August 29, 2019
It’s all yours …
February 19, 2019
October 27, 2016
June 7, 2013
The theological apostasy of these people is astounding – but not surprising based on their ‘theology’. Patricia King is no less of a theological scoundrel than Todd Bentley although I am sure she is not tainted by the immorality.
This video is just a circling of her wagons – just a Rick Joyner did in a video earlier in the week – a symbolic Pontus Pilate ‘washing of their hands’.
These people are the Frankenstein type creators of Todd Bentley – total 100% by product of their teachings.
This New Apostolic Reformation stuff needs to be stomped out – the pest control companies need to be called in. Don’t be fooled, this is nothing more than the re-branding of the old Third Wave and the Toronto Blessing activities of 20 years past.
In the Patricia King video it doesn’t take long to get to the false teachings. She discusses how hard it was to discuss Todd Bentley’s sin in the past because his anointing was growing so fast he became unapproachable. Listen folks – she is saying that in the time of great public, manifested sin, God (I guess she is blaming all this on God) was still anointing Todd and his ministry above the objections of his colleagues (who I prefer to call co conspirators.)
Other than that, I don’t have much to say on the topic. 🙂
I think some people may receive a special anointing (whatever that means, maybe “commission” with a blessing” is a better word) but they are the quiet people working selflessly in old peoples’ homes and in the slums. They don’t go on TV or YouTube and no one ever says of them their “anointing [is] growing so fast he become[s] unapproachable.” There is a good Russian word for this kind of behavior: PRELEST, which means “spiritual delusion.”
At least she had the decency to tell the truth about the scoundrel…
Someone’s name followed by the word “ministries” usually warns of a waste of time. lol
I will agree that, at the least, she was willing to tell the truth.
But man, that world they operate in is so strange. He was allowed to keep going in 2002…and many times afterwards, because of his “anointing”. I have no clue what that could be referring to. I’m racking my brain, but it just makes no sense.
And speaking of 2008, she said “We lost the revival”. Huh? The one where the drunken adulterer was on stage telling lies and acting like a clown? Yeah, that was a real shame that it had to stop.
Need I list all the scoundrels in our own sects who keep on going after calamitous falls?
We have people here hoping Bob Coy makes a comeback…
They’re strange as hell, but that seems to be a spiritual gift these days…
We talk about them all the time. I don’t mind if you list them.
My point is that we all cover for wicked leaders in our tribes…there is no fear of God left in most places.
That’s why I celebrate someone as whacked as Patricia King when they try to speak truth…
Oh, thanks for the clarification, and I agree. It’s just wild being removed from that world for so long, its like listening to a different language.
Patricia King is still wrong. Instead of making a deal of his bad behavior, she should have said, “we really missed that one. He did not and never did have an anointing.”
But as one of the NAR Apostles, she would look bad.
I wish we had a like button for what Xenia said…
Didn’t we get a like button once?
We did, but no one liked it… 🙂
The like button needed a like button 🙂
Hey everybody – What do you think about Pilgrim’s Progress?
Isn’t it just a little too…on the nose? Like, it seems to interpret its own imagery, which kills a little of the poetic sense for me. Obviously brilliant, and a classic, but does it work as a piece of literature in 2019?
I haven’t read it in eons…I know some groups find it timeless.
I’ve heard that the new illustrated versions are preferable…
“What do you think about Pilgrim’s Progress?”
I love it. In connection with a recent funeral, I re-read the last chapter of Christian’s journey. IMO it is the best allegory of the hour of death that I’ve ever read.
Be careful with the later editions, as at least one of them has abridged some material that I find of great value.
I was onto Todd Bentley as a fraudster early in his machinations. Long before 2008 I warned people. After his ‘fall’ it was all recast in more acceptable terms but he was and is a scoundrel. Rick Joyner reshaped his image and called it restoration. I am all for restoration. Restore your soul. Restore your marriage. Restore those you defrauded. Restore your public witness to the grace of Jesus. Then maybe, just maybe you can be restored to some type of service but not to headliner lifestyle.
Pat King did a poor job of assessing Todd’s so-called anointing. It was his arrogance that grew to large for restoration not his anointing but overall her public statement was remarkable and laudable.
Furthermore her public stance since 2008 has been uniquely courageous in my world and I applaud her for it. She withdrew from TB after Lakeland. She called it what it was and her call for believers to withdraw from him now is the right path.
Anyway, I did not expect anyone to be too impressed.
I suspect if Luther was alive today his manners would make him as repugnant to public consumption as Bentley. Ego-wise they resemble. That last remark was unnecessary but MLD inspires us all.
Sometimes it seems to me that we have the idea that the world is divided into believers and unbelievers. I’m coming round more to the idea that there is “Church”… and then a large gray amorphous group that uses Christian terms, titles, etc., but is nothing that resembles “Church”… and then unbelievers of various types. The problem is that the “large gray amorphous group” seems most in tune with the marketplace…
Duane, that large amorphous group is spoken of in the NT as the weeds – planted in the Church by the devil.
If you looked in a Bible dictionary for the wheat and the weeds, you would see a photo of the NAR folks as the weeds.
Babs, the church ladies would blush around Luther, but they wouldn’t need to worry about being sexually assaulted.
However, at least Luther’s teaching would still resemble NT teaching as to what the NAR delivers – and that is Bentley’s big sin.
MLD, church ladies today maybe, but in Luther’s dau the Germans were pretty earthy people
BTW – folks if you believe in circumcision for baby boys, support your local rabbis… Just learned from my daugter that her son had to find one to circumcise his baby boys as their doctor (Tacoma) refused to perform the surgery
BD @ 1:18. … IMHO . Well said ! ?
I knew I could count on my friend MLD to answer with vigor. Apostles are where you find them in any century. And fat stupid indulgence sellers always require new ones to arise.
Xenia nailed it.
Em: I chose not to circumsize my boy. I know it doesn’t count a whit towards his salvation, though later I thought it might be better for hygiene. I may have been unduly influenced by Bay Area mores and the few who equate this with female circumcision.
Interesting. Would you consider CC to be part of the “large, gray, amorphous group”? What about para-church groups like Campus Crusade and Young Life? (All groups I was part of at different times of my life). I think I benefited from them in some way, but when I was tracking with them, would have considered the traditional Church largely irrelevant. (I think very differently now).
As William Saroyan said, “There are places where we’ve all done time”…
If I take a long view, as in 2000 years, while CC and the para-church groups may have done good in limited spheres, it is now hard for me to readily identify them as “Church”. Admittedly, I am probably in the minority in this assessment. On the other hand, when I look at what has been going on in many of these so-called “ministries” I see less and less lasting good being done and, in some cases, a good bit of lasting harm…
During the Reformation, the reformers were compelled to define what is the Church. In other words, if one were to walk into a building on a Sunday morning, what should one look for to ensure himself or herself that he or she had entered a local congregation of the Church.
I would be interested to know what everyone today think are the defining marks of the Church?
I don’t know how much you can demand past a group of believers gathered for worship…
The word properly preached and the sacraments properly administered.
Paul described the church in the terms:
“Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”
Would the marks of the church include where believers are cleansed from sin by the washing of water with the word, and who are sanctified by Christ?
We’ll have as many descriptions of the church as we have people here…I may not like how some believers worship together, but I don’t have any place to tell them they are less than the Church…
We may have many descriptions of church / worship, but by no means does that make them all valid.
Michael, in the end I think you would define who a believer is and who is not – and you would define at least what is not acceptable worship. In the end you would say they were “lesser” church or indeed no church.
By definition, i am part of the lesser church here… Thankfully, our Father knows i am here, nonetheless. ?
Enjoy Christ all – what a privilege!
Let me clarify… if I can. Through the scope of Church History, for some 1600 to 1900 years we at least had a “thumbnail sketch” of what was meant by “Church”. It did not always mean that we worshipped alike or that there was no divergence in belief. For example, the Montanists may have been weird, but they were broadly thought of as being “Church”. Even at the time of the Reformation, Wittenberg, Geneva and Canterbury had substantial differences, but there was the sense that all were “Church”. Since the time of the revivals in the mid to late 19th century, groups have emerged that are difficult to define with any certainty. This has only increased in the 20th and 21st centuries. Again, for example, how are we to define PFM? The language used would indicate “Church”, but the structure, the mode of operation, etc., might give one pause to consider. On another thread, I saw the following comment which I found very disturbing, “I am not concerned about his moral problems. Pastor Coy has excellent teaching qualities”. If we have come to this in our approach, it seems that all that is important is the “show” and the language used in the show to be considered “Church”. I’ve not come to any definitive conclusions, nor do I want to throw stones at a faith community simply because they are different. Yet, I think there is a real distance between simply being “different” and the sort of things that are considered acceptable, if not normal, in some situations…
Identifying the “in” and the “out” always sounds a bit like the sons of thunder but still the church is not everything or nothing. It is something and some people.
Indeed! It’s just that some situations are so far out of the “norm” (whatever that may be these days) that it becomes increasingly difficult to apply normative terms…
Here’s another snapshot of the Church:
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
Do we find these 4 marks relevant today?
” It’s just that some situations are so far out of the “norm” (whatever that may be these days) that it becomes increasingly difficult to apply normative terms.”
In my experience, I’ve found that what is the norm has been redefined, particularly with the help of extant sources that are outside of scripture and tradition.
Another mark of the Church for your consideration:
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
Are these marks still relevant today?
I would have to agree with you…
I think the difficulty of looking for normative Christianity in the past tends to be like looking back at culture of the 50s, 60s, 70s or … , we seem to romanticize it.
It’s easy to forget the historic “church” was filled with conflict, politics, death and probably worse. Do we romanticize the “awe” of those big cathedrals and all their practices and forget the dirt and toil of living a life with Him?
Maybe our desires want an icon more than the walk.
When I read the text Jean posted I see people Loving God with all their heart, mind and soul and then doing the same to others. I hear Jesus words about how people fed, clothed and comforted Him.
To me that is the ultimate “norm” of the “Church.”
Just my thoughts.
Agreed, but many segments of the historic church incorporated those elements Jean referenced. Looking for that ultimate norm in any age may be the rarity…
The Church has no form or majesty that we should look at her,
and no beauty that we should desire her.
Yes. Once again, however, deciding what we mean by “Church” remains the problem.
Duane, it’s sad that in your old age you have become frightfully confused. Even sadder is that you work so diligently to deconstruct what The Church and believers have known for centuries to be the truth.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel for a 21st century meaning of church.
Good morning and happy Labor Day!
What we mean by “Church”?
I think there are two complementary images that the NT portrays of the Church:
(1) One as the bride of Christ; and
(2) The second as the body of Christ, the result of the one flesh union of Christ and her bride.
I don’t know how far you would take these images, but the appear to go farther than a simple metaphor. For examples:
“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.”
“We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.”
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
One potential contemporary outworking of this theology of the Church as the body of Christ (with Him as the head) might be that we as the Church (and as individual congregations) would recover (1) holiness (particularly as in set apart from the things of the world), (2) reverential worship, (3) charity and long suffering, (4) trust in Christ (and not ourselves) for the growth and health of the Church, (5) reliance on His Word (particularly His grace and truth) and Sacraments, and (6ff) [I would invite others to add to this list.]
I would agree with your last paragraph. Now for the problem. For the first 1600 years we were “altar based” as the Church. I don’t believe anyone can or would dispute this. Then it began to diverge… not immediately, but by the mid 19th century there arose ecclesial gatherings that had nothing to do with an “altar based” expression of Christianity (the Quakers even earlier and, of course, the Anabaptists). You may remember the persecution of the Quakers and Anabaptists on the very notion that they were not “Church”. Now we come to the 21st century in which the Quakers and Anabaptists seem “tame” in comparison to the the mega-church down the street, or Lakewood, or a local CC, or an Assembly of God. I have no doubt as to many places having “believers” in the seats, but is that what constitutes “Church”? Again, is PFM “Church”? As BD said above, “… but still the church is not everything or nothing. It is something and some people.”
Yes, Duane. I’m glad you brought up “altar based.” I’ve been thinking a lot about that lately. I think John 4:23-24:
“But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
has been sorely abused to justify everything from removing altars and crosses from churches, to stopping the use of church architecture, to even stopping going to church or participating in an organized church altogether. Taken to the extreme, the abuse of these verses can get awfully close to a form of platonic dualism.
However, in defense of “altar based” church, Hebrews is very clear: “We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.”
Thanks for bringing this up.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.