As you know, I've been following the Todd Bentley fiasco and attempting to reconcile the fact that people may be healed and miracles may happen in his services. How can he be a false prophet, if there is positive fruit in his ministry?
One explanation is that God is endlessly compassionate and responds to the sincere faith of His children, even when they are receiving ministry from someone on whom God’s calling and gifting no longer rest, because they have disqualified themselves through immorality or false doctrine.
But I think there's a better explanation for Todd Bentley. We know that miraculous signs, healings and even professions of faith are very poor indicators of whether someone is a true prophet, because Scripture predicts that in the last days false prophets will perform miracles and deceive even the children of God (Mark 13:22).
Therefore, is it possible that signs, miracles and healings in Bentley's ministry are being performed by the enemy for the purpose of validating the bad doctrine and lifestyle of a false teacher, so that weak believers may think that God does not care about morality, truth or righteousness?
Satan's ultimate goal is not the destruction of bodies, so allowing a healing or miracle here and there is no big deal to him. His targets are much larger: the supremacy of God’s word, the sanctity of marriage and family—the building blocks of the church itself and a reflection of God’s own Trinitarian nature. If he can give people the impression that God is not particularly concerned when a man cheats on his wife, leaves his children and marries his girlfriend, he will gladly risk people being saved, delivered and even healed through that man's ministry.
So, that's my theory. Any takers?
14 comments:
I think you're on to something that few would be willing to admit.
Luke 11:14-32...
If the sign points to anything or anyone other than the Jesus of the Bible, it is not of God... And Todd can paint the picture any color he would like, the jesus he speaks of in his "crusades/revivals" is NOT the Jesus of the Bible... The same is true of the god and the spirit he speaks of in his messages...
I refuse to refer to what he says on stage a "sermon"...
He's a circus performer - part of the side-show freaks...
Good word Matt
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Matt Green, Brian Russell. Brian Russell said: Oh dang! RT @matthewdgreen: New at GreenWords: Why False Miracles? http://bit.ly/a1dkNs [...]
I liked a lot of what you had to say Matt, but I may have to take you to task a little bit on one of your comments. The, "Satan’s ultimate goal is not the destruction of bodies," comment. I think it may depend on the situation for instance in the episode of when Jesus heals the possessed boy in Mark 9. To quote Lane, “By reducing the son to complete helplessness the unclean spirit betrayed his malicious intent on destroying the child and his utter contempt for Jesus.” Lane also points out in chapter 5 (the demoniac at Gadara)“What must be seen above all else is that of the swine demonstrates the ultimate intention of the demons with respect to the man they had possessed. It is their purpose to destroy the creation of God.” And I think, though don’t quote me on it, Hooker is in the same boat.
The works of satan in his dealings with the plight of man is a direct attack on humanity and God. It is interesting to me that the synoptics at times place Jesus’ encounters with satan himself after major milestones, for instance the baptism or transfiguration, and manifest themselves in forms from temptations to actually dealings with demonic forces.
As for the other part of statn using him to accomplish other things, as a kid going to an Assembly of God church my whole life and attending Missions Banquets, I heard a story once. This missionary tells the tale of how a voodoo doctor cut his tongue out, placed it on a stake and danced around with it, and then afterward placed it in his mouth with it being reattached by “spirits”. Now I cannot validate this story, but if it is true then the obvious answer is yes satan can use these schemes.
To me there is a bigger question at stake here though. What has Christianity done or not done, to allow such people to have a voice. I’m not talking about killing the heretics, but I do know that over the years Evangelical America has lost its way. We have bought into many fads like Rick Warrens materials on one spectrum to benny hinn on the other spectrum, and we have forgotten something very important in between. I wonder what Paul might say to a church that has tried to go from one thought to the other to make it all work. Oh yeah, I think he said, “I will determine to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Can you imagine what might happen if the Evangelical America did the same?
Romans 11:29, Luke 11:9-13, Matthew 7:21-23
Andy, you make a good point. Satan does wish to destroy bodies and souls and will do whatever he can to deface the image of God in humanity. Regarding the missions stories, I've heard similar ones that can only be attributed to some demonic power--much like the power Pharaoh's sorcerers used to make blood from water and turn staffs into serpents.
Jeff, I see where you're going with Matthew 7--regarding people who perform miracles and don't know Christ. It's a good passage, and I should have cited it along with the passage on false signs of Mark 13. I'm not sure where you're going with Luke 11, unless you're arguing that only God gives good gifts such as healing and miracles--however, if we look at it in light of Mark 13 and Matthew 17, both seem to suggest that Satan could perform miracles that are beneficial to a person--with other ends in mind. This reflects the biblical writers' tendency to attribute everything ultimately to God, because he is sovereign--either allowing or ordaining all things. Regarding Romans 11:29, take another look at the context: Paul is not talking about the vocational call to ministry leadership being irrevocable, but the sovereign calling of Israel to be God's covenant people. The passage is often used to support Reformed Theology's doctrine of unconditional election, but I've also heard it used by thrice-married, bisexual wife-beaters to defend their calling to ministry.
This is actually a pretty good string Matt. In the Jonah parable, it is suggested that as the sailors were casting lots to figure out who was responsible for the storm, and telling Jonah to call on "his God" for help that the sailors were polytheistic. And it is in the casting of the lots that the sailors come to the conclusion that Jonah is the one responsible, which begs the question for me, what "spirit" led them to that conclusion?
Now I do believe it is a parable and that the sailors and their reaction is a part of the back drop of the story, but is this a type of theology that was in 1 BC Judaism? What brings the pharisees to conclude that Jesus casts out demons by the power of Beelzebub? Again though, what is Jesus' response to the Pharisees when he is accused of doing this by Beelzebub?
I would love to hear what you think
Andy, regarding Jonah, God controlled the sailors' lots—as he controls all lots (Proverbs 16:33). An overriding theme in Jonah is God's direction of the elements ("God sent a wind ..."), animals ("God prepared a fish ..."), plants ("God prepared a plant ..."), etc. The OT writers often do not precisely identify the causal relationship of actions, because the OT audience assumed (rightly so) that God was controlling everything--even if actions are attributed to people, animal, weather, etc. See the apparent conflict between 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21--one of which says God caused David to take a census, the other, Satan. The Hebrew readers didn't see a conflict, because they attributed everything ultimately to God, even if He used penultimate means (e.g. Satan, fish, wind, plants, etc.). Regarding Beelzebub, I'm not sure what you're getting at ...
Interesting exercise, but I suspect it's purely academic. The truth is, most of us will never know for sure. Discernment is what's needed & that's something most of demonstrate a lack of on a daily basis. Paul is the best example (outside of Christ) of someone who had great discernment. But it may also be interesting to note that all NT examples of discernment involved personal, up-close encounters. Not only have I never been face-to-face w/ this guy, I don't even know who he is. I think that disqualifies me from making an accurate judgement. Anyone else in that boat?
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by matthewdgreen: New at GreenWords: Why False Miracles? http://matthewdgreen.com/2010/01/why-false-miracles/...
Jeff, thanks for these thought-provoking reflections. I think you're on to something with what may be a deeper principle in Romans 11. If so, it would make it even more tragic that someone could have an active call and gifting on their life, but disqualify themselves from using it because of immorality. This does seem to be the case with someone like King Saul. I've been in ministry settings in which people are being blessed by the ministry of someone whom the Apostle Paul would consider disqualified from ministry leadership because of immorality, family dysfunction, greed, heresy, etc. I think my concern is not so much that their ministry will be demonic or open the door to demonic influence but that young, immature believers can get the impression that God does not take sin seriously. In this regard, it is not so much the one ministering who will bear the judgment as the ones who allowed that person to minister and gave them a platform. This seems to be hinted at in 1 Timothy 5:22, when Paul warns against haste in laying on of hands--this same principle could apply to laying on of hands to re-commission one to ministry, as in the case of Todd. I think, truth be told, Todd's behavior has indicated that there were some huge gaps in his discipleship. He is still very young and immature and could have used someone speaking truth to him in love, not empowering him in his weakness. It appalls me that people of apparent maturity like Joyner, Ahn, Wagner, Johnson, etc. with all their prophetic discernment, did not see this coming from a mile away, and were even defensive when questions were brought up.
This is going to be lengthy too Matt (did you know if I small "cap" your name it tells me it is misspelled? Hmmm.)
Matt,
You are obviously correct with the statement, “The OT writers often do not precisely identify the causal relationship of actions, because the OT audience assumed (rightly so) that God was controlling everything”. For me as a person with a strong pension for Reformed Theology, I have mulled over this thought because then cannot one say that God is ultimately the author of evil?
In regards to “Beelzebub”: where you say, “Therefore, is it possible that signs, miracles and healings in Bentley’s ministry are being performed by the enemy for the purpose of validating the bad doctrine and lifestyle of a false teacher, so that weak believers may think that God does not care about morality, truth or righteousness?”, “Satan’s ultimate goal is not the destruction of bodies, so allowing a healing or miracle here and there is no big deal to him”, and “he will gladly risk people being saved, delivered and even healed through that man’s ministry”, I have some more questions and thoughts.
If we are saying that Satan is the performer of these miracles, are we then not saying he is performing them against himself if we then come to the conclusion of “he will gladly risk people being saved, delivered and even healed through that man’s ministry”? That would almost seem contradictory to what Jesus says in the Beelzebub incident, unless I am reading you wrong.
But more to the point, I have difficulty with the idea of “risk” being involved with satan. How does satan at all stand to lose? Though it is true that Jesus has said of the Pharisees that they are the children of the devil, the idea of satan's “risk”, the loss of anything, especially people, is I think something really foreign to the NT. For instance Morris points out in his The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross that redemption or lutron is a substitution, but a substitution for what? The substitution has to be of a value equal to or greater than that which is being held, so are we saying that the price that “satan” has on us is great, or is it that the price on is great by another owner?
Morris points out that the price that is paid out, the redemption/substitution, is a slavery price that is paradoxically given to God and the price for sin, but never a price that is paid out to satan, hence there is no “risk” involved to satan at least when it comes to the idea of redemption.
Further, if this is not the case then this would have a tremendous impact then on another important theological concept, propitiation or hylaskomia. Jesus is just not a substitute for us in redemption, but he is also our substitute when it comes to God’s dispensing of wrath on sin, to which is to say again, satan has nothing to do with it. This takes us I think into what Ladd calls, “Vicarious propitiatory substitutionary atonement”.
Now to one final point on the “risk” to satan; How can there be any risk to him when it is the moving of the Holy Spirit, the act of regeneration which starts from God, which works its way into pistis, and then brings me into relationship with him, which stops me from being at enmity with God? If works alone cannot make me saved, if it is a complete and total act on God’s part, then where and how can satan come into it at all? I know you might point out the parable in Mark about the sower, and it is true that satan can “eat” the seed, but I think in order for the ground to be receptive it is work of the Spirit.
Obviously I cannot do anything to make my heart into that condition, it has to be God because up until this point I am totally depraved, I cannot do any spiritual good, much less make my heart ready for God. So again how is there any “risk” for satan at all?
Post a Comment