Todd Bentley’s Alleged Homosexuality and Abuse Exposed

pulpitandpen.org ^ | AUG 23, 2019 | staff

[Morgana]

In news that surprises few who have followed the sheer depravity of this man – both violent and sexual – this will not be a big surprise, but it is news. Todd Bentley is a major charismatic prophet with the New Apostolic Reformation and has a colossal ministry (especially overseas). He’s also famous from cheating on his wife during the entirety of the famous “Lakeland Revival” and doing supposed miracles by kicking and punching people. After his fall from grace due to his substance abuse and extramarital affairs, he was “restored to ministry” by the biggest names in Charismatic evangelicalism.

Todd Bentley is the hyper-charismatic faith healer who claims to have raised multiple people from the dead and claims he heals people, yet with zero evidence of such healings. He has been involved in sex scandals as long as he’s been known in the charismatic world who fell from ministry and was subsequently restored by Rick Joyner.

A man closely involved in Bentley’s ministry by the name of Stephen Powell has come forward with allegations of homosexual activity and sexual abuse at the hands of Todd Bentley. If these allegations are true, and Todd Bentley has been acting sexually inappropriate with underage teens, then the authorities should be involved in this.

[metmom]

I understand that, but the Jesus you believe in was invented in the sixteenth century, not the first.

Wrong. the Jesus I believe in is the One in Scripture. HE'S the One who made these promises.....

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:37-39 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”

Which are found in the Bible, HIS Word.

And despite whatever charges can be brought against the Catholic Church, no historical event can be demonstrated to show its authority has ever been revoked, rescinded, or otherwise lost.

And no Scriptural evidence can be found to demonstrate that the church that Jesus promised to BUILD is by default Roman Catholicism.

The organic growth of the first century Church into what came to be known as the Catholic Church allows for no other possibilities.

By the time what we know as Catholicism was clearly defined, that religion, established by Constantine, bore little resemblance to the early church as described in the book of Acts and certainly none to Roman Catholicism today.

[metmom]

You want Jesus to save you, right?

He already has.

When you were in school did you tell your teacher to leave you alone, because you had "the book?"

Likely.

[metmom]

As I recall, you were the one who tried to say The Blessed Virgin Mary’s grace was the same as any other believer’s, missing not only the obvious, but the fact that she had it BEFORE the Lord’s sacrifice.

The whole *Mary was sinless* thing is totally fabricated.

Mary had no clue about what was going to happen until the angel showed up and told her how it was going to be.

Similarly, the whole Peter, big rock, little rock thing sounds plausible until an actual scholar explains it.

It's ridiculous for Jesus to, according to the Greek, say that Peter was a pebble and upon that towering cliff of bedrock, Jesus was going to build His church.

Jesus is the rock, the *Petra* on which He build His church.

No mere man is strong enough a foundation to do that.

Paul tells us clearly who the *petra* is.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.

http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm

1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm

If you choose to ignore that or deny it, it certainly is your prerogative. God does not compel or coerce faith under threat of force like Roman Catholicism has.

[metmom]

You really need to let the professionals handle the original language thing.

I heard enough of that lording it over others when I was a Catholic.

It's not rocket science to read the Greek and see what it means.

The only reason for *professionals* is so they can change the meaning of something clear so that it says what they want it to say, not what it actually says.

People are not as stupid as Roman Catholicism treats them and tells them they are.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

There's no indication those folks in Thessalonica were *professionals*.

[Luircin]

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

You don’t provide any evidence, just smug condescension.

I’m afraid that smug condescension is a poor substitute for Scripture and reason.

[Luircin]

Not at all. What it says is that Roman Catholics recognize the inherent flaw in Protestant soteriology; mainly that for all their salvific claims about “accepting Jesus as your personal savior,” they can’t explain how someone who has followed their exact prescription can still NOT be saved.

***

Ri-ight.

You already have the answer on the thread plenty of times; no need to repeat what was already ignored.

[metmom]

Not at all. What it says is that Roman Catholics recognize the inherent flaw in Protestant soteriology; mainly that for all their salvific claims about "accepting Jesus as your personal savior," they can't explain how someone who has followed their exact prescription can still NOT be saved.

Because it's a heart issue.

So people can go through all the *right* motions and say all the *right* words, but if their heart is not right before God, it means nothing.

But Catholics never do that, right?

Catholics don't seem to get that it's a relationship, not a religion.

It's not a matter like mathematics where you plug in the right numbers and out pops the correct answer.

You can get baptized, go to church every Sunday, take communion (or eat Jesus, if you prefer) every day of the week and still not be saved.

But Catholicism has made it about a check list of do's and don't's so that if you check all the right boxes, God is obligated to *save* you.

Meanwhile, Jesus has this to say.......

Luke 18:9-14 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

And Paul says this.....

Philippians 3:2-15 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.

For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

All the religiosity in the world will NOT save anyone and is not the evidence of a changed life and heart that show the work of having been born again, regenerated in one's spirit.

[Mark17]

It says a lot about Roman Catholicism that they think that eternal death threats the the only reason people can choose to live righteous lives.

I think it shows that some, suffering from 1st Corinthians 2:14 syndrome, think it’s ok to get saved, and then go live like hell. That’s only been refuted about 47 million times. Maybe that is what they would like to do, but it’s not Biblical. I don’t accept any popery, but it seems to me the “first pope,” of the OTC, said (1st Peter 2:16) “You are free, but still you are God's servants, and you must not use your freedom as an excuse for doing wrong.” Elsie, do you suppose that would be 47 million and one times now? 😁👍

[af_vet_1981]

• Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
  
  ...
  
  
• But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verse fifteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verse eighteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[metmom]

What a non-answer answer.

I’m sure somehow there is a connection in your mind between what k51 posted and your verses, but it remains a mystery to everyone but you.

BTW, did you ever hear that when everyone else is wrong but you, it’s time to consider who might be the wrong one?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

X

[papertyger]

Wrong. the Jesus I believe in is the One in Scripture. HE'S the One who made these promises.....

That's the problem. The Risen Jesus told his followers in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples of all nations. You can not be a "disciple" of the Scriptures. The Scriptures can't tell you "no, that's not quite right," or "This is more important than that." To be a disciple requires you to accept guidance from another person thoroughly trained in the selected discipline.

What Protestants do is more like declaring themselves "black belts" because they've seen every kung fu movie ever made.

It just doesn't work that way.

Make all the excuses you want, but you might very well excuse yourself right into damnation, and do so with a Bible in your hand.

And no Scriptural evidence can be found to demonstrate that the church that Jesus promised to BUILD is by default Roman Catholicism.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are just no other candidates. EVERY schism that broke off from Rome wound up looking nothing like what they ostensibly broke off to be. Even the Eastern Church wound up basically copying the Roman model they broke off in objection to. And don't even start with the Reformation...how they can ignore the board in their eyes regarding divisions is beyond my ability to grasp.

By the time what we know as Catholicism was clearly defined, that religion, established by Constantine, bore little resemblance to the early church as described in the book of Acts and certainly none to Roman Catholicism today.

So what's your point? Jesus himself said in the parable of the mustard seed the Kingdom of heaven would grow into a monstrosity (mustard grows into a bush, not a tree) that was so big even the "birds of the air" would find a place in its branches. He did NOT, however, say it would cease to be the Kingdom of Heaven.

This criticism is about as valid as complaining fifth grade math looks noting like first grade math: it's not suppose to.

[papertyger]

The whole *Mary was sinless* thing is totally fabricated.

Mary had no clue about what was going to happen until the angel showed up and told her how it was going to be.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain why a betrothed woman would make the objection: [Luk 1:34 KJV] 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

[MHGinTN]

A dead soul cannot see the spiritual CHIRCH / Ekklesia/ Body of Believers throughout History. The dead soul is stuck on seeing an Org or institution because the dead soul lacks spiritual discernment.

As immediate evidence of such spiritual deadness / blindness: "To be a disciple requires you to accept guidance from another person thoroughly trained in the selected discipline."

To be a disciple of Jesus The Christ is to have the Holy Spirit guidance in life. A dead soul does not have that so the Org is substituted, and 'forensic' foolishness is demanded which can easily be faked by apparitions and signs and lying wonders.

[Ted Grant]

The article says he claims he raised people from the dead. If he has indeed claimed that, there’s no reason to take him seriously. Anyone who did take him seriously did so at their peril.

[MHGinTN]

Meant to ping you when I butted in.

[papertyger]

You don’t provide any evidence, just smug condescension. I’m afraid that smug condescension is a poor substitute for Scripture and reason.

How do you propose I "provide evidence" for an event I already said DIDN'T happen? That being "no historical event can be demonstrated to show its authority has ever been revoked, rescinded, or otherwise lost."

What you call "smug condescension" is an invitation to provide evidence of an event that to the best of my knowledge, never happened.

If that's "smug," what is petulance over the inability to provide it?

[papertyger]

I heard enough of that lording it over others when I was a Catholic. It's not rocket science to read the Greek and see what it means. The only reason for *professionals* is so they can change the meaning of something clear so that it says what they want it to say, not what it actually says. People are not as stupid as Roman Catholicism treats them and tells them they are.

While your aggressiveness is much more understandable now, it does nothing to add weight to your conclusions.

In fact, your Thessalonica comment just seems petulant to me as Greek was the Lingua Franca of the day.

[metmom]

So who do we follow?

Child molesting, drug using, pervert protecting homosexuals who inhabit the Vatican, who can’t themselves even obey the Scripture that they claim their church gave the world?

Why would I trust someone in that kind of sin to be able to accurately hear from God and direct my spiritual life?

Should I?

Not a snowball’s chance is hell.

[metmom]

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain why a betrothed woman would make the objection: [Luk 1:34 KJV] 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Because Mary knew how women got pregnant and knew that she and Joseph had not yet consummated their marriage.

It's not rocket science.