Torben Søndergaard and Gospel Plus

I recently learned about Torben Søndergaard.

Torben

He’s an evangelist and faith healer from Denmark who is quite the public prophet, faith healer, and “global evangelist”.  He runs an organization called The Last Reformation, and he’s not exactly subtle: he claims to be part of the next Protestant Reformation (otherwise known as the New Apostolic Reformation).  His about page tells the story of how he came to be a Christian, didn’t see “fruit” in his Christian life (“fruit” meaning “miraculous healings”),  and then became a full-blown faith healer and prophet who writes books by divine revelation (which would be delivering written revelation, otherwise known as “writing scripture”).

You may not have heard of him yet, but he’s definitely getting around and building steam.  He’s popping up in Singapore, PolandEngland, Australia, Holland, Turkey, South Africa, Los Angeles, etc.  All those listed countries were places where he has been in the past year alone.   Just a few weeks ago he was leading a faith healing seminary right in my own backyard.

Some people may want to dismiss him as being “the fringe”, but he’s becoming a B-list charismatic celebrity, at least according to some.   He’s clearly busy and doing this full time.  He’s writing books and traveling the world.  Even though his videos are videos of healing “on the street”, he travels because he’s invited to teach on faith healing and assorted charismatic theology in churches on every continent.  In other words, Torben Søndergaard is not that fringe.  Torben is also a fantastic example of a dangerously wide-spread type of false teacher: the guys who offer “gospel plus”.

What is “gospel plus?” 

You’ve likely heard about false gospels that subtract from the gospel.  For example, there are false gospels where a person doesn’t have to believe in core doctrines like the trinity (which usually manifests in disbelief that Jesus was the Yahweh, the God of the Jews, incarnate).  Those are easier false gospels to spot since they leave obvious things out, but false teachers who proclaim a”gospel plus” message are a little more difficult.  A “gospel plus” message is any gospel message that adds to the gospel.  In other words, if you hear a gospel message that doesn’t leave anything out but then includes unnecessary theology or requirements, you’re hearing a “gospel plus” message.

To put it even more simply, if someone is “giving the gospel” and the message they preach includes marks of “true saving faith” involving conduct, diet or dress code, you’re hearing a “gospel plus” message.

Mennonite Ladies

Now, I’m guessing you think you’re pretty savvy and wouldn’t get hoodwinked by something like a “gospel plus” message…right?  The fact that Torben Søndergaard has a successful ministry in Denmark suggests otherwise.  Let’s look at an example and you see if you can spot it.

This is a 30-minute episode of their web show.  IF you have time, watch it and see if you can find where it goes from “gospel” to “gospel plus”:

If you need help, I’ll break it down for you:

Burgundy2

The show starts off introducing us to a woman named Liz.  Liz is from Scotland, an-ex Reiki Healer (if you don’t know what Reiki is, look here), and has been baptized by the Holy Spirit and has repented from her sins.

At around 1:15 she states that she’s been a Christian for around two weeks.  She says that she saw Torben Søndergaard (and his Last Reformation associates) healing people on the street.  The video then shows some clips.

At around 2:40 she says that she watched the previously displayed videos and couldn’t understand why Torben Søndergaard and his associates had more success than she did with her Reiki.

After that, she had some mix ups with her Reiki business and then God “told her” to go to Denmark and see Torben Søndergaard.

Then, around 5:50 Torben Søndergaard starts going on with a fairly long gospel presentation.  He starts off with some sort of strange form of Arminianism where God is unable to save certain people because of “the rules” (but doesn’t explain who the power is behind God, making rules for him to follow and binding his hands).  Ignoring the first 2 minutes absurd of theological confusion that seems to be a strange Arminian/Molinist goulash, we go on.

Burgundy1

At around 8:20, Torben Søndergaard gives what is a fairly decent beginning to a gospel presentation.  His talk about sin with the whole of the cups turned upside down, people comparing themselves to each other, and Jesus being the cup turned upright (at 15:40), is a good presentation idea that I may steal.  It’s simple and visually punchy.

Then, at 16:10, things start getting interesting.  Jesus apparently received the indwelling Holy Spirit at his baptism (in contradiction to what God overtly revealed about Christ’s baptism, and the descent of the Spirit, to and through John the Baptist in John 1:29-34).  We’ll chalk this up to him simply not having any serious theological training and move on.

In 16:55, Torben finishes up the  “gospel” component of his talk.  He gets the repentance and law/gospel distinctions right, which is good.  At 17:29, he even mentions the removal of the heart of stone and the insertion of the heart of flesh (which is great).  Then he gets into the “gospel plus” component and things move from interesting to bizarre.

Burgundy flute

But, at 17:35 he says that the “heart of flesh” is a conscience.  He continues saying a bunch of confusing stuff about the conscience.  He recognizes the fact that unbelievers have a conscience (ala Rom. 2:15), but at 19:17 he says that believers get a new conscience at conversion (?!?).   He proves his point with a story about how he couldn’t watch some horrible movie after he was saved.  In case you think I’m needlessly picky, that’s not nearly the worst of it.

Then, at 20:10 he says “the light is inside, but the body is dead”, meaning that after a person repents of their sins and believes the gospel, they’re still spiritually dead.  The cup is still turned over (carrying on the metaphor he’s been using for 12+ minutes) and he says that we have to bury the dead body.  At 21:00 he explains that baptism is two things: (1) the burial of the dead body with Christ and (2) getting the Holy Spirit.  Not only do people apparently get the Holy Spirit at water baptism, but also at 21:45 he says that the proof of the filling is when the Holy Spirit overflows through the mouth of believers through speaking in tongues.  In other words, speaking in tongues is the proof of a successful water baptism and proof of salvation (assuming that the baptism of the Spirit is what brings the dead sinner to life, continuing what is a confusing metaphor with the cups: the cup is turned over only after the baptism).

Burgundy

At 23:35, we then see Liz’s baptism. Torben says, at 24:15, that they’re planning on baptizing Liz and delivering her from demons.  Then, at 25:00 they start commanding the “Spirit of Reiki Healing” to come out.  Over the next two minutes, Torben keeps shouting “freedom” and “come out” and blabbering in ecstatic speech.  Liz groans and writhes and at 26:20 Torben starts commanding Liz to speak in tongues, which she does after a little prompting.

From around 27:00-27:30 she talks about what it felt like to get baptized with the Holy Spirit, and then at around 27:40, she immediately goes out with the Last Reformation crew and starts healing people.  At around 29:00 we see Liz perform her first healing (of a sore ankle by a kid who’s visibly unsure what’s going on).

At 29:50 we see her interpreting her experience: the “sore ankle” healing is what brings her the assurance her salvation.

Ouch.

Burgundy3

At 30:08 she tells the viewers what she wants them to know:

“For you out there, I just want to say to you that God is real, that he wants to be in your life, he doesn’t want you to suffer, he just wants you to be happy, and not have any stress in your life.  He wants you to, um, trust him and believe in him that he’s going to take care of you, that he always has done.  He’s already taken away your sin; paid the price of your sin.  And now, we have to make a step towards Jesus, like he’s made that step towards us, but, he’s taken away our sin.  We take one step towards Jesus, he’s going to come, and if we ask for forgiveness for sins, and, um, like all the Reiki Healers and everybody that’s into ‘New Age’, um, crystal healing, um, anything to do with spirituality; they’re being deceived.  It’s not real.  It’s other entities: you don’t know who’s coming through you, you don’t know who’s guiding you, you’re asking for beings to come in, but, do you know who they are?  I do know.   The proof is, once you’ve had the Holy Spirit, you, you feel renewed and reborn, and, just know that God is going to be there for you and guide you.

So looking at the confusion that Torben lays out for poor old Liz, looking at what he actually does with her, and looking at what she says about it all, it’s pretty clear that the gospel isn’t a propositional message about sin, righteousness and the judgment to come (i.e. Acts 24:25).  Reading her summation of the gospel, it becomes pretty clear that she doesn’t understand the whole component about her sin, the death of Christ, or how either one relates to God (in other words, the main propositional components of the gospel message).  She summarizes the gospel along the lines of being something like “God wants you to be happy and stress-free, know that he’s taking care of you same as always, has removed your sin and now you need forgiveness for the sin…that he’s already removed…so that he can guide you…which he wasn’t doing if you were into ‘New Age’ stuff…”

I’m sad for how this woman has gone from one deception to another.

The defenders of Torben will say that he did give her the gospel; the full gospel.  This is part of the reason why “gospel plus” is harder to spot.  If a person preaches rightly about sin, righteousness, the judgment to come, the person and work of Christ, etc. and then adds “speaking in tongues” to that (or anything else), they’re not preaching the gospel because they’re not preaching the same message as the Scripture.  As you can see from the video, the “plus” part of the “gospel plus” message is always where the false teachers focus and the “gospel” part is there, mostly to deflect criticism.

That’s a perfect example of the false gospel of “gospel plus” and why it’s so dangerous.

Also, that’s a good reason why people should have nothing to do with Torben Søndergaard.  Consider yourself warned about a spiritual fraud: listening to him may well endanger your soul for eternity.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “evaluating public information about a public individual” Unger

P.S. There was recently a post on his Facebook Wall about his recent trip to Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  The post announced one of his many amazing healings.  It read:

One who was healed was a lady who had walked with crutches for three months after having broken her leg. Now she could walk and bend her leg for the first time in 3 months.

Yup.  Woman walked on crutches for 3 months after breaking her leg.  Then, at the end of three months, she went to a faith healer and was miraculously healed.

Hmmm.

How do I express my thoughts?

SEEMS-LEGIT

P.S. – After several months of leaving this comment thread open, I’m closing it down.  There is no real discussion happening here anymore, just emotional venting and nonsense.  If you feel like finding some other page and bringing up Torben Søndergaard there, I’ll just edit your comment to make it interesting.

I’ve moved on, now you can too.

Advertisements

116 thoughts on “Torben Søndergaard and Gospel Plus

  1. Thank you for critiquing the ministry of Torben Søndergaard. His name would pop up on side bars of YouTube channels as I was researching but I never took the time to listen to him. Since I was viewing clips of other “wolves” I just assumed he belonged to the “same pack”.
    (sigh) My faith never wavers but I am discouraged as so many just don’t want to receive the Truth.
    Again, thank you Lyndon. I appreciate the up to date info on what is happening within Canada when it comes to “faith” and I covet prayers as I am unable to find a place of true worship in my small community.
    Just listened to an excellent series by Justin Peters that he delivered earlier this year in Norway. Excellent! 🙂

    • Glad to be a source of helpful information. I also feel for you, being in Canada myself. In many small communities, it’s necessary to have a car that gets good gas mileage as you may be forced to drive a long way to find a bible-teaching church anywhere nearby.

      Justin Peter’s work on this stuff is fantastic. I’m thankful for the ministry he has.

      God bless as you labor to remain faithful!

      • I recently attended a seminar in Australia, long story short, Scripture told me, Caution, something in my heart knew, people just flocked to the miracle, please read the following scriptures, 2 Corinthians 11:12-15, Especially 11:12,._ Matthew 24:24, 2Corinthians 11:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:9 – 12, just a few on FALSE prophets, FALSE apostle.._but reading these next scriptures, it made me more cautious to any teachings.._Matthew Chapter 6, clearly Jesus explains, not just here but throughout the bible for us to do in secret,._,these charismatic apostolic reformation types, are videoing, in public, trumpet testimonies, .._etc.._i can carry on much more in depth, but these were the few obvious scriptures to me, ive had a few disagreements with fellow Christians, but im only trying to help, its good knowing others are out there whom agree, as my Source for anything is from nothing but Gods Word. 2 Timothy 3:16

  2. “As you can see from the video, the “plus” part of the “gospel plus” message is always where the false teachers focus and the “gospel” part is there, mostly to deflect criticism.

    That’s a perfect example of the false gospel of “gospel plus” and why it’s so dangerous.”

    Well said!!!

    • Thanks Curt.

      You know, some people might argue that focusing myopically on the method of gospel presentation may be treading dangerously close to “gospel plus”…

      • I think, I would be real nice if we could get a video for us all, where we see a person explained the correct gospel, led to repentance – and then baptize on their own faith, afterwards prayed for them to get the Holy Spirit – and instantly seeing them discipled to use spiritual gifts.

        Just so we can see how it really should be done.

  3. Could you not make a video for us all, where you explain a person the correct gospel, leading them to repentance – and where you then baptize them on their own faith, afterwards praying for them to get the Holy Spirit – and then instantly discipling them to use spiritual gifts?

    Just so we can see how it should be done.

    I only read a lot of words on this blog.

    • Well Ole,

      Thanks for the tongue-in-cheek comment.

      The Gospel is linked on my menu bar above.

      But what does “baptize them on their own faith” mean exactly?

      If people repent and believe the gospel, I don’t need to pray for them to get the Holy Spirit since regeneration involves receiving the Holy Spirit. If a person is a Christian, they’ve already got the Holy Spirit and no person can add to, or subtract from, the presence of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

      The fact that you want to see a video of “instant discipleship” also suggests that you’re unclear as to what “discipleship” is. Discipleship is never instantaneous.

      I’m not going to make a video: it’s totally unnecessary. If you have questions about a biblical issue, I would love to discuss them and help you understand the Scripture.

      You know, those words that God gave us to reveal himself to us? Those words that are sufficient to make us thoroughly equipped for every good work?

      If you want to talk seriously, I’m here.

  4. According to your theology, Peter also preached a ‘gospel plus’ on the day of Pentcost in Acts 2:38, because he says: “”Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ”. Your gospel (as presented on this page) completely leaves out this baptism part, that Peter found neccesary to include – the part that you did include about repentance is solid – but why would you present the gospel different then Peter and exclude things?

    The hard biblecal fact is that your gospel is a ‘gospel min’. And that’s why it doesn’t work for you in such a strong way – you don’t see Reiki and new age people repent, burn their books and occult stuff and come to faith in your ministry.. do you?

    • Ha!

      Nice try.

      Where did I lay out my theology or the gospel message on this page?

      You’re just making wild assumptions based on your desire to defend Torben.

      I don’t preach a gospel that leaves out baptism, or any other point commanded in the scriptures. I DO preach a gospel that has a biblically informed understanding of what baptism is. Baptism isn’t some form of exorcism that happens in water and is marked by speaking in tongues.

      Torben doesn’t do baptism, at least not according to the Bible.

      Where in the Bible is tongues associates with water baptism?

      As for the whole insinuation that the biblical gospel is ineffective, I’d love to introduce you to a few people.

      Ex-Reiki healers?

      Check.

      Ex-witches?

      Check.

      Ex-astrologers?

      Check.

      Ex-Mormons, ex-Satanists, ex-drug dealers, ex-everything you can imagine?

      Check.

      People get saved all the time because the gospel is effective to save, even without someone being pressured into faking tongues in front of a crowd.

      You’d better believe it.

      • I do not know Torben, nor can I judge whether the speaking in tongues bit is effective…but in Mark 16 Jesus himself does say “15:..Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believes AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that does not believe shall be damned. 17And these signs SHALL follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover’

        And then we read the book of Peter and the book of Acts and we see that it occurs pretty much every time someone gets baptized. Now, whether or not it is an imperative sign of the holy spirit is another matter, and I certainly don’t push that idea. But I can’t see any ‘plus’ element in Torbens explanation of the gospel. In fact, scripturally he is solid. As a fruit bearing tree he is also pretty solid.

        Luke 9:49John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.’ Now, if another gosepl, contrary to what is written in the Bible was being preached by this guy, I would pull up the flag.

        So to conclude; what purpose does it serve to cut down or accuse someone of being false without any solid or legit biblical backing? And seeing as the message of the gospel is defiantly unwatered and he is bearing fruit, and doing what we all are called to do; serve the kingdom. We are called to be servants of Christ and putting our candles on candlesticks, being salt wihich retains its savour. So, politely, I would like to say I don’t believe this post is either influenced by scripture nor is it led by the holy spirit. The memes bear witness to that too. I am not judging you as person, but this post I am.

      • Do I pick up snakes? No. Have I prophesied? No. But I was backslidden not too long ago. I suffered two heart attacks and subsequent cardiac arrests from overdosing twice on cocaine…and upon praying for Christ to help me he did. Straight away. No paramedics were called. But as for my walk in faith according to God’s word, it’s building. But the question I ask you; do you deny Jesus’ words? Are the gifts of the spirit extinct for this present age?

        • So you DO deny the very passage you quoted me. You pick and choose which verses you’ll obey and openly disobey others. You are the one who quoted Mark 16:17-18 to me:

          “17And these signs SHALL follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover’”

          That passage doesn’t mention prophecy, does it? It does suggest that those four experiences (snakes, exorcisms, tongues, poison) will all follow when one believes the gospel.

          You apparently do at least one of those, but not all of those. By your standard, how do you explain away your blatant hypocrisy?

          I’m glad you’re off the drugs. That’s fantastic and the Lord deserves wild thralls of praise for that.

          I don’t deny Jesus’ words. Not for one second. I read them and attempt to understand them beyond a shallow and surface level.

          I don’t deny that the gifts of the Spirit are still available and active in this present age. I just don’t use my experience as the interpretive grid through which I read the Bible.

      • Very interesting reading here! You are really busy to hunt Torben down and accuse him for beeing a false prophet. You better have the full truth with you. Do you know your Lord. Have you read his teachings. I would take more effort reading it again if I where you. The Lord said there is only one sin that’s unforgivable. Instead of accusing, pointing at one another. Go out, heal the sick, cast out demon preach the Gospel to all the nations. Jesus never said that you should try to see bad things in others rather he said: why do you se the little peace of wood in your brother’s eyes when you have a logg in your own eye. I don’t know the scripture by word but I do understand what he means with it. Also I never saw jesus point out people for doing the wrong Gospel.. Even when one of the desiple come and spoke about people healing people in jesus name but wasn’t with them what did jesus say?? Do not stop them. If miracle is happening around people in jesus name I would think twice before I speak against them.. What if jesus is walking with them. Speaking in new thoungs is in the scripture. Or do you have another scripture than me?
        May our Lord jesus grow bigger in all of us and may the holy spirit be the only helper in our life. Let the light shine and pray for your brother’s and sister with love and compassion! Love you all. God bless you and may the peace of the lord be with you. We are entering hard times. Be strong and love echother.

        • Amen. May the Lord God help Mennoknight defeat the spirit of haughtiness. He’s been helping me with it too! And my natural reviling nature that always leans towards sarcasm and verbal mockery, often cloaked with satire. It’s a sin most of us overlook but when our minds and hearts are set on the Spirit, convinction hits hard and he reproves us via his Word, reminding us to walk in love, and to admonish any brethren in humility and gentleness…in this case, however, I couldn’t quite understand the False prophet accusation towards Torben.

          I disagree with Torbens view of baptism in relation to it providing an instantaneous freedom from various struggles with sin, although I do believe baptism is required before someone can be ‘filled’ with the spirit. But on the most part Torben is pretty solid theologically and in the fruit he’s bearing. So if there are any concerns best thing is to pray about it and possibly speak to him first.

        • Kid,

          Your personal proclivities aren’t necessary the same in other people.

          I don’t have to privately contact him since he’s the one putting his teaching on the internet for anyone to watch (or critique).

          As for the “fruit”, he’s not bearing any fruit at all…but that only makes sense if you have a biblically informed understanding of “fruit”.

          I’d love for you to explain what “fruit” is, at least in the Bible. Give me some actual explanation from the text of Scripture please.

          That might help this whole conversation.

        • Thanks for the projecting Annika.

          I watched a publicly available video and evaluated its content. It’s one of 470+ posts that I have on here, so Torben is not exactly of any statistical significance in the greater scope of things.

          I didn’t hunt him down. Someone sent me the video and asked about him. That’s usually how I find this stuff.

          Thanks for encouraging me to read the Scripture more.

          I’d encourage you to read it more too…and read it more slowly. Pay attention to the actual words. Words like:

          “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” – Matt. 7:1-5.

          So Jesus teaches that I should indeed take the speck out of my brother’s eye (in other words, judge him). Jesus wants me to make a right judgment, not NO judgment.

          How should I make a right judgment in this case?

          But come on now. You said “I never saw jesus point out people for doing the wrong Gospel.”

          Well, I’m glad you’ve come here. You may want to read the gospels again. Slower. Pay attention.

          Pay attention to passages like Matt. 23:13-15. Passages like the Matt. 5-7 (when Jesus says “you have heard it said but I tell you,” he’s addressing the teaching of the Pharisees. He’s condemning their false teaching). In fact, Jesus never stopped condemning the Pharisees.

          That’s kinda why they murdered him.

          Be strong as well.

          Know Christ as he has revealed himself in his word, not as someone tells you his word says.

          Read the Bible for yourself.

          Read it slowly.

          Pay attention to the words.

          Stop following Torben, lest you waste your life following a charlatan.

          Loving each other is warning one another about perils like Torben.

          “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.” – Acts 20:29-31.

          That’s also what I hope to do, in my flawed way.

      • Just because one decides to be baptised they do not automatically receive the Holy Spirit when they come out of the water..I am one of those who received firstly and then was baptised a week later. ..I was simply baptised in total peace, and not with devilish manifestations…it is wrong to give the impression that being baptised drives out demons…it is symbolic of burying ones old life and starting the new life with Christ.

    • Torben has the Truth. He has broken through the deception of the religious spirit that was planted by Constantine and the Catholic Church. Jesus said”Come Follow Me” yet so few do because they don’t actually want to give up the old person and be a New Creation after baptism.

    • ever wondered if the “be baptized” isn’t Peter saying, “go off and be dunked now” but rather “BE baptised (Spirit).

      Not them doing something but rather an indication of what WILL occur.

  5. Thank you for your analysis of Torben’s bad theology. It was refreshing. However, your use of images of Will Ferrell as the “Anchor Man” is unfortunate. As with most of Will Ferrell’s movies he portrays a very vile and crude person. He continually spews sexual innuendo and crass comments. Debunking a false teacher would be more credible if you didn’t use images of one of Hollywood’s most vile persons.

    • Believe it or not, posting a picture with a facial expression that transmits an emotion isn’t any sort of endorsement of the moral qualities of the person in the photograph.

      I put up pictures of rock stars and false teachers on here too. Those images aren’t endorsements of anything they’ve said or done either.

      I sometimes utilize themes in images in order to add a little variety. If you don’t understand the graphical side of my writhing, its okay.

  6. Hi, thanks for this piece on the last reformation….I have a question – can you tell me where Torben has stated that he has written books by divine revelation? I ask because his “ministry” is making inroads here in Ireland and I’d like to be able to point to specifics rather than just throwing out generalisations when dealing with people here who are getting caught up in all this. Also, am I right in thinking that around the 15 min mark in the vid, his comment about Jesus walking among us “like” a man strays close to docetism?

    • On his about page, Torben writes about his religious history and claims that after five years, he had a breakthrough. He writes:

      “I started on a 40 day fast, which was to transform a lot of things in my life. To make it very short: my eyes were even more open to God’s word, and what the gospel is about. I began to understand how lukewarm we Christians are, and how far away from the truth we have come. I saw that God called me to speak his Word without compromise, something that unfortunately we have not seen too much of in our country. I also heard him say that I should write a book that would reveal the deception, we as Christians had come in. It was a very powerful experience. For the next 11 days, I experienced how God gave me a chapter of the book each day, and how he in an incredible way opened the words to me.

      When the book was finished, God told me to wait to publish it until he told me to. He told me almost 3 years later, on October, 4 2003.

      It was very special. I prayed and did not really felt anything in the beginning, but suddenly God spoke to me, and said that now the time was right for “The Sound Doctrine” to come out. And he told me how I should do it: a short introduction and testimony about how the book was created (born). And end it with a postscript: “Now, three years after”, where I summarize it, and go a little further in the healthy doctrine.”

      Here’s a screen grab.

      It seems like he clearly claims that he wrote the book, but the words of the book weren’t original to him; they came from God.

      • If I read a line in the bible and the Holy Spirit shows me somthing in it and I then write an artical about what I think the Holy Spirt is showing me in the bible, does this mean I am claiming to write scripture? I doint think so.

        • Uh, of course that doesn’t mean you are claiming to be writing Scripture.

          The thing is that Torben seemed to be claiming, rather overtly, that he was writing by divine revelation (that is writing rather than speaking). He claimed that the words that he wrote came from God, not him. He doesn’t say that he “fallibly recorded the revelation that God gave him,” but rather that God personally delivered the book to him, one chapter at a time.

          Writing down divinely-delivered speech isn’t “writing scripture,” but divinely-writing words would be.

    • Chris, if you are trying to help those caught up in Torben’s Charismania I highly recommend that you watch the following documentary: Darren Brown: Miracles for Sale https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuP5uOI7Xwc While this documentary doesn’t deal with the underlying theology, or lack thereof, it demonstrates all the tricks of the trade behind such so-called “miracle healings”.

      Brown is a mentalist, illusionist, hypnotist and skeptic. In the documentary he takes an atheist SCUBA instructor and converts him into a faith healer. They then go to Dallas to ply their trade. SCUBA man “performs” the same “miracles” as Torben.

      As you seem concerned about false theology spreading into your neck of the woods, you may want to watch out for a new joint teaching coming from Hillsong Church and Gateway Church of Southlake, TX. They are in London right now putting their finishing touches on their multi-part Christian tithe/prosperity gospel teaching. They plan to push this Euro-friendly version heavily throughout the U.K., Ireland and Europe. It appears that many in the clergy are eager to be raking in millions and can’t wait for the release of this.

      Daystar television is also making inroads throughout Europe. They are now the first and only “Christian” television station in France. Daystar is affiliated with Gateway Church and they take advantage of desperate people by convincing them to “plant a faith seed” if they want to see their cancer cured, their marriage saved or their kids or grandkids spared from drug addiction and profligate lifestyles. The faith seeds are then spent on lavish lifestyles for Daystar and Gateway executives. This false teaching will soon be available to tens of millions of homes throughout Europe.

      In Texas I am watching families get evicted, have their electricity cut-off and families being torn apart by this false teaching. People giving up 10-20% of their gross income are terrified that if they stop they will be hurt even worse. These teachers combine it with other elements of the Charismatic/Pentecostal experience which includes highly skilled love-bombing, really slick production values and the music experience that mimics raves and the emotional experience of a rave. It is very seductive and ruins temporal lives as well as eternal.

      Torben is one man, the damage he can do is somewhat limited. GW is launching their full Global Apostolic Ministry right now. This Hillsong/Gateway/Daystar import of New Apostolic Reformation style teachings throughout Europe is what you should be watching out for.

      • Thanks LT, yes I had seen the Darren brown vid some time ago but forgotten about it. I’ll take another look….thanks for the reminder. Thanks also for the heads-up re hill song/gateway church. I’ll keep an eye out for it. With this being such a small country with a very small Christian population, it should be fairly easy to spot. It’s that in mind, yes torben is one man with limited influence, but with such a small Christian population, the effect his “ministry” is having is very wide spread- especially having convinced some very gullible but highly enthusiastic people to spread the word for him. Scary really. Thanks again for your comments and suggestions. I appreciate it. Chris

        • Gosh. I am so sorry. I thought Ireland had more Christians. I understand how the power of one popular false teacher can spread like wildfire. I hope the video informs people as to how Torben gets his “results”. My concern is that Hillsong, Gateway and GW connected Daystar Broadcasting are investing millions to take over Europe with their Pentecostal, NAR, spiritainment experiences. That may give them a larger, long-term reach than Torgen. They consider y’all an easy target for expansion since Catholics, in particular, are embracing the Pentecostal movement in droves.

          Gateway and Hillsong are destructive because they bring the hardcore seduction in a way people haven’t seen before. They are sending over musicians and tech crews to make church services mimic an emotionally charged rave. They call church service “the experience”. Here’s what their Youth Conference looks like (ages 12-18) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oHaKF-rXNE They call them Confetti Cannon Christians and they “text” in their salvations. This false assurance prevents people from becoming truly saved. GW expects every man, woman and child to kick in around $5,000 each, per year, once they become a member. They won’t stop because so much revenue is at stake.

          GW promotes The Message over the Bible and for the younger crowd they steer them away from even that, stating that the “experience” and your personal relationship is what matters. In last week’s Gateway young adult sermon by Robert Morris’ son Josh, he warns the students that the Bible led us to wars and Crusades. He tells the students that reading the Bible is the equivalent of a starving man finally finding a restaurant, realizing this could save his life, then asking for a menu. Then when the waiter wants to take his order the man says no thanks. Instead of ordering any food he will just sit there and read the menu and look at the food descriptions and the nutrition guide and say that’s all he needs to survive. Then the man will starve to death. He should have skipped the menu and gone straight for the food experience.

          When they come to Ireland people will be caught up in it. They will be told The Message IS the Bible. Then they will be told that their experience, including baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, receiving regular direct revelations from God and prophesying is far more important than scripture. GW holds classes to teach small children to prophesy. Parents are not permitted to attend to see what is going on in these classes/seminars. It’s really difficult to extract kids from cults if they have been brought up with a steady diet of indoctrination. This tears families apart.

          Hillsong is no better. There is plenty of good information available on the internet about how dangerous Hillsong is.

      • Thanks LT for your comments, these are most interesting – especially the Hillsong/Gateway/Daystar connection. I would greatly appreciate any sources/links you may have that specifically speak to the relationship of the three organizations.

        I can think of at least one example that illustrates these organizations are NOT beneficial to the body of Christ. Hillsong London’s Christmas “pageant” 2014, Robert Morris providing “cover” for Mark Driscoll – to name two.

        Appreciate any assistance you can provide.

  7. when Peter went to Cornelius’s house they all started speaking in tongues, then were baptised. I myself was saved through a dream, healed, delivered and filled with the Spirit. It was a while before I got baptised. There are a few things that he said which I have a problem with in the ‘added Gospel’ part. I have heard other preachers use the film adage…..was really a bit disturbed about the whole realisation of sin and using an example of him entering the bathroom with his daughter of 10 then 14…..but most of all was worried when he said babies are born without sin….we know that is not true….we are all born in sin. I think he was trying to explain that there is a time that children become aware of doing right and wrong, this awareness does help us choose right from wrong….very confusing tho’ in some parts. Can honestly say that Liz looks different after baptism. She does look better and her eyes were clearer.

    At the end of the day, it is our personal responsibility to ensure in these days we stay close to God in prayer and reading the Bible. If we do that and ask The Holy Spirit to guide us, we should be able to discern what the Lord wants us to get involved in and what he doesn’t. When I see Him face to face, He isn’t going to ask me about Liz…He will be concerned with what I have done.

    The Lord often reminds me of Jesus walking on the beach after His resurrection, and He has told Peter how he is to die, and Peter asks him, ‘what about him?’ meaning John who was walking behind. Jesus said, ‘ what is it to you if he remains alive til I return….as for you…you follow ME’.

    • I am wondering… are we following MAN rather than following JESUS..?. His word is written in the bible, His Holy Spirit is our teacher..there are so many opinions and divisions , when I read..”I am the way. the truth and the life” etc , or “THY word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” I know whom I am following…I trust in Jesus.

  8. So you your gospel is his gospel minus tongues? He’d caution against a gospel minus view?
    Essentially your core critique of this ministy’s “shortfall” is that he is charasmatic and believes in speaking in toungues as evidence of and indewelling of the Holy Spirit. Like apostle Peter who asked which baptism converts had experienced, this is not a commentary on someone’s salvation just a depth to their experience that is available for them and extremely beneficial.
    You also use derogatory words to describe someone speaking in tongues so completely boxing them as a nutter because you don’t agree with their theological interpretation of the scriptures.
    I have, out of curiosity, watched a few of his Youtube presentations and I would say that aspect is completely in line with most pentecostal/charismatic churches – ie. that speaking in tounges is evidence of an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Not that people who don’t are not filled, but that those who want that wonderful aspect can freely partake of it. So if the apostle Peter asked you what baptism you have received you would say “John’s baptism and that’s all I believe in and want, thanks for asking..”. Fair enough but don’t slag a whole ministry for that aspect alone.

    • “Essentially your core critique of this ministy’s “shortfall” is that he is charasmatic and believes in speaking in toungues as evidence of and indewelling of the Holy Spirit.”

      Nope.

      What’s a “theological interpretation of the scriptures?”

      Is that different than a regular interpretation where the words carry the meaning?

  9. Lyndon,

    I have a few questions for you:

    In Acts 10, how did Peter know the new believers had received the Holy Spirit?
    They received the Holy Spirit before baptism. How did that work?
    In Acts 19, there are believers who get baptized. If they received the Holy Spirit as they were baptized, why did Paul lay his hands on them and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit?
    If speaking in tongues is ‘gospel plus’ why did Paul lay hands on them so they could receive the Holy Spirit?
    If there is an outward sign about who has the Holy Spirit, would that not be a help to maintain the integrity of the church?
    What does Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 14 when he is saying “you will be speaking by the power of the spirit, but it will all be mysterious?” or a “person who speaks in tongues will be strengthened personally”?
    Why does Paul say “do not forbid speaking in tongues”?
    Is it ‘gospel plus’ to say that you need to be baptized? “Anyone who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16.
    What does Jesus mean in Mark 16:17-18?

    Observation on your John reference: Matthew 3:16 – John baptized Jesus and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove.

    If Torben’s work causes you real concern, you would read all of his books, watch all of his videos, pray about what to say, and then circle back. Based on what you found, you would either change tack completely or be even more hardened, not sure which. All the same, saying that watching one video is ‘evaluating public information about a public individual’ is a bit like me seeing one short press release (public, sure) about a company and telling people it’s a lousy investment without looking at full financials, management comments, and visiting the company to do proper due diligence.

    Using Ron Burgundy pictures to mock people is not a sign of mature discourse. It is on the edge of reviling and is not a good example.

    Matthew

    • – Acts 10:46-47 says Peter knew that those Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit because they spoke in tongues.

      – They received the Holy Spirit before baptism. I’m not sure why you’re asking how that worked…unless you think baptism is somehow salvific.

      – In Acts 19:3-7, the disciples didn’t receive the Holy Spirit as they were baptized. I’m not sure what subtle point you’re trying to get at.

      – Why did Paul lay his hands on them? The text tells you. They had received the Baptism of John (19:2-3) and were still under the Old Covenant. Acts 19:4 Paul tells those disciples that the Baptism of John, which had been sufficient until the death of Christ, was no longer sufficient. They responded by accepting baptism into Christ (19:5) and the Holy Spirit confirmed Paul’s message in 19:6. Why was this all necessary? Acts 18:24-28 gives us a good idea.

      – If there were an external sign that was normative for all believers, that wouldn’t help the integrity of the church for a second. That idea would do exactly what it has done in Pentecost/Charismatic circles: create two tiers of believers (the spiritual and the carnal; a dichotomy unknown to Scripture).

      – If you’re asking about 1 Cor. 14:2, he means what he says:

      “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.”

      The following verse helps you gather Paul’s meaning. Paul’s saying that tongues that doesn’t edify is useless.

      – With regards to 1 Cor. 14:4, Paul says:

      “The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.”

      In other words, the tongues speaker may be edified but the church is not, therefore prophecy is better than tongues.

      – Mark 16:17-18 isn’t canonical Scripture. Jesus never said those words.

      – Before you responded to me, did you read all MY blog posts where I’ve already addressed every one of your questions?

      No?

      Don’t let your impossibly absurd double standard cause you too much consternation.

      On case you didn’t notice, I’m only addressing the content of the video. I have absolutely NO need to read everything Torben has ever written or said before doing so.

      – I’m sorry that you somehow think using commonly themed pictures that communicate the emotions I wanted is some sort of subtle endorsement of the movies.

      Methinks you’re desperate to derail my points with a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack.

      Why does nobody say that when I use My Little Pony pictures?

      I don’t endorse magik either.

      • Lyndon,

        You are a fast typist. I did not expect to be discussing Ron Burgundy and My Little Pony on a blog about doctrine. Well…when in Rome…rainbows away. After this I’m off to my Brony group…or not.

        In all the cases in Acts where people were filled with the Spirit, they spoke in tongues. That strikes me as normative. In the letters, there is broad teaching on speaking in tongues. That strikes me as normative. If tongues build up the believer, as Paul says, why should this not be normative? Why does Paul thank God that he speaks in tongues more than everyone? Why teach into it if it wasn’t supposed to be normative? Who takes the decisions about what is supposed to be normative? Is it God, or people? Seems odd to me that Paul would teach on this so extensively if it was not supposed to be normative.

        Something important to remember is that just because you don’t see it today where you are, doesn’t mean that it isn’t something God wanted to be normative. People through history have shaped doctrine from experience, but experiences aren’t the truth, the Word is. Tradition and reason are not good guides to correct belief. If you see a screwed up house, you might think it was meant to be built that way, until you see the blueprints, at which point you discover that it isn’t right. So we can’t say what the Bible says isn’t true in light of our experience or even in light of the traditions of the church. Those goalposts move. The Bible doesn’t.

        Also, in the first round I missed that you identify Torben with the NAR crowd. This is mistaken. Torben has no ties to the NAR people. I would never touch anything related to the NAR with a ten foot pole. On that we fully agree. He is not about money, or position, or anything other than making disciples. Healing is not the main focus. If you had researched further before jumping to the conclusions you arrived at, you would have found that the Reformation Torben is advocating is about reforming the church back to how it was before Constantine took it and began turning it into special people (priests) with special educations (think Bible schools, MDivs, MThs, etc.) that are qualified to lead special services (sundays) in special places (church buiildings) in special ways (set routines). This makes the laity passive and is not what God had in mind. The institutions hate this though; it threatens them. Thus it has been, and ever so shall it be. Kind of like the establishment of the day hated Jesus, come to think of it…

        It is a red herring to say that my points were ad hominem. It is not ad hominem to point out that you have criticized what you do not understand and have not researched. Warning others to avoid teaching that you haven’t researched yourself seems to violate your own rules of engagement. Doing this in academia would be a little like asking the lions to eat you. Most here seem content to defer to your education. Deferring to education is what most of the church does. Huge mistake. Many leather bound books, smelling of rich mahogany, do not mean that one has it right.

        For everyone else, don’t defer to education, do your own work. Be a Berean. See if what people are opining is true and be diligent enough to do your own research before you criticize people on the same team or participate in criticism generated by others.

        Matthew

        • Matt, I’ll try to address your many questions:

          – “In all the cases in Acts where people were filled with the Spirit, they spoke in tongues.”

          That’s not true.

          In Acts 4:8, Peter was filled with the Spirit. No tongues there.
          In Acts 4:31, the believers in Jerusalem were filled with the Spirit. No tongues.
          In Acts 7:55, Stephen was filled with the Spirit. No tongues.
          In Acts 8:17, the Samaritan believers were filled with the Spirit. No tongues.
          In Acts 9:17-18 (and 13:9), when Paul was filled with the Spirit, no tongues (in fact, Acts doesn’t record Paul speaking in tongues at all).
          In Acts 10:38, Peter recounts how Jesus was filled with the Spirit. Jesus never spoke in tongues.
          In Acts 11:24, Luke recounts how Barnabas was a man “full of the Holy Spirit”. Acts records him doing lots of stuff, but never speaking in tongues.
          In Acts 13:52, when Paul and Barnabas preach in Antioch of Pisidia, the Gentile believers are filled with the Spirit. No tongues.

          The amount of times that people spoke in tongues when being filled/baptized by the Holy Spirit is 3. The amount where they’re filled/baptized and don’t speak in tongues is 8. So in actuality, the absence of tongues was the normative state of affairs.

          Not only that, but was there a reason stated for the manifestation of tongues in Acts 2, 10 and 19?

          – “If tongues build up the believer, as Paul says, why should this not be normative?”

          Because it’s not edifying to the church. That’s the whole thrust of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 14:19, and his specific point in 14:1-5.

          Also, because the modern manifestation of tongues isn’t the actual gift of tongues. Tongues is never, ever ecstatic speech. It is earthly languages, 100% of the time.

          – “Why does Paul thank God that he speaks in tongues more than everyone?”

          Because he did.

          – “Why teach into it if it wasn’t supposed to be normative?”

          What was normal occurrence in Corinth is not normal occurrence in any modern church. I’m open to tongues and prophecy; just biblical tongues and prophecy. All the modern manifestations are 2 cent impostors. Unless you’ve seen or heard someone spontaneously break into an earthly language they previously didn’t know, you’ve never seen or heard real tongues, ever.

          Not once.

          You should read this and this before reacting to that statement.

          – “Who takes the decisions about what is supposed to be normative? Is it God, or people?”

          God. We learn what’s normative from careful study of the Scriptures.

          – “Seems odd to me that Paul would teach on this so extensively if it was not supposed to be normative.”

          Well, you’re assuming that “normal” means “normal throughout history”.

          Lots of things that were “normal” at one point are no longer so…like all mankind speaking the same language or living 900+ years or God’s elect being Egyptian slaves or God’s elect people living in the desert or God’s elect people having a tabernacle or God’s elect people being found in a specific geographic area with a temple or God’s elect people living in Babylon or the incarnate Son of God walking among us. “Normal” changes from time to time.

          One day, “normal” will be wildly different than it is now.

          – “Something important to remember is that just because you don’t see it today where you are, doesn’t mean that it isn’t something God wanted to be normative.”

          On the contrary. If God wants something to be normal for all people at all times, God gets what he wants.

          Who overpowers God’s desire for something to happen?

          – “People through history have shaped doctrine from experience, but experiences aren’t the truth, the Word is.”

          And that’s why the issue is settled exclusively on an exegetical level. Cessationists have the exegetical case, no question. I’ve written a few hundred pages bring substance to that assertion. Pentecostals and Charismatics assume that the manifestations of the Spirit that they currently witness are legitimate and authentic manifestations of the Spirit and then read their definitions, based on their contemporary experiences, back into the Biblical text assuming that “what’s happening now is what was happening then”.

          All your questions above gave example after example of you doing that.

          In reality, you’ve never heard anyone speak in tongues and you’ve never witnessed authentic prophecy. You’ve seen counterfeits and failed to properly evaluate those fraudulent manifestations against their biblical counterparts. You’re not alone though, and failing to properly evaluate until now doesn’t make you stupid. Just deceived by people who were likely blindly telling you what they had previously been told.

          – “f you had researched further before jumping to the conclusions you arrived at, you would have found that the Reformation Torben is advocating is about reforming the church back to how it was before Constantine took it and began turning it into special people (priests) with special educations (think Bible schools, MDivs, MThs, etc.) that are qualified to lead special services (sundays) in special places (church buiildings) in special ways (set routines). This makes the laity passive and is not what God had in mind. The institutions hate this though; it threatens them. Thus it has been, and ever so shall it be. Kind of like the establishment of the day hated Jesus, come to think of it…”

          Okay. So it sounds like you’re vaguely insinuating that Constantine single-handedly corrupted the church, created educated clergy (even though the degrees you listed weren’t around till around a millennia and a half after Constantine), changed the day of worship to Sunday (even though that’s been the day of Christian worship since the beginning: Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2), created the specialized building of worship (which would have been impossible before Constantine anyway since the religion was illegal), and forced routine upon the churches that met in those buildings (because in 1 Cor. 14:40 Paul said that chaos in church is best, right?)…and all modern denominations are essentially Pharisees for opposing house-churches.

          Is that correct?

          You do realize that you’re making a vague insinuation that the Bible prescribes a method of performing the corporate gathering of the church, right? Every group that’s tried to “go back to the way it was at the beginning” has always:

          a. Done it differently than the rest and claimed that their group “finally got it right”.

          b. Theologically imploded and/or ended up a cult.

          – “It is a red herring to say that my points were ad hominem. It is not ad hominem to point out that you have criticized what you do not understand and have not researched.”

          What are you talking about? I said that the comments about the pictures were ad hominem, not your comments about my insufficient research.

          What did you say again?

          “If Torben’s work causes you real concern, you would read all of his books, watch all of his videos, pray about what to say, and then circle back.”

          Of yeah.

          So you suggested that I was wrongfully critiquing a single video because I hadn’t watched all other videos he’s ever made and also hadn’t read all his printed works.

          You’ve clearly not read all of mine, and yet you critique me.

          Pot, meet Kettle.

          – “Most here seem content to defer to your education. Deferring to education is what most of the church does. Huge mistake. Many leather bound books, smelling of rich mahogany, do not mean that one has it right.”

          So my commenters are all what? Stupid? Blindly falling over to appease me?

          Also, why would leather bound books smell of mahogany if they’re bound in leather?

          Here’s an idea: stop taking juvenile jabs and put me in my place.

          Pick a specific chapter and specific verses and let’s see which one of us can consistently and coherently handle the Scriptures.

          – “For everyone else, don’t defer to education, do your own work. Be a Berean. See if what people are opining is true and be diligent enough to do your own research before you criticize people on the same team or participate in criticism generated by others.”

          This is just unfathomably silly.

          I do all my own work.

          I just don’t do the outlandishly comprehensive amount of work you somehow think is necessary to critique a single video…and neither have you.

          Not once in your entire life have you read a man’s entire corpus and watched his entire filmography before issuing an opinion about a specific point.

          You haven’t done that with me and you haven’t done that with anyone.

          So, let’s change the game here to something objective.

          Again, pick a specific chapter and specific verses and let’s see which one of us can consistently and coherently handle the Scriptures.

  10. Pingback: So much for all my plans… | Watch Your Life and Doctrine Closely…

  11. No comment. Only a question. What do you know of, or what do you think of the teachings of Robert Henderson? He has something on You Tube called “Navigating the Courts of Heaven”. There is very little on the internet about him and i would like to hear what you think. If you are able…………….. considering.

    • Sorry Greg. I don’t know anything about that. I’m currently trying to get a blog series done that has been taking me months (since I only get about an hour a week of blogging time), and that’s all I’m working on (since every other week, that hour of blogging time is spent answering questions).

  12. Fair enough Lyndon. Let’s keep it to scripture:

    “In Acts 4:8, Peter was filled with the Spirit. No tongues there.”
    Peter was already filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This verse is what Jesus talked about. The Holy Spirit would give them the words to say as they needed them.

    “In Acts 4:31, the believers in Jerusalem were filled with the Spirit. No tongues.”
    They were charged up again so that they could speak boldly despite being persecuted.

    “In Acts 7:55, Stephen was filled with the Spirit. No tongues.”
    Stephen was already filled with the Spirit. Look at Acts 6:5. Besides, he was busy castigating the Pharisees for their unbelief in plain text so we could have his excoriation of the Pharisees on the record for all time.

    “In Acts 8:17, the Samaritan believers were filled with the Spirit. No tongues.”
    The apostles were men just like us. How did the apostles know when someone was filled with the Spirit? Simon (a guy used to outward signs as a sorcerer) saw it and wanted to pay the apostles to get the gift. What do think he saw? You have to draw a reasonable inference here. If being filled with the Spirit is perceptible with human senses as it is here, it has to be visible or audible.

    “In Acts 9:17-18 (and 13:9), when Paul was filled with the Spirit, no tongues (in fact, Acts doesn’t record Paul speaking in tongues at all).”
    Paul says it himself in his letters, so just because the two are not mentioned together in all instances does not mean that it didn’t consistently happen that way. This is true regarding your comments on Barnabas also. Especially since they were BFFs. I’m sure that Paul taught Barnabas thoroughly to model his example.

    “In Acts 10:38, Peter recounts how Jesus was filled with the Spirit. Jesus never spoke in tongues.”
    Jesus went away in private to pray often, but the content or form of these prayer times isn’t given to us. The Bible says that Jesus did many other things that could fill many books. Not everything He said or did was written down.

    “In Acts 11:24, Luke recounts how Barnabas was a man “full of the Holy Spirit”. Acts records him doing lots of stuff, but never speaking in tongues.”
    See comments above on Paul.

    “In Acts 13:52, when Paul and Barnabas preach in Antioch of Pisidia, the Gentile believers are filled with the Spirit. No tongues.”
    Like in Acts 8:17, how did the writer know this? There were many believers in Antioch, but just like Paul was filled with the Spirit after his conversion with no mention of tongues, it is also possible (and in my view likely) that these believers also spoke in tongues.

    I read the two articles you provided links to. I am aware of the distinction between tongues/interpretation and tongues/private prayer. In Acts 2, what God did was awesome and people were amazed to hear Jews proclaiming God in all sorts of languages. And this still happens today. I think what God was doing in Acts 2 was kind of a reverse Babel, where He wanted to bring the nations together, so He unconfused them by speaking to them in all of their languages so they would come together in Him.

    But it doesn’t mean that tongues/private prayer is not also ‘real’ tongues.

    Paul on tongues: “For if you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand you. You will be speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit, but it will all be mysterious…a person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally, but one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” 1 Corinthians 14:2-4. This edifies the believer. Or look at Romans 8:26-27. “And the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. For example, we don’t know what God wants us to pray for. But the Holy Spirit (living in us) prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words. And the Father who knows all hearts knows what the Spirit is saying, for the Spirit (living in us) pleads for us believers in harmony with God’s own will.” If they can’t be expressed in words, then we are talking about two kinds of tongues: one which is other intelligible languages for unbelievers as a sign, and one which is unintelligible language by which we are strengthened personally and can pray in complete agreement with the Holy Spirit.

    “If God wants something to be normal for all people at all times, God gets what he wants.”

    Does He? A quick read through history categorically proves otherwise.

    “Who overpowers God’s desire for something to happen?”

    The free will he gave to people.

    “And that’s why the issue is settled exclusively on an exegetical level. Cessationists have the exegetical case, no question. I’ve written a few hundred pages bring substance to that assertion. Pentecostals and Charismatics assume that the manifestations of the Spirit that they currently witness are legitimate and authentic manifestations of the Spirit and then read their definitions, based on their contemporary experiences, back into the Biblical text assuming that “what’s happening now is what was happening then”.”

    Cessationists are not above reading their experiences into exegesis. People have used exegetical methods to justify many things that plain reading or even in-depth reading referring to Greek/Hebrew/etc. would never justify. Academic camps can become ugly things. I personally know of two different camps within the geomorphology field who have literally had fistfights at conferences about who is right and who is wrong. Academia can be absolute blood sport if you get on the wrong side of the fence. Is that the place we are going to find the ‘correct’ interpretation of all things?

    Whatever we write, it doesn’t change what God originally intended to be normal in the Kingdom. Look at Jesus on divorce: “Moses permitted you to divorce because your hearts were hard, (pages and pages by Jewish scholars on this, I’ll wager…) but it was not this way from the beginning.” So He repeats God’s original position on the matter. What matters is what God has intended from the beginning, not where we get to through exegetical methods.

    As fun as it is to spar, I’ll leave the discussion here on a constructive note.

    Matthew

    • Well, I guess you can just assume your case and say that every mention of someone being filled by the Spirit assumes that they previously spoke in tongues.

      The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I’m pointing out the lack of mention of tongues, and you’re assuming the implied presence of tongues (“just because the two are not mentioned together in all instances does not mean that it didn’t consistently happen that way”) or previous presence of tongues (“Stephen was already filled with the Spirit”). That possibly sounds like you’re insinuating that tongues might have been an “initial evidence only” sign of the baptism of the Spirit. Is that what you’re suggesting?

      As for Acts 8:17, the Bible tells us what he saw. Acts 8:13 says “And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed”.

      Were tongues part of those “signs”? I’d suggest no, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14:21-23. Tongues were a sign, but not an evangelistic one. They were a sign of judgment against the unbelieving Jews. You see that purpose coming out clearly in Acts 2:12-13 as well.

      As for 1 Corinthians 14:2-4, that’s a hypothetical statement where Paul’s not explaining tongues. Notice the frequent presence of “if” in there. Hypothetical conditionals aren’t necessarily realities, especially given Paul’s immediate argument (see 1 Cor. 13:1-3): Your comment about the edifying of the believer shows your misreading of Paul. Paul says that self-edification is BAD because “The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church” (1 Cor. 14:4). He drives that point home in the following 13 verses and sums his point up by saying “I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.”

      And Romans 8:26-27?

      It seems like you’re just blindly assuming your position again.

      Rom. 8:26 starts off with “likewise”, which points back to 8:24-25: ” For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.”

      We don’t externally perceive our hope, but we still wait for it with patience.

      So Rom. 8:26 says “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.”

      So the “likewise” points to the parallel between our unseen hope and the unheard prayers offered by the Spirit. Those Spirit-offered prayers are “too deep for words,” which seems to suggest that NO words will properly express them, even Spirit-inspired words. Notice that the Spirit offers “groanings” rather than “requests” or some other term suggesting propositions. The term “tongues” is paralleled with “diakects” in Acts 2; “tongues” is always speaking of earthly languages in the Scripture.

      Every single time.

      No exceptions.

      That all means that there is no reasonable way Romans 8:26-27 is talking about tongues.

      And as for your points about free will and God’s sovereignty, that’s a whole other satchel of exegetically rancid clam chowder I’m not really interested in getting into.

      Blessings!

      • So, if Paul is saying self-edification is bad, how do you explain verse 5? ‘Now I want you all to speak in tongues…’

        He sums up starting with ‘in church.’ So, when meeting, he wants them to stick to intelligible topics that are corporately edifying. This is a plain reading, granted. It was written for plain people to read and understand.

        Help me understand why tongues is always earthly language. Plain reading doesn’t indicate that to me, and I’ve dug through parallel commentaries looking further but find an almost totally uniform acceptance that this is talking about unintelligible speech.

        • Well, you just need to read the rest of the verse:

          “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.”

          Paul isn’t saying tongues is bad, but rather that self-edification is. That’s why he doesn’t outright discourage tongues, but rather instructs the Corinthians that they should seek to use tongues for the building up of the church (see 14:6-12).

          Tongues is always an earthly language because in Acts 2, it’s unavoidably defined as an earthly language and the definition doesn’t change throughout the book of Acts. It’s worth noting that Acts 19 (the final occurrence of tongues in Acts) occurs after the founding of the church in Corinth. Tongues was still “earthly languages” when Paul started the church in Corinth.

          I write about this in detail here and here.

    • That’s part of what I mean, but more broadly, you can see if they are led by the Spirit by what they do as well as how they do it. If the tree is good the fruit (both Galatians 5 Esque and their works) will be good too. Arguing, dissensions, etc would not be expected as an outcome of being filled with the Spirit.

      Does that answer your question?

  13. Dear mennoknight,

    Do you know Hebrew? Do you know they eat after the Sabbath, the going out of the Sabbath? That’s after their meeting on the Sabbath. Much of what you have said is spot on. But, I regret, when I came across this blatant mis-statement, as per most of the modern “church” beliefs, I go back to a strong belief that Torben is on line. Simple really.

      • “changed the day of worship to Sunday (even though that’s been the day of Christian worship since the beginning: Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2)” in your answers to Matthew on Dec 7th

        • So wait. Are you suggesting that Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2 do NOT suggest that the early church met together on the first day of the week (meaning “Sunday”)?

          I mean, it’s pretty easy to read how Acts 20:7 says “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…”

          The early church got together on the first day of the week. The “breaking of bread” was the fellowship meal that they shared. The early church didn’t meet on the Jewish Sabbath anymore.

          Surely the idea of the Christians meeting on Sunday cannot possibly be the point of contention, can it?

  14. Pingback: Torben Søndergaard mislykkes ikke ligesom Luther og Calvin gjorde

  15. Well, the Fourth Commandment comes to mind. But then, what are the Ten Commandments to such an intelligent man as you? You obviously know better than us all.

    • Wait. What?

      I’m going to ignore your passive insulting and ask:

      Do you if you think the law given to Israel is judicially binding for Christians, seeing that it’s been done away with and all?

      If that’s the case, you’ve missed out on one of the key components of the gospel. Christ has freed believers from under the tyranny of the law of Moses.

      You may laugh at that when applied to the Sabbath, but Christians have worshiped on Sunday for 2 millennia. That’s just a raw fact. The fact that Christ has freed believers from under the tyranny of the law of Moses is the reason behind Christians eating pork and not having to slaughter animals in church. I hope you’ve noticed those glaring differences between Old Testament Israel and the Church. If you have, you’ve already undermined your own assumption about the Sabbath.

      The law of Israel (NOT God’s moral law) has been done away with…including the Sabbath command. That’s why we worship on Sunday (and have since the beginning).

      Maybe the thousands of theologians and leaders across history who came before you knew something that you didn’t?

      Maybe you’re not the smartest believer who’s lived in the last 2,000 years?

      You need to spend some time studying Acts 9:10-48 and 15:1-21. Also, look at 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Galatians 2:17-3:29, Ephesians 2:11-16, Phillippians 3:2-11, Colossians 2:8-19, Hebrews 4:1-9 and 7:11-28.

      Sunday is not the Sabbath and hasn’t been since shortly after Christ’s resurrection. I’ll re-state the question again:

      Do you if you think the law given to Israel is judicially binding for Gentile Christians, seeing that it’s been done away with and all? If so, why?

      • ‘If that’s the case, you’ve missed out on one of the key components of the gospel. Christ has freed believers from under the tyranny of the law of Moses.’

        Maybe I’m just being picky but what do you mean by ‘the tyranny’ of the law of Moses? Are you making the claim that Gods holy law was mired by tyranny? Or was that just a typo? Or did you mean ‘Christians are not bound by the covenant customs and sacrificial obligations of the law of Moses’? Since God’s Moral law was also given by Moses, and then given a higher standard by Jesus.

        Just thought I’d ask because of the mass onslaught of hyper-grace believers taking the church by storm lately. Like, I’m sure you were probably meaning we no longer need to circumcise males since we are circumcised of the heart, and no more sacrifice of animals since the atonement of Jesus, no more abstaining from certain meats etc, but thou shalt not steal, murder, covet thy neighbour’s goods etc still stands and is being written on our hearts and fulfilled through our faith, right?

  16. To Mordechai (there’s not a way to reply to a reply but this is the answer to your question about the connection between Gateway (GW), Hillsong, Daystar and Mark Driscoll. First, they are all Pentecostal and try to downplay that. Daystar is owned by Joni and Marcus Lamb who are active members of GW church. Their two daughters, Rachel and Rebecca, attend Gateway’s Church of Foursquare college called The King’s University (TKU) in Southlake, TX, which was founded by GW Apostolic Elder and former President of The Church of Foursquare, Jack Hayford. Robert Morris, the Senior Pastor of GW goes by Dr. Morris but dropped out of college after two semesters. He claims that Church of Foursquare’s` Jack Hayford is his Spiritual Father.

    When GW was building their large, current campus in Southlake, TX, Daystar loaned GW $20M when they fell short on funds. That’s how close these two are. Daystar runs GW’s TV show, The Blessed Life, several times a week. It also plays on TBN. Gateway Apostolic Elders James Robison and Jimmy Evans both have their respective popular daily TV shows, Life Today and Marriage Today, on Daystar. Both are also college dropouts with honorary doctorates. Not one of them has attended seminary or received formal theological training. They all hang out together and live within a couple of miles of each other. GW also sponsors Daystar special presentations, shelling out hundreds of thousands to Daystar so they can promote things like the Planet Shakers concert that the Lamb’s then use for fundraising for Daystar – plant those seeds now!

    GW and Hillsong share resources. GW Senior Pastor Bobby Bogard’s son Reed Bogard, was the man who went to New York City to plant Hillsong NYC. Carl Lentz was assigned to the church later by the Houstons. Reed was more recently sent to California to plant the new Hillsong LA campus, which was later taken over by a son of the Houstons. Reed is paid by both GW and Hillsong to speak. Here’s a fun link to hear GW Sr pastor Bobby Bogard when he recently preached at a GW Students (7th-12th grade) service. He yells more than once that “I, Bobby Bogard, am The Angel of the Lord – sent with a message for you!” It’s not a metaphor either.

    For New Year’s Eve Service last night, GW had all their members stand then jump in four different directions so they could scream and stimulate the “warring angels” in the North, South, East and West. They don’t show that kind of GW stuff on TV but it’s everywhere off screen. They also have a team who claim to be intercession specialists “who care about you and want to share your burden. Daily, they go into the Throne Room, face-to-face with the Father, through the covering of the blood of Christ and make your requests known to Him, partnering with Him to pray His will for your life or situation.” http://gatewaypeople.com/ministries/prayer/prayer-request It’s partly how they make $114M a year. It’s better than getting an audience with the Pope. Again, this is not a metaphor – I have seen them pretend to do this. They go into a trance then claim to be inside the Throne Room as they babble in tongues. THIS is what GW, Hillsong and Daystar are bringing to Europe.

    Bogard goes on to claim in this same sermon that God said to Gideon “Man! You gotta be on craa-yuuck!!!” In this sermon, Bogard (who is a grandfather) uses words like “freakin'” and wears a youthful hoodie in his best “How do you do fellow kids?” attempt to be relevant. He also mocks Apostolic Ministries towards the end of the sermon (28:15) by imitating a Pentecostal believer as he frantically dances on his tippy toes,flailing his non-microphone arm in the air and woo-woo-wooing like something you would see in a 1950’s cowboy and Indian movie. That’s one of the ways GW disarms people on their Pentecostalism – they mock other Pentecostals while saying GW doesn’t act like that. The lack of dignity displayed by a Senior Pastor on the altar of Jesus Christ in these 35 minutes defies description. http://gatewaypeople.com/ministries/students/events/gateway-students/session/2015/11/11/more-than-meets-your-eye

    This past summer Hillsong teamed up with Gateway to produce joint manipulative tithe teachings on video which Hillsong and Gateway are planning to spread all over Europe. Former Head of Stewardship, Gunnar Johnson, filmed those teachings for Hillsong. Gunnar has his grade 12. Gunnar, GW Sr Ps Tom Lane and GW Prophecy expert Wayne Drain taught prophecy through a Pioneer Conference that same summer in the U.K.

    GW pays to bring in Hillsong Young and Free regularly and Hillsong pays Robert Morris and other GW Elders to fly out and speak in Australia, Capetown and London. Brian Houston will be the keynote speaker at GW’s 4,000 pastor conference this coming October. http://gatewayconference.com/

    If you followed Hillsong hiring Mark Driscoll for their 2015 conference, you may have read that Brian Houston said, in reaction to the petitions and protests, that he had never met Driscoll and knew almost nothing about him. WHY would one of the most powerful pastors who holds one of the largest pastors conferences in the world hire a controversial pastor he knows nothing about? That would be where GW slips in. GW gave Driscoll his first post-resignation stage appearance. GW is using their strong ties with Charisma News founder/publisher/editor Steve Strang to rehab Driscoll’s image as a Pentecostal. Strang was bestowed an honorary doctorate at TKU and was put on TKU’s Board. The new Dr Strang is flown out to the finest hotels in Southern California and wined and dined at regular board meetings. Now Dr Strang is helping to make Driscoll into the new Apostolic P/C poster boy.

    And guess who is Driscoll’s new Director of his new church, The Trinity Church in Phoenix, AZ? That would be Gateway’s founder and Apostolic Elder Jimmy Evans. Jimmy is the lead elder and pastor of Trinity Fellowship Church (TFC) in Amarillo, TX. and the founder and star of Marriage Today TV show. Jimmy conducts his very profitable marriage seminars in conjunction with Hillsong. Hillsong calls them “Marriage Enrich”; GW calls them “XO Marriage.” Lots of money is made by all. An insider revealed that Jimmy helped set up the Hillsong Conference gig for Driscoll. That is the one thing that I could not verify independently on the internet, but I heard it from a reliable insider. It is, however, second hand information and should be regarded as such. The rest of all this information is first hand. Jimmy has a habit of dealing with fallen pastors. Jimmy became head pastor at TFC after the senior pastor Larry Titus resigned in disgrace due to a financial scandal. Jimmy was previously an appliance salesman for his dad so he was perfectly qualified for this job. Jimmy just hired Driscoll to speak at his church’s annual ZION conference https://www.tfc.org/zion which sets the tone for TFC for the coming year. Jimmy’s going all in on Driscoll.

    Jimmy was also the one who oversaw Ted Haggard’s rehab and approved his $300,000 settlement after Haggard resigned due to having sex for years with a male prostitute who sold him meth. Jimmy was the one who replaced Ted at New Life with Brady Boyd. Boyd was a HS teacher before Jimmy hired him at TFC as a pastor, then moved him to GW. Jimmy also hired Robert Morris when Robert separated from Shady Grove Church in Grand Prairie, TX. Robert worked as an affiliate consultant at TFC prior to Jimmy putting up the money for GW. Robert admitted on TBN to having to take years off at Shady Grove to deal with his lust and immorality issues. It’s okay though, because he wrote in his book Truly Free that he was only immoral because his mother had a root of bitterness.

    All of the above can be found on source documents on the internet including broadcasts of sermons and TV shows. If you require a specific link please let me know. The $20M from Daystar is hard to find so I will include that. It’s on a deposition from a lawsuit covered in this excellent article about Daystar: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/282496855/can-a-television-network-be-a-church-the-irs-says-yes The $20M loan is referenced in the deposition on page 124 here http://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=1063668-donations-to-daystar#document/p17

    I am glad to see people taking an interest in this. Daystar plans to spread throughout Europe and Hillsong and Gateway are already there.

    • LT – thank you for sharing this. This post has stirred up much controversy. I am grateful to receive links and will hopefully be able to find those willing to study and be more informed of the heresy.
      Something I have pondered for quite some time as think of preachers like Spurgeon is that you never read in their biographies about their great music ministry or what he wore as he preached, etc. ….
      We are such a vain generation of ‘professing Christians.’

      • Thanks. I am extremely grateful to Mennoknight for allowing people to share this information. Gateway with their large team of Reputation Management Specialists have been skilled at keeping this in the dark. Their work on the New Reformation is picking up steam.

        These people are dangerous. At first I thought that Torben was just one man and his influence was negligible because he didn’t run a mega church. I was wrong. This man has a movie releasing next month about his legions of faith healers and his movement called The Last Reformation. Torben has disciples all over the globe pushing this rubbish. He holds three day seminars called “Kickstarters” at his “Jesus Hotel” in Denmark. He teaches his disciples how to perform the Darren Brown healing tricks in 3 days then sends them on their way to go preach and heal then study his “Pioneer” material at a later date. This makes a mockery of both God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

        The very idea that Torben thinks a 3 day seminar can prepare people for ministry speaks volumes about the depth of this man’s doctrine and theology. The people he alleges to “heal” will have their pain return in a short while, then be left to assume that all believers and ministers are charlatans. He does more harm than good. People need to review Torben’s website http://thelastreformation.com/ especially the “kickstarter” section.

        On Torben’s map I went to DFW and picked a random Torben disciple who “could pray for me”. I clicked on a balloon and got “Paul. Married, father of 3. Been internally kickstarted and ready to discover/reveal the same in others. Loves Jesus and wants to learn: Can pray – Can kickstart people – Can baptize in water / Holy Spirit – Has completed The Pioneer School – Has attended a kickstart seminar [?]”

        This has CULT written all over it. Thank you for writing about this Mennoknight.

        • Glad to be of help LT.

          This stuff keeps coming up and isn’t going away, but hopefully the plethora of online resources becoming available will help people evaluate Torben (and the thousands like him) with a biblical set of scales.

  17. My experiences with ‘speaking in tongues’ was through being a member of Hillsong for 4 years. This was 18 years ago so thing may or may not have changed since then.

    I was led to assume that babbling was this heavenly gift from above we see in Acts 2.

    I realised later than the tongues in Acts 2 were KNOWN languages, not babble.

    The babble at Hillsong was just that. Not known languages, just babble.

    Trying to discuss this with Charismatics is as fun as discussing the free grace Gospel with a Loadship Salvationist.

    People won’t get it because they need to add to the simplicity that is in Christ’s finished work.

    all we need do is REST from our self-righteous works.

    I watched the video.

    Sad.

    The moaning in the bathtub reminded me of giving birth last August.

    Didn’t need the reminder.

    Thanks!

    • “Trying to discuss this with Charismatics is as fun as discussing the free grace Gospel with a Loadship Salvationist.”

      What is the ‘free grace gospel’? Do you mean the free grace that regenerates a person, continually convicting and sanctifying them, prompted by the Holy Spirit whenever repentance is needed, and therefore having a faith, grace driven form of righteousness? Or do you mean the free grace gospel that says ‘you shouldn’t feel guilty about your sin or confess it, Christ has finished the work…don’t worry about grieving the holy spirit when you don’t forgive, or when you lie’ type gospel which will lead to a lot of physical and spiritual deaths?

      What is ‘Lordship’ salvation? Is that the gospel message which preaches that Jesus’ commands, and the example of His life, and His spirit govern our mind and hearts, therefore being lord of our life? Or is it the ‘lordship’ salvation where Jesus’ words don’t matter and we can follow our own path because we’re free under grace…?
      If we followed Jesus’ words, as a matter of faith (believing He is God, and that we are to be doers of the word) would that be classed as ‘law’ and ‘self-righteous’? Is it self-righteous to believe and have faith that Jesus was right in everything he said? Would the word ‘self’ be applicable if we prayed for and relied on the Lord’s strength and prompting to carry out His will?

      Just need some clarification.

  18. Don’t really want to make judgement on another person but I do pray that whoever goes to one of Torben’s meetings have a spirit of discernment and a good knowledge of the bible and the gospel. Went with few Fans, met Torben. Listened to his message but then my spirit was very unsettled, then when it got to Holy Spirit I was totally gone, just felt wrong sitting there. There were a lot of other alarms. I mentioned out loud something, my friends jumped down my throat yada yada (thought they were manifesting) Let’s just say I won’t be going there again, will pray for truth to prevail and my friends won’t be inviting me to coffee.

    • Deidre,

      It’s not making judgment on another person to attempt to evaluate their ideas and activities by the measure of the Scripture. You’re supposed to do that.

      The problem comes when a person thinks that they can somehow weigh and judge hearts and motivations.

      I try to do the former and not the latter. I pray that you do as well.

    • Deidre. Shall be praying for you.
      Ha, I’ve been ‘politely overlooked’ and don’t go out for coffee much either because I have spoken out against heresy. So often all it took was a question that required an answer from Scripture and I was seen as being open to “the working of the Spirit”.
      Too bad we live miles apart – I would love to “coffee” with someone like you; with our Bibles open and giving the Lord the time and honour He alone deserves. 🙂

  19. Lyndon, I read what you wrote about Mark 3 (basically about verses 9-20 having not been written by Mark). I have never heard this before, which isn’t surprising as I have learned more reading your blog than I ever did in church. I realize you may not have time to answer, but if you do, I am very curious why Mark 3:9-20 are included in most Bibles but do not have notations that they weren’t actually written by Mark? I am particularly interested because many of those verses are used by Pentecostals to justify the modern day use of tongues, miracle healings, prophecy and signs and wonders. Do theologians still believe they are God breathed? Why don’t they stipulate that Mark didn’t write them? Why not let the gospels stand as written? Thanks for any help you can provide.

    • What would not justify the use of authentic tongues, miracle healings, prophecy and signs and wonders? EVEN IF Mark 3: 9-20 were taken out, can you:

      1) Find scripture which would refute the modern and present day use of the gifts of the spirit?
      2) Is God temporal, meaning does he change in nature and will at any point in time, or is he consistent to His Word?
      3) What evidence would you need to see to prove Mark 3 was or wasn’t originally written by Mark? Which archaeologist’s do we believe? Or can we use scripture to either validate or invalidate Mark 3:9-20?

      Now I am one who disagrees with a lot of the charismania that I’ve seen in my life, the false prophecies, false tongues (or even if some of them were ‘angelic’ tongues, such tongues should be kept for private prayer time) and anything that has had smears of falseness. But those experiences should never devalue the truth of scripture. If someone is miraculously healed of cancer you, i, or anyone else should never let our doubts or unbelief, based on our lack of experience of such miracles, devalue the truth; that the same Spirit still operates as He did back then. When it comes to gold dust, angel feathers and other dubiously occultic apparitions feigning as miracles of God with no scriptural validation then we are perfectly entitled to doubt and exhort/ refute.

      With Torben, I’ve heard some of his sermons on baptism; he’s off on a few things. Instant deliverance from all sins, upon baptism is not a definite and would contradict the ongoing sanctification process of the believer. But I do believe what Jesus said, that a man must be baptised of water and spirit to have eternal life. And how Peter views baptism: “20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, [now saves you], not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an [appeal] to God [for a good conscience], [through the resurrection of Jesus Christ], 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

  20. I have read now through these blogs that Mark16..chapters 15/20 are not correct..biblical or whatever. I have King James version, which DOES have these verses.My question is this… have I been reading and studying a false bible these past 30 years..if these chapters are added ?, I may as well toss my bible away,.. is there ANOTHER bible that is totally correct. … no wonder christianity is very messy… I believe my bible to be true with all that is contained in it..if I take this passage out is like hanging a door without a hinge;it wont work..Jesus says He is the door. I really hope someone comments on this.Thanks

    • The argument saying that Mark 16 verse 9-20 weren’t written by Mark are untrue. The argument is made by – non-surprisingly – those whose theology and faith is based on doubt, so anything regarding believing in anything supernatural is a stumbling block for them. The trend for those who carry such beliefs will tend to be a faith which carries a sensual, contentious, haughty, strife driven spirit, leading to many debates but when it comes to believing God for healing, or overcoming sins (particularly the aforementioned) you will see zero fruit.
      Since truth is absolute, we know that either the verses in the latter section of Mark 16 are true or they are false. So what truth do we go by?
      Some historians say they have evidence that those verses were never part of original manuscripts. Some argue they were. Most of us including Mennoknight have never gathered first hand research to verify either claims. So we need to go by at least the other sections of the Bible which we can agree on:

      – Jesus says ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: so if Jesus IS truth, and His Spirit has been poured out on all the apostles who have given us what we now have as the new testament, then not a single part of scripture can or will contradict itself. Because truth can only be absolute.
      – Without dragging up all the specific verses, we know that all scripture is written by divine inspiration, by the Holy Spirit, so one again, no part of scripture can or will contradict itself.
      – The argument for Mark 16 in the KJV being true can or should have some form of evidence within scripture to correlate with the so-called ‘false’ claims that ‘Jesus never said’. We only need to turn to the book of Acts and read every single epistle to get a very clear picture that such claims were fulfilled in the life of the apostles and their disciples.
      – The argument against those verses being false would need to show some form of contradiction within scripture to show that the claims and nature of the words that Jesus allegedly ‘never said’ are true claims. So, within scripture we should find evidence that explicitly contradicts those words.
      – Someone will attack the KJV version and mention that it uses the word ‘hell’ instead of ‘Hades’ or ‘church’ instead of ‘congregation’. Or make a reference to errors in the book of revelation.

      • I replied sufficiently to Karin.

        “Most of us including Mennoknight have never gathered first hand research to verify either claims.”

        Well, read the comment below and get a little first hand research.

        You’re welcome.

        Also, could you explain your argument to me?

        It seems to be:

        1. Jesus said he is the truth and his Spirit (of truth) ensures that the Bible is entirely true.

        2. Being entirely true, the Bible cannot contradict itself.

        3. The verification of Mark 16 as being part of the original text of the New Testament should be established by the testimony of other scripture.

        4. The questioning of Mark 16 as part of the original text of the New Testament should be established by the contradiction of other scripture.

        Your argument is simply wrong on points 3 and 4.

        They don’t even make a lick of sense.

        The establishment of whether one part of the Bible is authentic is not found in whether or not it contradicts with any other part. There’s no objective measure there, since the whole judging process needs a complete canon of Scripture to work in the first place. You need a complete Bible by which to judge what makes it complete. That’s total nonsense.

        In fact, that’s how the liberals deal with Scripture; they have their own theology that determines what the Bible is allowed to say and then use that theological filter to ignore what it does say. Whenever they find something that doesn’t disagree with their preferred theology, they just toss it.

        The original text of the Bible is established by reality and history as uncovered by textual criticism, and that debate has been settled since the apostles put pen to parchment.

        • Okay, I will point out why points 3 and 4 make entire sense but first let’s just go over a few points:

          1) – The original text of the Bible is established by [reality] and [history] as uncovered by textual criticism, and that debate has been settled since the apostles put pen to parchment.

          Okay so point 1; reality? History? I would like to ask you, who or what validates reality or history? Considering how much of modern history regarding both world wars, and the vast majority of current political affairs are mired by propaganda and falsifications of evidence, what defines the reality that the ‘earliest and most reliable’ manuscripts you provided from secondary research haven’t been altered or that they even were the ‘earliest and most reliable’? What you’ve given is a subjective opinion, but the objective truth is that you fail to give evidence to support the claim that these manuscripts were the original, non-tampered or non-forged versions. So other than an emotional affinity to believe the [secondary since you’ve not personally gone to study the manuscripts yourself] information you have gathered, in simple terms, what’s to say those manuscripts weren’t forged by early scholars and that those verses weren’t omitted?

          2) Objective and subjective truth is a tough argument, when looking at 2000 years of history. Considering we believe Satan exists, and that he plants tares within the kingdom, objectively we would have to use basic logic to surmise that such an enemy of Jesus would certainly have tried his hardest within the last 2000 years to at least tamper, omit or forge scripture…at least with the parts of the Bible that you DO believe are ‘established by reality and history’, we can agree on this as a fairly logical objective truth? ‘the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy’?

          3) Since ‘reliability’ and ‘authenticity’ can become a slippery slope of subjectivity, given the lgical objective truth that we have a devil, who has tried distorting truth since good ol’ Adam made the first human debut, and that same devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness by using part truth and omitting the full truth – which Jesus batted right back at him, being the word of god in flesh n all – how would we logically not consider that the texts you claim are real, reliable, and historically provably true beyond all reasonable doubt?

          4) Would there be a logical reason as to why the devil, an enemy of the truth since before we existed, would [add] those verses to scripture? Because anything that is added would therefore render something ‘untrue’ or ‘a lie’, and since satan ‘was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.’ that would mean that there could be no objective truth in something that was falsified. It would logically only contradict. Or there would at least be an evil, and perfectly explainable, logical reason why such a lying devil would ‘add’ those verses to scripture, would you not agree?

          5) ‘These issues aren’t hidden mysteries; Christianity is open about these issues. People who study the Bible have known about these since the beginning of Christianity.’ People as early as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome all commented on it < since the men you refer to are your substantive proof and verification of truth, who are these men, and what are their backgrounds, in relation to the apostles who 'put pen to parchment'? On what basis do we regard their opinions as truth? A name I'm interested in particularly is Origen who also studied pagan philosophy and also blended platonism with biblical theology. His teachings on how the world will end and particularly satan's fate are amusingly saddening, but, since he's one of the sources of your 'verified' commentaries on 'truth' I am interested to hear your explanation.

          6) Just a fairly lol-worthy but equally important point worth addressing; would Jesus, or any Holy Spirit inspired author of canon, end the gospel on somewhat of a cliff-hanger? If the two, earliest and so-called 'most reliable' sources of scripture have surprisngly dubious and uncharecteristic omissions and cliffhangers…is this a scripturally common occurence? Do we have evidence of this happening anywhere else in scripture? [note: did Mark fall asleep or did the holy spirit say 'stop writing Mark, you did a good job, no need to write anything past this point'?]

          Truth is absolute and error can always be refuted. So, I'm going to do what any professing Christian should do and pray that God the Father opens all of our eyes and hearts to look objectively at each and every point and argument, and that he provides the wisdom to narrow this debate into a corner. May God get the glory.

        • Charles, You don’t seem to understand the whole area of textual criticism.

          Facts are not synonymous with their interpretation.

          You go off on how I don’t know if Sinaiticus or Vaticanus are forgeries, but that idea in and of itself is absolutely crackers.

          We can date the manuscripts, within a period of +/- 25 years based on the science of Papryology. The dating of those manuscripts isn’t in dispute, by anyone. Their proximity to the authoring of the New Testament is part of what makes them reliable, but there are multiple other factors that I’m really not going to get into. I’m not going to waste time spending hours helping you understand this stuff when it’s clear you’re not interested.

          I even provided a link to the actual manuscripts themselves. I have “personally gone to study the manuscripts yourself”, and I’ve done the hard work of providing them to you…but I’m guessing that you couldn’t read an uncial manuscript if you life depended upon it. Still, those manuscripts are available for the whole world to see, thanks to the internet. That’s called first hand research. Surely you know that…unless you’re so confused that you think I’d have to fly to wherever they are physically located and personally handle them in order to conduct real first hand research.

          News flash: nobody lays their grubby mits on 1700 year old manuscripts that are worth a few million dollars.

          Surely that’s not your standard of proof, is it?

          If that’s the case, how do you know that you have lungs or a heart? All you’ve ever seen are X-ray pictures of them, and those could be forgeries too, right? RIGHT?

          The rest of your argument is simply nonsense statement after nonsense statement and you just assume KJV-Onlyism and demand that I prove it wrong.

          For example, if Mark 16:9-20 isn’t original, Satan didn’t add anything to the Word of God since everyone who knows anything recognizes that they’re not Scripture. They’re no more canonical Scripture than your table of contents or the “book of maps”.

          For another example, I can think of multiple reasons why Satan would try to introduce textual corruption into the manuscript tradition of the New Testament text. In this current context, one of the most obvious would be to create the cult of KJV-Onlyism, where people claim to be Christians but spend all their time proclaiming the King James Version of the Bible as if it were part of the Gospel message itself and damning other believers on the basis of which English Bible translation they use. That sort of corruption of, and distraction from, evangelism and discipleship suits his purposes beautifully.

          For another example, I don’t owe you any explanation about Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. Why in the world would I? The fact that any early men in history observed that none of the manuscripts in their day included those verses only means that those men observed that none of the manuscripts in their day included those verses. I’m reporting a singular historic claim by a handful of people: I’m not wholesale their theology or practice.

          Your 6th point really reveals your hand: it’s not fitting of the God that you believe in to leave Mark 16 at vs. 8. What were you saying about being subjective again?

          I’m leaving it where God left it. If I’m confused as to why, God doesn’t owe me an explanation.

        • “We can date the manuscripts, within a period of +/- 25 years [1. based on the science of Papryology]. [2. The dating of those manuscripts] isn’t in dispute, by anyone. Their [3. proximity to the authoring of the New Testament is part of what makes them reliable], but there are [4. multiple other factors] that I’m really not going to get into. I’m not going to waste time spending hours helping you understand this stuff when it’s clear you’re not interested.”

          Oh I’m interested Mr Menno. This is part of what we’re called to do; seek truth. But where do we seek truth and what do we use to validate truth? Okay, so before I type my full reply, I want to double verify your stance by asking you these questions [please, even if only brief, give a non-emotionally driven reply]:
          1) Is papyrology part of what you base your faith on? Or if faith is too strong of a word, is papyrology how you validate your understanding of truth?
          2) To clarify, ‘the dating of those’ ‘earliest and most reliable manuscripts’ forms part of your faith in what you hold to be truth? So, am I right in saying your logical reasoning is ‘these manuscripts were written and discovered nearest to the time of when the New Testament would have been written’? Correct?
          3) Geography is part of your logical reasoning that validates your faith and trust in these manuscripts being the ‘most reliable’, correct? You don’t need to reply with sarcasm or insults since you’ve exhausted these literary devices already but feel free to do so any way – but at least grant a non-emotional ‘this is purely idiotic’ type answer or reply
          4) Multiple other factors don’t need to be extensively written out but even if you list down, let’s say, one, two or three out of the multiplicity of factors it would be helpful.
          5) At which point do you or would you ever examine the very scriptures you claim to base your faith on, and how would you use such evidence from scriptures to validate or invalidate your understanding of truth? Since, presumably, all knowledge and truth, heck, creation itself stems from the almighty Logos, Jesus Christ himself. So, yeah, which point does scripture factor in?

          – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
          “For example, [1.2. if Mark 16:9-20 isn’t original, Satan didn’t add anything] to the Word of God since everyone who knows anything recognizes that they’re not Scripture. [2.2. They’re no more canonical Scripture than your table of contents or the “book of maps”].
          For another example, [3.2. I can think of multiple reasons why Satan would try to introduce textual corruption into the manuscript tradition of the New Testament text]. In this current context, one of the most obvious would be [3.2 Ai) to create the cult of KJV-Onlyism], where people claim to be Christians but spend all their time proclaiming the King James Version of the Bible as if it were part of the Gospel message itself and [Aii) damning other believers on the basis of which English Bible translation they use]. That sort of corruption of, and [Aiii) distraction from evangelism and discipleship suits his purposes beautifully.”]
          1.2) ‘if Mark 16:9-20 isn’t original, Satan didn’t add anything, since everyone who knows anything recognizes that they’re not scripture’. Mr Menno, at times you strike me as someone who prides himself in logic, reasoning and would most likely make a humble boast of intelligence, but…this point is worse than a GCSE English language student. If something is all of a sudden included – that wasn’t originally included – that would, by simple logic, mean that something *was added*. Now, is adding to the Bible, a practice that [the valid sections of the Bible] advise, warn away from, or suggest that it’s no big deal? (I’ll be addressing this later)
          2.2) ‘They’re no more canonical Scripture than your table of contents or the “book of maps”’ In GCSE, let alone AS level English language (not sure what education syllabus’ you use in Canada), you would get graded a massive ‘0’ for that answer. Never apply subjectivity in a debate, always question, and always apply *reasoning*.
          3.2) Ai) KJV onlyism is a fairly valid point and one I agree with. I own and read/ use a KJV, ESV and Hebrew/ Greek interlinear Bible. KJV onlyism is an illogical, and probably patriotically driven stance which ignores the logical reasoning that the original languages were not English. As well as the fact that the gospel was spread throughout the world to different languages. So, yeah, agreed 100% there. Aii) Damning believers on any level is wrong, although the apostle Peter would probably have something to say about that but, generally, condemning a person to hell is something reserved for the Lord, although we are well within our rights to exhort (which is your primary ministry I take it) and warn people who are on their way or leading other people towards hell. Aiii) interestingly you suggest that issues and beliefs which distract ‘from evangelism and discipleship suits his purposes beautifully’. I’ll address this point with a question later, but it’ll be along the lines of ‘what does the Bible suggest, describe and indicate about the devil, and his motives’.
          4.2) We’re here! So, as a professing Christian who bases their faith, and all knowledge and wisdom from The Word of God, I am curious to know what *doctrines* the devil would be most against? For example, when the Pharisees questioned, challenged and then accused Jesus of being of Beelzebub because he cast out demons and performed miracles, would such a devil who inspired such hypocrites – perhaps – STILL be against those who follow Jesus? Would it be plausible, or inplausible, that such a devil would hate Jesus giving his followers the power and authority to heal, cast out demons, and walk in the full power of the Spirit of God? Try to give biblical reasoning if you can…

          – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
          “For another example, [1.3. I don’t owe you any explanation about Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. Why in the world would I]? The fact that any early men in history observed that none of the manuscripts in their day included those verses only means that [2.3. those men] observed that none of the manuscripts in their day included those verses. I’m reporting a singular [3.3. historic claim] by a handful of people: [4.3. I’m not wholesale their theology or practice].”
          1.3) Wow. Not sure what’s included in the syllabus of Canadian History or English literature studies, but contextual background of authors and poets is like a biggie in England, you can from scoring an E to an A by explaining your choice of scholars. So, without further ado; to base your faith in the validity and commentaries of the aforementioned individuals, can you tell me the basis of why you place your faith and trust in these men? Is there anything within their theological beliefs, educational backgrounds, or personal lives which hold to the infallibility of their opinions?
          2.3) ‘The fact that any early men in history observed that none of the manuscripts in their day included those verses ‘, ‘those men’. Again, to trust such men as being infallibly correct, provide at least some reasoning as to why. They almost sound as if their teachings and opinions should be included within canon…
          3.3) ‘historic claim’. Again, refer to previous questions.
          4.3) ‘I’m not wholesale their theology or practice ‘ Ooo, well I think I might have to score another minus to your argument. You see, when dealing with the subject of fact, and absolute truth, the credibility of the sources have to be considered. Since this is a theological does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.issue, we have to factor in theological beliefs and practices into our reasoning. So, once more, refer to previous questions.
          5.3) Using scripture as a reference (should really be our only reference point but, y’know…), is anything that, perhaps Paul, Peter, James, Jude or in fact any other author of the New Testament, warned us about and indicated implicitly or explicitly regarding false teachers and prophets, and would any of these men – Origen, Clement, Eusebius and Jerome – have anything within their theological backgrounds which would contradict the teachings of scripture?
          6.3) Is it a plausible reason to – at least – question or be open to the possibility of a tainted or corrupt agenda and view in ones commentary on scripture, if the individual has a belief system or practices contrary to scripture. Again, provide me a logical answer. Use scripture to form your reason if possible.
          – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
          “Your 6th point really reveals your hand: it’s not fitting of the God that you believe in to leave Mark 16 at vs. 8”
          1.4) Assuming we believe in the same God, and believe that same God inspired John, who wrote in 1 John 4 “1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God”, the hand I use to validate, measure and place my faith in is the hand that empowered the patriarchs, prophets and apostles to write what we now call scripture.
          2.4) “6We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” In a world full of corrupt men, when all else fails and objective truth can become muddied and mired in historical and contextual subjectivity, I take the advice and base all – all – my beliefs, and make all – all – my reasoning based off the men who wrote scripture.
          3.4) ‘What were you saying about being subjective again?’ well, if your claim to a born again believer is true, you would not believe that the approach of using scripture, and scripture alone, to validate truth or error was a case of subjectivity, because everything we believe, we believe in faith as a matter of objective, absolute truth.
          4.4) I hope you like playing chess. Let’s make this debate an allegory of chess, and let’s start using the word of God as our pawns, queen, king, knights, castles and bishops.
          Now, I should really be doing my work but the Lord ‘is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him’, and right now I’d say we’re seeking Him to determine and defend the truth of His word. So, he’ll give me the strength to catch up with lost time. But let me just ask a few more questions:
          1.5) Do you know wat absolute truth is, and if so, how do you define it, and what measures do you use to determine it?
          2.5) If you, like me and I hope all who profess to be Christian, believe that The Word of God, our scripture, is divinely inspired and the irrevocable absolute truth, would such an absolute truth, that pre-existed before time or mankind existed, need four scholars by the name of Clement, Origen, Eusebius or Jerome to validate its truth by their scholarly credulity or would such an infallible source of absolute truth have a self-fulfilling, internal means in which to validate itself, since the very Word breathed life as we now know it?
          3.5) Would it be wrong to be open to the plausibility that manuscripts, regardless of how close to the date and geographic proximity to the original authoring of the New testament, could – could – have been corrupted, and deliberately had words, verses or chapters omitted?
          4.5) I presume you are logical and therefore said yes to the plausibility of question 3.5, so my next question; would there be internal evidence within the absolute truth of The Word of God, that would give *plausible* – scripturally plausible – reasons to believe that there would have been every reason to omit any verses or chapters?
          5.5) “2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, [proud], blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, [false accusers], incontinent, fierce, [despisers of those that are good], 4 Traitors, heady, [highminded], lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; [5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof]: from such turn away…[7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth].” Would you say that there is a plausible explanation, using scripture as evidence, that the devil, spoken of in our infallible Word of God, would delight in anything and everything that could discredit or attack anything related to the power of God, e.g. healing the sick, prophesying, miracles etc? Would he be delighted or neutral in wanting to promote any doctrine that could produce watered down Christians who have a form of godliness but whole-heartedly deny the power thereof? (suggestion; the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy)
          6.5) Since we believe The Word to be infallible, what internal – internal – evidence do we have to verify anything and everything that has been falsely added or subtracted from scripture? If the divine logos can be used to test the spirits, reprove and correct all error, we must have an internal source and system with which we can use – without the use of outside scholars – to correct or discern truth from error.
          7.5) If you believe that Jesus is The Word, and if you believe He is the truth, then not a single word that is from Him would contradict itself, as that would instantly deny who He is. If something is not from Him, and is false, using internal evidence from the infallible Word of God, there can be nothing false that is of God, therefore anything false would logically point to what Jesus taught us about the devil; he “does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
          8.5) Proverbs 30: “5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” Using this bit of internal, scripturally based logic and truth, we can investigate truth and error, since the Lord says ‘EVERY WORD of God proves true’. Anyone who adds to his word is in danger of being rebuked and found to be a liar……so on this logic, anything added would have to be a lie, therefore internal evidence can and will be available to scrutinise truth from error.
          9.5) In Deutoronomy 4 it says “2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.” And in Revelation 22 “18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: pif anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in qthe tree of life and in rthe holy city, which are described in this book.”. So what we see, further to Proverbs 30, is a fairly consistent theme; do not add to the words given by God. But there is also a consistent theme of punishment and severity of any such additions. So this matter, regarding false additions, needs to be taken seriously…and needs a biblical methodology to provide infallible proof of truth.
          10.5) Timothy 3 “16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” So, beloved brother Paul has given you a help in answering my questions, proving that you can use scripture to reprove and correct *error*. So, I’m not going to jump off the bat and discredit the four guys you claim to have infallible commentaries and opinions on scripture, but seeing as believe scripture, provide – purely scriptural – evidence to further validate your argument
          11.5) I hope you like chess. Using scripture alone, I’ve made my first move; make yours. That is, if you are a true believer, and can adhere to the words of the apostle Paul…

        • Charles, I simply don’t have time to deal with your multi-pronged assaults. I have children, a job, a church, and other writing assignments that require my time.

          I’m glad you’ve taken up some sort of fascination with me, but you clearly have far more free time than I do.

          You’ve eaten up two of my nights this week already. You don’t get a third.

        • Multi-pronged assaults eh?

          Well, if that’s what you call passive questions. Although I apologise for the insultive tone that may have been conveyed in describing your level of reasoning as that of the average 16 year old student in England. That bit of my old nature God is still dealing with…

          But, along with statements like ‘the tyranny of the law of Moses’, I am just not utterly convinced as to how much faith you place in the word of God. Since a real Christian would refer to scripture first – if not only scripture – to form objective claims of verifying truth from error. Basic logic and reasoning, if your logic and reasoning is of the spirit, and not of an earthly historian who doesn’t believe in the inerrant infallible Word of God.

          For someone who’s been in ministry for as long as yourself, who should know scripture off the top of your head, much less have it imprinted on your heart, I’m surprised you cant write up a 1000 word response in a matter of minutes. Takes a max of 10 minutes to write 250 words if you’re really having to think…but I guess that’s my subjective opinion based and not gospel.

          I’ve done a full day’s work, (10 hours worth), prayed, made food for my family, and managed to knock up the previous post whiles reading and processing yours. I’m sure an acquired biblical academic and pastor like yourself wouldn’t struggle. But if it has challenged you beyond your limits I would probably not reply either.

        • Hi Charles, You seem to have an inexhaustible amount of juice to spend on such topics. You also seem to know a lot about religion. Might your time and knowledge be better spent correcting heretics like Kenneth Copeland or TD Jakes? They have hundreds of thousands of supporters following their heresy that they bilk tens of millions of dollars a year from. Entire families have their lives and futures destroyed by these false teachers. It seems like that might help both the Kingdom more as well as the individuals who are being mislead under all that false teaching, instead of debating papyrology with Mennoknight.

          I mean this as a sincere compliment and suggestion. If I knew as much about religion as you do, that’s what I would do to help.

        • Apologies if it’s come across in contention. In all honesty it is a bad trait of mine that is something I’m praying and believing the Father can help me with…but I suppose I fall into temptation when I perceive others using sarcasm or passive insults. It really isn’t Christ-like so I will refrain from doing so again.

          However, as far as religion is concerned I’m against religion. As spoken of by David, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel, I believe God’s word is living in my heart. I eat his word as often as I can because, as stated in John 14, his words cleanse us, and in john 6 we know his words are spirit and life. So it cannot be a religion since religion isn’t living, nor can religion give life.

          I agree with you that there are some disgusting global ministries out there. England is rife with them. Everything from gold dust to ‘speaking things into reality with the mind’…myself and my brother have been disgusted since we were young.

          Anyway, one more apology for any contention, and God bless

        • Sorry Charles, I misspoke by using the word religion. I guess I meant your knowledge about the Bible and related topics. You seem to know a lot about history and religion even if you don’t like it. It wasn’t meant as a criticism. I admire your passion and if I was as learned as you I would use it to take on the worst charlatans which seem to be very abundant here in DFW. It would seem more productive to take on the guys who are really doing some very real damage as opposed to debating the Mark chapters with someone who is actually teaching the Word without twisting and perverting it for shameful gain. I hope that you do consider turning your eye towards some of the worst offenders. You have some great gifts. Plus these guys are importing this stuff all over the U.K.

    • Thanks for your thoughts Karin.

      The point isn’t that they’re incorrect or not biblical.

      The point is that they’re not Scripture.

      You haven’t been reading a false bible for 30 years; the rest of your Bible is perfectly fine. For some reason, you’ve been sheltered from the history of the Bible you’ve been reading. That may be something to ask whoever has been teaching you.

      These issues aren’t hidden mysteries; Christianity is open about these issues. People who study the Bible have known about these since the beginning of Christianity.

      People as early as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome all commented on it.

      Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are the two passages of non-canonical Scripture that entered into the Bible due to some textual issues arising in medieval times. The manuscripts that they had available for the translation of the Greek New Testament were significantly fewer and lower in quality than what we have now (we have around 1,000x more manuscripts today).

      Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are are the only two passages that are of any size which are non-canonical.

      Every serious scholar of the Bible knows all about this stuff.

      It’s not in Codex Sinaiticus – Go look for yourself here: http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=8&zoomSlider=0

      It’s not in Codex Vaticanus – Go look for yourself here: https://archive.org/stream/CodexVaticanusbFacSimile/Codex-Vaticanus-NT#page/n69/mode/2up

      Mark 16:9-20 simply isn’t there, and those are the two earliest complete manuscripts of the bible that we have.

      What provides even more questions is that Mark doesn’t have only 2 options for endings (16:8 or 16:20). There’s actually 5 competing endings for Mark.

      The Old Latin Codex Bobiensis has an entirely different ending of Mark with a different verse 9 not found anywhere else. That manuscript is not online as far as I know, but you can read about it here:

      https://books.google.ca/books?id=yT-13BpsyQ0C&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Old+Latin+Codex+Bobiensis&source=bl&ots=8phjlHVVhQ&sig=0pDGXIUU6RS_tLlfYgA7cOtj0oY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1o-Gd4MvKAhVBymMKHQnFAbwQ6AEIQDAG#v=onepage&q&f=false

      Also here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=MtDwCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=Old+Latin+Codex+Bobiensis&source=bl&ots=nA5EovoQ9o&sig=t52ewq3mItP4Zefa5srQyCgjUJE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1o-Gd4MvKAhVBymMKHQnFAbwQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q&f=false

      Several manuscripts (L Ψ 099 011) have the alternate verse 9 with the entire longer ending, giving Mark 21 verses in chapter 16.

      Codex Washingtonianus (the third oldest complete NT manuscript – read it here for yourself – http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_032 – the ending of Mark is the last two pages of the entire document) includes the longer ending of 9-20 that includes a verse 14 which has this added on:

      “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’—thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and in-corruptible glory or righteousness that is in heaven.”

      So, when you have 5 competing endings across history, something is rather fishy.

      You don’t need another bible that is totally correct. Your Bible is fine.

      You do need to be aware that your Bible includes two passages that most likely shouldn’t be included (but they are since the power of blind tradition is overwhelming to most).

      Now you are.

      For your own study, I’d recommend reading this: https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr18a04_stein.pdf

      • Thank you so much for taking the time to provide such a thorough answer both here and below. I incorrectly typed Mark 3:9-20 but obviously meant Mark 16:9-20.

  21. Interesting discussion.
    May I point you to a very detailed discussion of this matter here
    https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704
    Dr. Miller’s conclusion – after 7,087 words is
    “For the unbiased observer, this matter is settled: the strongest piece of internal evidence mustered against the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 is no evidence at all. The two strongest arguments offered to discredit the inspiration of these verses as the production of Mark are seen to be lacking in substance and legitimacy.
    The reader of the New Testament may be confidently assured that these verses are original—written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of Mark as part of his original gospel account.”

    • Forgive me for being underwhelmed by Dr. Miller.

      I’m actually not whelmed at all.

      Detail and “relevant understanding” are two different things. I mean seriously, the quote you give has him talking about inspiration. Textual criticism isn’t a test of inspiration in the first place, nor can it be.

      Having a Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Public Address doesn’t make someone a credible scholar of the New Testament or textual criticism.

      His arguments are mostly bunk.

      So what if 99% of manuscripts include the reading?

      That’s irrelevant if the earliest and most reliable ones don’t include the reading.

      So what if a handful of significant scholars (all but one of whom were writing before the 1970’s) thought it was authentic?

      He doesn’t interact with the fact that since around 1990, pretty much every Evangelical scholar considers the long ending of Mark spurious. I’m talking a list that is thousands of people long.

      So what if there are 4 options for a long ending and 1 of them is clearly inauthentic?

      He doesn’t even seem to realize the significance of the multiple, early attested and competing endings of Mark. Why are there a bunch of competing endings in the first place? What other book of the Bible has a section with 4 competing variations? Why were multiple people in the early church producing alternate (and competing) endings at all?

      He doesn’t even deal with the internal evidence except suggesting that the whole “vocabulary count” idea doesn’t work.

      He doesn’t even deal with any arguments involving style and syntax…so he considered the only argument he could even touch (it’s not much of a mystery whether or not Miller is a competent Greek scholar).

      Forgive me for not getting excited by someone who has irrelevant training in the field and thinks that putting statements in boldface somehow makes an argument more compelling.

      I’ll stick with Dan Wallace, director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts and foremost evangelical textual critic:

      https://bible.org/article/my-favorite-passage-thats-not-bible

      And then John MacArthur has dealt with this in fair detail here:

      I also read Miller’s treatment of the rapture here:

      https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1206

      He’s not really a reliable Bible scholar. The whole fourth paragraph in that article is a long-winded way of saying “I don’t understand how this bible interpretation stuff works.”

  22. You are dead wrong and way off base. The fruit proves what kind of tree it is. Look at the fruit. What God is doing through the Last Reformation is unprecedented in church history. The glory of God is covering the globe through the Last Reformation. If The Last Reformation is not of God it will fall away; if it is from God then you cant stop it and you will in fact find yourself opposing God Himself.

    • What fruit?

      Professions of faith?

      Manifestations of tongues?

      Let’s make this simple: What does the New Testament hold up as proper and expected fruit of any ministry?

      Just answer that last question, giving your answer from the text of Scripture, and we’ll be able to settle this all.

  23. Might as well get your strength together and promote Jesus the Christ..the Risen Lord..The Almighty God to counter the Islamic migrant and invasion of your countries rather than on brothers and sisters in Christ…

  24. You know something guys, Christianity, I mean being A christian is YOU being a CHRIST-FOLLOWER. So it’s YOU being like CHRIST. The Bible that YOU CHRISTIAN if YOU truly call yourself A CHRIST -FOLLOWER, the bible that YOU HOLD is God (John 1:1). Focus on God please as a CHRIST-FOLLOWER and stop WAISTING your minutes and hours reading articles about what people have experienced with men of God or false men of God (Rom 12v19). Please pray for them rather so that they will stop all those unnecessary things, turn their bad ways and come embrace the TRUE GOD JESUS CHRIST. Please the minutes and hours you’ve waisted here could be used to SAVE SOULS. whether this man is a false prophet or not FOCUS ON YOUR CHRISTIAN LIFE AND LIVE like CHRIST also pray to God to help you build your christian life because it’s hard to be like Christ. May God bless you all and please READ THE BIBLE which is the book of life and not articles or youTube videos because as our father God has plans for you, the devil also has plans for you and can use the MEDIA to deceive you. Let’s do this together and also save our unbeliever brothers and sisters please.

    • Thanks for your thoughts Rit.

      I agree with the sentiment that evangelism and discipleship should be our main priority.

      Let’s just agree the Torben isn’t worth paying any attention to, and get on with things. If not for all the frauds running amuck, the great commission would be a whole lot easier to see completed.

      If anything I write can help people proclaim a gospel that saves and avoid one that cannot, I call that a win (for the purposes of blogging).

      Also, the Bible is God?

      I’m not sure what you meant by that.

  25. Come to me ,all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light..Matthew 11..28/30….so much “head” stuff here with some of the blogs…

  26. Pingback: Torben Søndergaard and The Last Reformation | Revolution for Jesus

  27. Pingback: Sessationismi ja Torben Søndergaard – Kaupungin ainoa kalvinisti

  28. Pingback: Torben Sondergaard – Site Title

  29. Pingback: Resources exposing the doctrinal errors of The Last Reformation and Torben Søndergaard – Hammer Of The LORD Ministries

Comments are closed.