesying to be a blessing. Be advised, I do believe there is a spiritual drunkenness, as I explained in my book, WEIGHED AND FOUND WANTING - Putting the Toronto Blessing in Context. Spiritual drunkenness is real, but it is not the blessing Bentley and friends would have you believe, it is instead a very definite judgment of the Lord!
Isa 29:9-10 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.   ANGELIC INTERACTION In Greig’s rebuttal to objection five, which states that, “We should not be teaching people to interact with angels. Satan masquerades as an angel of light and people can be deceived by demonic angels like Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, was deceived by the deceptive, demonic angel ‘Moroni.’” (Biblical Reasons…)   Greig admits that deception by interaction with angels is possible and uses Joseph Smith as an example, as well as the Gnostic angelic emanation worshippers as something to avoid. He also cites the warning of Colossians 2. Col. 2:18-19-- Let no one who delights in humility and the worship of angels pass judgment on you. That person goes on at great lengths about what he has supposedly seen, but he is puffed up with empty notions by his fleshly mind. He has not held fast to the head from whom the whole body, supported and knit together through its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God. So far so good- but he then narrows the scope of the caution to those who worship angels, affirming the scriptural warnings in the Revelation and in Judges. “The worship of angels, involving human prayers and expressions of praise to angels, was a real problem in first century AD popular Judaism. The kind of person Paul is describing here not only worships angels but he is also proud (“puffed up), fleshly, judgmental, and he has lost his focus on Jesus (“he has not held fast to the head”). So it is a mix of pride, judgmentalism, fleshliness, and a lack of focus on Jesus the head, that is associated in this passage with one being deceived by false, demonic angels.” (Biblical Reasons…)   Herein lies the problem, I haven’t heard anyone criticize this movement for praying to or praising angels. I believe he misses the point of the criticism and caution. It is the interaction with angels, “Emma”, the angel of the 1940’s healing revival, the angel who “Gifted “ William Branham, these are what are troubling to critics of Bentley and this movement. Assuring us that you don’t worship angels is beside the point. Greig cites discredited and false prophet Bob Jones as a source to validate his position on openness to angelic interaction, I am convinced that Todd Bentley, Bob Jones, and Rick Joyner, and other leaders in the prophetic movement would agree entirely with theologians like Karl Barth and Calvin, who said that biblically believers must take seriously the fact of angelic presence with believers.42 The Reformer, John Calvin urges us “not to deny that angels were created according to God’s likeness, inasmuch as our highest perfection, as Christ testifies, will be to become like them [Matt. 22:30].”43 And I am convinced that these prophetic leaders also agree with Barth and Calvin, cautioning against giving angels attention for their own sake without focusing on Jesus, “for there is no ‘special, autonomous or abstract experience of angels in and for themselves,’”44 and because, as Cambridge University astronomer and evangelical theologian, Dr. Lawrence Osborn, says, true Christian encounter with an angel will always “direct us to God”45 rather than directing us to focus on angels, on saints, on self, or on man. (Ibid) Once again, I am no cessationist, I have no problem with angels, I believe in them and their activity. Furthermore I also believe that no man should worship or pray to angels and that if an angelic encounter occurs, a holy angel would direct people to the only True God. But why do we have to believe in Emma? Why should we traffic with William Branham’s angel? A man who taught that the “doctrine of the Trinity was of the Devil”, that Satan and Eve had sex, and Cain was the literal result? When Branham was asked if he did his miracles by the Holy Spirit, he denied it , saying “I do them by my Angel”. (Kurt Koch, Occult Bondage and Deliverance, p. 54 Kregel )
Page 1: Defending the Indefensible… Todd

Defending the Indefensible-Todd Benson apologetic - Moriel Ministries

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?