Whatever happened to Todd Bentley?

Todd Bentley at LakelandWhatever happened to the enfant terrible of North American revival evangelism, Todd Bentley? He rose to international prominence with the Lakeland outpouring starting in April 2008. By August that year he had resigned from his ministry over an inappropriate relationship. By March 2009 he and his wife had divorced, and within days he had remarried. And then he gradually disappeared from public view.

On this blog I posted no less than 73 times in the category Todd Bentley, before my latest post and this one. Some of these posts quickly received thousands of views and hundreds of comments. But it is nearly two years since the most recent of these, with one exception which mentioned Todd only in passing. Yet there are still, over the last year, hundreds of people searching the Internet for his name and finding posts on this blog. So what has happened to him since he went out of the spotlight, at least for me, two years ago?

Early in 2009 Todd started a process of restoration led by Rick Joyner. I reported on the early stages of this, to the extent that it was made public. But then for a time, probably wisely, the process seems to have been taken out of public view. But more was revealed in 2010: Rick Joyner wrote a Special Bulletin in February about Revival and the Todd Bentley Restoration, with a follow-up in March and another in June. There is detailed material here about how Todd was gradually being restored, including biblical justification for the process. Rick promised many other bulletins on this matter, but these are all I can find on the MorningStar website.

The most recent information from Rick Joyner seems to be in a video from 8th November 2010. In this video Rick explained that Todd had been ministering effectively and powerfully in the local church, and that he considered it to be the right time to release him into a broader ministry. This 15 minute video is well worth watching, especially concerning the lies that have been told about Todd and the spirit behind them.

So it was to be expected that Todd would quickly return to public ministry. Nevertheless I was rather surprised to find that this is already the focus of the Canadian website of Fresh Fire (with the original Canadian domain name), as well as of their apparently identical US website. Fresh Fire is now based in Pineville near Charlotte, North Carolina, which is less than four miles from Rick Joyner’s MorningStar church just across the state line in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

It is good to see that Todd and his team have been involved in relief efforts as well as evangelism in Haiti. Over the next month or so Todd is taking his “Healing & Kingdom Tour” to Texas, Puerto Rico and Michigan. In May he will be in Alberta, Canada. And in July, 21st to 24th, he will be in Dudley, England, as I mentioned in my previous post.

I am pleased that Todd has been restored to a fruitful ministry, after Rick Joyner’s long and painstaking efforts. I hope and pray that this will continue to be successful. I am a little concerned that Todd has rushed so quickly into such a heavy schedule. I hope he now has the wisdom to pace himself and avoid another burnout. If so, we can look forward to the fulfilment of Rick’s prophetic word, on the video, that millions in the USA will come to Jesus through Todd’s ministry – and, we can hope, millions more around the world.

35 thoughts on “Whatever happened to Todd Bentley?

  1. Pingback: Todd Bentley is coming to Dudley, England in July - Gentle Wisdom

  2. Are you kidding?? Todd Bentley needs to go lock himself in a closet and repent and demonstrate the fruit of it. He is a stuffed shirt and self-aggrandizing and a charlatan. Beware of this dangerous man who is parading around and pretending to be an instrument of God.

  3. Mtn Girl, I understand from Rick Joyner that Todd has spent most of the last two years locked in a closet, metaphorically, repenting. Do you have any evidence that he now “is” the five things you name (two s’s, a c and two p’s), rather than that he allegedly was these things years ago? So perhaps you should go and see if he is demonstrating the fruit which Joyner claims to have seen.

  4. Peter, at the risk of going over ground we covered three years ago, I’m amazed that an intelligent man like yourself continues to promote Todd. In particular, your phrase “restored to a fruitful ministry” is just untenable.

    Back in 2008, I spent a lot of time checking him out, and the conclusion was overwhelming. Todd’s “ministry” was characterised by lies and deceit. It was that way before Lakeland, it was that way during Lakeland, and it continues to be like that. What can he be restored to if there never was any fruit?

    Just a few months ago, I watched a new video of him (I’ll try to remember where it was) in which he referred to the “healings and resurrections at Lakeland”. The man is either seriously deluded or a pathological liar (the latter term, you may recall, was used about him in 2008 by someone who had previously endorsed him). Precisely zero evidence was produced for the 30+ resurrections he claimed, and when Nightline News did a feature on Lakeland, not a single person could be found who would testify to being healed, despite the fact that Todd had claimed tens of thousands of healings at the greatest revival ever. Everything was totally discredited three years ago, and I suppose he thinks we’ve forgotten about it. Sorry, we haven’t.

    And in a book he waxed lyrical about his then wife, Shonnah, and how they were perfect for each other and God had brought them together. Yet when he dumped her in favour of a pretty young thing, he wrote that his marriage had endured years of pain. Something’s not right there – maybe the fact, for all his claimed healing ministry, Shonnah remained half-crippled after bone cancer. Not exactly a good advert for his gifting, was she?

    Then there is the false teaching, the failed prophecies, the prosperity gospel, the violence, the emotional manipulation, the arrogance, to name but a few. He has not repented of any of these and he is just the same on all the post-Lakeland videos I’ve seen of him.

    The best advice I can offer is to avoid him, and anyone who supports him.

  5. Sidefall, I am not promoting Todd, simply reporting on his latest activities.

    Back in 2008 I also spent a lot of time checking him out, and came to very different conclusions from you. There is plenty about that in the archives of this blog. Lack of proof is not the same as something being discredited, as an intelligent man like yourself should understand. It is hardly surprising, given the current litigious environment and that it would in fact be totally unethical, that it was hard to find doctors who would give journalists the kind of details of personal medical histories which they were looking for as proof.

    Your advice may be “to avoid him, and anyone who supports him”. My advice would be to check him out, with care and genuine spiritual discernment, but with openness that God may be working through him afresh.

  6. Peter, read your own post carefully. You clearly ARE “promoting Todd” when you say things such as: “Todd has been restored to a fruitful ministry, after Rick Joyner’s long and painstaking efforts. I hope and pray that this will continue to be successful.”

    I am with Sidefall on this one, and it strains credulity that anyone who has seriously investigated Todd’s “ministry” and doctrine, past and present, utilising, as you say “care and genuine spiritual discernment”, would be welcoming his continued or renewed activity.

    This is bigger than just Todd, however. I encourage you to explore Latter Rain and Manifest Sons theologies and eschatologies and join some dots up.

  7. Peter, I accept that I am wishing Todd well. But I am not promoting him in the sense of encouraging people to attend his meetings – at least in the post, I did cross that line in my reply to Sidefall.

    Meanwhile, don’t you think I have investigated “Latter Rain” and “Manifest Sons”, and the way some people have used distorted versions of these doctrines to discredit anyone who has ideas even vaguely reminiscent of them?

  8. It is good if you have investigated for yourself Peter. However, perhaps it woudl be good to dig and think a little deeper. I don’t think it is “distorted versions” of these doctrines that we need to be concerned about, but rather the core theologies that they bring, and which have substantially permeated the contemporary charismatic movement worldwide. If you are actually saying that these doctrines in their UN distorted versions are a good thing, then I commend some further research, thought and discernment to you.

    In case you might be assume my own background here, I am not writing as someone who is a kneejerk anti-charismatic heresy sniffer, but someone who has been deeply involved in the charismatic movement. Todd Bentley caused me to wake up and smell the coffee, and my investigation into the roots and branches since then have confirmed my initial disquiet and discernment as to the error of whatI was seeing and hearing. Nothing I see post Florida and post Todd’s “restoration” leads me to see anything has changed. Including the credulity of so many of the sheep, sadly.

  9. Peter, I am not entirely sure what are distorted and undistorted forms of Latter Rain and Manifest Sons teaching. I don’t think there was ever a definitive exposition of these teachings. So I looked to Wikipedia for a summary of these teachings. I would say that I accept in general terms the teachings as described in the “Beliefs” section apart from some reservations about parts of the “Joel’s Army” sub-section. These are mostly right and biblical doctrines, far more so than for example the competing popular eschatology of the Rapture which I ridiculed yesterday.

    I note also the following in the Wikipedia article, not my words!

    Modern criticism of the Latter Rain, however, is primarily among fundamentalists, as is evidenced by the hosts of websites critical of the movement. Such sites use association with the Latter Rain as a way of discrediting modern Charismatics. … The modern charismatic movement, while clearly influenced by some Latter Rain ideals such as the fivefold ministry and the laying on of hands generally rejects the more extreme elements of Latter Rain theology.

  10. @ Peter Sharpe – I also consider myself a charismatic, and I’m definitely not coming from the cessationist position.

    @ Peter Kirk – Your posts about Todd draw attention to him and speak about him in positive terms. If that’s not promoting him, I don’t know what is!

    Generally, to both Peters, I wouldn’t bother trying to work out whether Todd subscribes to the ill-defined teachings you mention. That’s a distraction. Just look at the facts about the guy – what he says and what he does – there’s enough there to discern the truth about him.

  11. Sidefall, I assume that if you call yourself charismatic you also call yourself Christian. That means that you should follow Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness. When you mention “what he does”, I suppose that you mean “what he did three years ago”. Todd has now, at least in part, repented of this and put things right. So we should forgive what is past and instead look at what he is doing now.

  12. Peter,

    With respect, I think you misunderstand the issue. This is not about forgiveness. Todd has not sinned against me and I don’t hold anything personally against him.

    This is all about discernment, something that you and Peter Sharpe have mentioned. Both Jesus and Paul make it clear that there will be false prophets, false teachers, and wolves amongst the sheep. We are commanded to test everything and avoid evil.

    I have watched several recent videos of Todd (post “restoration”) and everything I’ve seen indicates that he is still behaving in exactly the same way that he did both before and at Lakeland, telling lies and manipulating people. This is sinful. The Bible makes it clear that high standards are required from those in leadership and public ministry. Todd has never met those standards, so the idea that he could be “restored” is fallacious. There was never anything he could be restored to, and the whole process was a sham. I have seen no evidence of repentance (which means turning away from your sins) on Todd’s part, and until that happens he is unfit for ministry in a local church, let alone at national or international levels.

  13. OK, Sidefall, not a matter of forgiveness. But if the standards you apply had been applied in the Bible, and there was no possibility for sinners to be restored to effective ministry, then what would have happened to the Apostle Peter, not to mention Abraham, Moses and David among other great Old Testament characters? Yes, the New Testament lays down standards for church leaders, but Todd is not and never has been a church leader.

    Where did you find videos of Todd ministering after his restoration?

  14. Err, no, Peter. Sinners can be restored to ministry if they repent. But Todd’s “ministry” was suspect from the start and he hasn’t repented. The Biblical figures you mention had genuine ministries (that’s not the best way of putting it but you know what I mean) and they repented after they messed up. Completely different to Todd.

    Do you think the standards for an itinerant minister should be any lower than those for a church leader? He’s had a much greater influence that most church leaders. And incidentally, Todd likes to describe himself as a “revivalist”, which is not a ministry I find anywhere in the Bible.

    There’s recent videos of Todd on the internet – here’s a couple:


    I see nothing to suggest he has changed. And would you like to try to justify shouting “bam” at people when you pray for them?

  15. Peter, I got an email this morning informing me of an article by someone who used to work for the Elijah list. One part is all about Todd Bentley, and it’s essential reading for you and anyone else who wants to know the truth about:


    (Note that I don’t share the author’s view of Rick Joyner’s books, but his analysis of Todd is spot on, completely consistent with everything I learned back in 2008, and includes personal experience of Todd before Lakeland)

  16. Sidefall, thank you for the video links. The YouTube one is not exactly wild, just a couple of restrained Bams, and Todd didn’t touch the couple before they fell over. A few more Bams on the MorningStar video, but again no physical contact, and a testimony of healing, although of course not medically proved at the time.

    I can justify Bam from the Bible: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. This is Todd making himself culturally relevant to his audience, many of them the kind of people who like him watch wrestling etc. Anyway Todd says the Holy Spirit leads him to say that, and who are we to tell the Holy Spirit what words he is allowed to give people?

    Or perhaps, Sidefall, you are of the opinion that only practices and titles explicitly given in the Bible can be used in the church today. OK, no revivalists, but also no reverends or doctors, nor many of the other titles church leaders like to use. And 90% of what goes on in today’s church would fall foul of that rule. But the real rule should be whether something follows biblical principles and advances God’s kingdom. And Todd passes that rule (though not of course on divorce and remarriage), in my opinion at least.

    As for the Elijah List article (which although undated is from this month, as it is in this month’s archive), this guy who is not called to Africa clearly doesn’t have a clue that millions of Africans have radios and televisions, so why is he accusing Todd of lying about the number of conversions? Also doesn’t he realise it is more than two years, not “a year’s time”, since Todd began his restoration process? But he makes a good point that “the church needs to understand that it is just as much their fault as Todd’s that all this went down.”

    Yes, Todd was and probably still is immature. That doesn’t make his ministry, previously and now, not genuine. Like all of us he is imperfect. But he has the “traits [which] will draw an audience” to hear the word of God, people who have long ago given up on the traditional church. Is that a bad thing?

  17. Sidefall, I am reading more from that series about the Elijah List. Here we have a man who writes: “Believe it or not, I don’t have an offense against Steve – I’ve forgiven him” – and then publicly accuses the man of being an unreasonable employer and of nearly ruining his marriage. If that is the kind of spirit of offence and unforgiveness that he is harbouring, then it is not surprising that he can’t accept the restoration of Todd. I hope you don’t have the same attitude.

  18. “The paradox of human miracle assessment is that the only way to discern whether a phenomenon is supernatural is by having trained rationalists testify that it outstrips their training. Since most wonders admitted by the modern church are medical cures, it consults with doctors. Di Ruberto has access to a pool of 60–“We’ve got all the medical branches covered,” says his colleague, Dr. Ennio Ensoli–and assigns each purported miracle to two specialists on the vanquished ailment.
    They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: “Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?” Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. “Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that’s not enough.” says Ensoli. “Exceptional doesn’t mean inexplicable.”


  19. Jay, thank you for that. It would be interesting to submit Todd’s claimed miracles to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints. But somehow I think he would be disqualified as an official Saint for reasons unconnected to miracles.

  20. Note to Sidefall – I don’t predicate my evaluation or present opinion of Todd and others in the ‘Extreme prohetic’ orbit based solely on doctrinal issues re: Latter Rain/Manifest Sons teaching. thereis WAAAAY more going on than that, but it can provide a useful way into beginning to analyse and assess what is going on generally.

    Peter, I can see that you are a generous hearted and kind man and I commend you for those qualities. I can also see that at this stage of the game you probably aren’t in a place where you have had the alarm bells triggered to begin to question and dig deeper into the official narratives, theologies, mindsets and practices of those leaders who are insistent that we must “align” with them. It’s taken me long enough, and I will be frank, it has been a disturbing and shocking journey. But one I am glad that the Lord has taken me on. What is happening in many quarters is grotesquely abberant from anything I can recognise as normative New Testament christianity and, I think, in many respects has point for point parallels with gnostic, occult and New Age.

    There are many threads and strands that go to make up the whole picture, and it can be very difficult to see when one is close to it.

  21. Peter, I am not impressed by your attempts to divide the church, or the evangelical camp within it, by setting yourself up as a judge of what teaching is beyond the pale, especially when you do so by libelling it with labels like “gnostic, occult and New Age” without any attempt to justify those labels. I was just reading an interesting post by Roger Olson Division in the evangelical house. It seems to me that your tactics are just like the reprehensible ones of the neo-fundamentalists he describes. Would you identify with that group?

  22. “It would be interesting to submit Todd’s claimed miracles to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints. But somehow I think he would be disqualified as an official Saint for reasons unconnected to miracles.”

    I am not sure if you are being sarcastic about interest in submitting Todd’s claimed miracles to the Vatican, but I hope you understand my point, that we need not be afraid of testing miracles. I only gave the Vatican’s verification process as an example. Just as Jesus told the healed lepers to present themselves to the priest for verification of their healing, so we only do well to at least try to verify the claims to healing. I have been in the Pentecostal movement my whole life, I have seen a lot of true miracles and have experienced in my own life what I perceive as a miracle too, but at the same time I have seen a lot of pressure put on people to accept a healing as real (based on faith of course) when the physical symptoms were not consistent with a healing.

  23. Jay, I didn’t mean to be sarcastic. Sorry if my comment read that way. It would indeed be good to submit some of the claimed miracles for medical verification, for the benefit of the person who is healed and the encouragement of those ministering. The problem I have is when people unconnected with the ministry demand proof, and imply that if the minister doesn’t provide exactly what they want he or she is faking things. Christian workers are not answerable to unbelievers or modern Pharisees, but only to the Lord and to whoever he has put in oversight over them.

  24. I come with no “tactics” or any intention of “dividing the church, or the evangelical camp within it” – I am merely seeking to exercise discernment and issue a warning absed on this. it is not discernment but unchecked gross spiritual errors which will ultimately cause division.

    I could write you a huge thesis to support my use of those terms. However, this is your blog, and at this point I don’t think youare ata point where you are able to see outside the box on these matters so there probably isn’t agreat deal of point.

    I woudl merely ask you to look at teh scriptures. Lok at what Jesys did. look at what teh apostles did. Look at what they taught. Look at what is being said and done now, and comapre the two. If you can handle it, look at New Age and occult teaching. Look at teh history of the Kansas City Fellowship controversy and the issues behind it. Look at the threads of doctrine that weave through it all, and the eschatological expectations that have been fostered as a consequence. Look at the track records of the “prophets” and NAR “apostles”. Then draw your own conclusions.

    Once again, I am not writing as someone who has been an outsider to all of this. I have been at the very heart of it for many years. God led me outof it for several years and when I came back I was deeply shocked and disturbed by where things had gone in the intervenign years. I think when one is constantly immersed in it all, itis quite difficult to recognise how things are changing – something akin to the “how to boil a frog” story.

    I urge you and any others reading to seek further discernment, and to investigate and think carefully about these things. If you do not wish to, that is your choice and you are free in these matters.

  25. Well, Peter, if you are wanting to prevent “errors which will ultimately cause division”, you have embarked on this crusade at least 60 years too late. The kinds of teaching which you object to have been around at least that long, in the Latter Rain movement. And the main stream of the charismatic movement in the USA and increasingly in the UK has adopted much of this teaching, while generally rejecting some of the more extreme aspects. I’m sure you know that much as you used to be part of it, you say.

    So what is your purpose now? Is it to tear down the charismatic movement? Is it to separate it from more conservative evangelicalism, or from whatever branch of the church you now identify with, if any?

    Yes, I’m sure there have been and still are many imperfections and errors within the charismatic movement. The same is true of any church group, denomination etc in this fallen world. None perfectly reflect what Jesus and the apostles did. My own position, my own deep conviction, is that the core of charismatic teaching is correct and biblical. You don’t have to agree. But you are wasting your time if you are trying to convince me to reject my own fundamental beliefs, especially with the negative approach you are using.

    If, on the other hand, you want to give me a link to a positive exposition of whatever position you are wanting to promote, you are far more likely to get my attention and perhaps my acceptance.

  26. For me this is not about disagreeing concerning “core” charismatic teaching (or, at least, in the charisms of the Spirit – how these are adminsistered within contemporary instiutional church structures is another set of vexed questions). I am not cessationist or, per se, anti-charismatic.

    You are right when you say that the influences of LR & MS doctrine has permeated the US and worldwide charismatic movement, largely post-Toronto in terms of the wider and more recent spread. The roots and implications of these doctrines are poorly understood by most since they are almost never presented coherently or systematically. This trickle down effect has altered the character of the charismatic theological worldview quite substantially, even during the 30 years Ihave been a believer, and more significantly in the last 15 or so.

    This isn’t purely about LR/MS doctrine, although that is a major theme within how we have arrived at the present state of things – there are other influences that have flowed in alongside that rather elusive strand.

    You may conduct your own investiagations into this Peter, if you wish – or not, as you wish. It doesn’t rely on my exposition, or anyone else’s come to that. The primary material is out there for anyone who wants to engage with it.

    However, if you want to read something, I would commend the book “Post-Charismatic” by Rob McAlpine. This, in my view, is a balanced, gracious and unhysterical book which does a good job of basic historical and doctrinal analysis of some of the major influences on the present charismatic movement.


  27. Well, Peter, I was just looking for material on Latter Rain and Manifest Sons of God, for my latest post, but I could only find material written by its enemies. Can you recommend any good positive explanation of these teachings, from someone who is sympathetic but not extreme?

    Perhaps McAlpine’s book would be a good place to start. I have heard good things about it, but I have not read it. I linked to the same website from a post here in 2006, but sadly the “series of articles, or a short e-book” then on the website seem to have disappeared, presumably because the same material is in the 2008 book.

    I would however reject any idea that a teaching or practice is wrong just because its originates with a dubious group of people. If that principle is applied to more conventional church teachings and practices, as Frank Viola has done in “Pagan Christianity”, most of what happens or is taught in any church would have to be thrown out.

  28. Peter, I just found your review of “Post-Charismatic” at amazon.co.uk. But I found the earlier review by Steve Bishop more helpful. He asks a good question:

    An interesting question would be where did the “Latter Rain” get these ideas from?

    Well, it looks to me as if the ideas as he summarises them come straight from the Bible. There may indeed be unfortunate distortions of these biblical teachings around. But we mustn’t throw out the biblical baby with the bathwater.

  29. It can be instructive to read “hostile” critiques sometimes, since many of them actually do get to the roots of the problems and issues. I think the problem you will find is that once someone has seen the isues for themselves they will be unlikely to discuss these things in away which someone who is a supporter of the present NAR movement will find acceptable, because they cahllenge the very roots and foundations of whatis becomign “orthodox” charismatic teaching in so many quarters.

    I personally find the often hysterical and rabid approach of many of the “antis” to be wearisome and counterproductive, and these are often presented through cessationst or somewhat pharisaical filters.

    To clarify, the isssue is NOT “guilt by association” – itis about the fundamental nature of the doctrines involved and whatis currently being taught and practiced. LR/MS doctrine certainly provides roots and channels into this, but it is not just a re-emergence of those teachings.

    Without going into an enormously detailed and wide ranging expositon of precisely why I hold the views I do, it is rather difficult to get across the serious nature of the issues and errors, and I doubt this is the time or place to try and attempt that. Bringing it back to Todd Bentley, there is ample evidence that Tod has lied, manipulated and exaggerated and taught what, to many, are highly questionable and even dangerous doctrines. As far as the NAR contingent is concerned it has seemed that the only real issue to “correct” has been over his adultery, because, in essence, it appears that they believe and endorse the same doctrines and spiritual practices.

    I see no evidence that any of these broader issues have been addressed in the indecently hasty “restoration” process involving Knight of Malta Rick Joyner. In the main this haste seems to be driven by the idea that Todd is the first of the “New Breed” (According toPaul Cain) . It is worth studying quite what the “New Breed” doctine is really about and then considering how much that plays into the Joel’s army and Dominionist teaching, and into the genral eschatological framework that has been developed. This is quite a reasonable introductory summary: http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain55.htm

    It is also instructive to reflect on quite how much of the present NAR movement’s worldview, agenda and theology is directly a result of the the words of the “prophets”, and to consider how many of the theological innovations and departures from orthodoxy are a result of what has come from them. Again, if you have not done so, it is salutary to study the issues surrounding the KCF fellowship, and if youhave not done so to read Pastor Ernie Gruen’s substantial critique from around that time. This is available here: http://www.deceptionbytes.com/AberrentPractices.pdf

    You mention Frank Viola – I often reflect on whether it might actually be a GOOD thing if ” most of what happens or is taught in any church would have to be thrown out” – if the criteria is actual what conforms to the spirit of NT christianity rather than the accretions of religion and the subversion of the Kingdom that have occured since the foundation by Jesus!

  30. Peter, I am not opposed in principle to reading “hostile” critiques. I am genuinely prepared to read McAlpine’s for example. But so much of what I do read is “hysterical and rabid … presented through cessationst or somewhat pharisaical filters”. And it is hard to find wheat among the weeds.

    I agree that for Todd “the only real issue to “correct” has been over his adultery” because I too “endorse the same doctrines and spiritual practices”, at least for the most part.

    Meanwhile the article you linked to at Let Us Reason is filled with “theological innovations and departures from orthodoxy” of its own, such as the 19th century teaching about the Rapture. While its filters may not be “cessationst or somewhat pharisaical” they seem to be dispensationalist. It also misrepresents Latter Rain teaching at least if George Warnock‘s expression of it is representative, as Warnock does not teach “immortalization” of “the new breed”, but only that they may not die because Jesus may return before they are old.

    I can agree with you, and Viola, that there are many things which would be better thrown out of the church. But let’s not throw out any babies with the bathwater.

  31. I wouldn’t promote everything that author(s) of that article says either and would agree with you re: “rapture”. It does, however, give you enough of a basic intro to the New Breed concept to jump off and conduct your own research and analysis and see how that has been and is beign promoted currently via many of the revered leaders of the current movvement. It is almost never taught explicitly or systematically, but you can find it referred to tangentially many times. This, of course, is only one strand of doctrinal concern.

    Warnock is but one voice within the contemporary tapestry, his contribution has much more about the “restored tabernacle of David”. You won’t find the full spectrum of thought and doctrine broadly within the sweep of LR/MS in his writing.

    I agree it can be hard to find the what amogst the weeds with those who write about the issues, but itis worth persisting. one has to exercise discernment and make adjustments for both sides of the equation.

    My observation is that we have been so trained never to “judge” anything that we are in no danger of throwing out baby or bathwater. Instead, we let the baby lie in dirty water and think that is normal.

  32. Peter, I get the impression that you think there is some well defined Latter Rain and Manifest Sons system of doctrine which is being promoted in some semi-underground way, which is “almost never taught explicitly or systematically” but can be discovered by research. You almost seem to be alleging a conspiracy which you want me to uncover. But I really don’t think that’s the truth. I agree there is a lack of systematic exposition of the teaching. But that’s because these people think doctrine is less important than experience. You can criticise them for that if you like. But don’t expect me to find something bad hidden behind the scenes. For one thing, there is nothing hidden – and for another, even if I found it, I would probably agree with it!

  33. Baron, are there any neutral parties on this matter? But I think I would prefer to let the Todd Bentley controversy fade away. In a few years his indiscretions will be forgotten, and if he is still in public ministry he will be accepted, at least by all charismatics, as someone who has put his wayward youth behind him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image