Are Todd Bentley & C Peter Wagner Apostolic?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by U376977

I know that is what is on the site. BUT how gullible do they think we are? How can they "affirm" no sexual immorality--where they with TB every moment of every day?

Come on, you don't get divorced for just some sweet talk on the phone!

You cant "affirm" there was sexual immorality either.
So you cant go around claiming that adultery took place.

And yes, people do get divorced over "some sweet talk on the phone"... and even less than that sometimes.

[ManOfWord]

What's in a title? Too many people are WAY too hung up on them. Half the people in the church I pastor call me by my first name....Pastor John. I don't care what they call me. Their respect of me is NOT tied up in the title they use. I don't need a title for respect.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

So what about "One God" preachers that address these men as "Apostle So-in so"? Are those OP men then outside of the apostolic faith by doing so?

I think its crazy to refer to any Trinitarian as "apostle". None of the New Testament apostles were Trinitarian.

But of course, there are always going to be Oneness folks who wish to appease Trinitarians, and blur the lines between the two doctrines.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

What's in a title? Too many people are WAY too hung up on them. Half the people in the church I pastor call me by my first name....Pastor John. I don't care what they call me. Their respect of me is NOT tied up in the title they use. I don't need a title for respect.

I agree. They called Jesus, "Jesus," and they called the apostles, "John," Peter," "Paul," and etc...

Titles often alienate the pulpit from the pew. How can a minister, "minister" (serve), if he is distanced from those to whom he's called?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I think its crazy to refer to any Trinitarian as "apostle". None of the New Testament apostles were Trinitarian.

But of course, there are always going to be Oneness folks who wish to appease Trinitarians, and blur the lines between the two doctrines.

True.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Michael the Disciple,

Thanks for posting that. From what I’ve studies, at the center of their beliefs is a doctrine they call the “Third Wave.” It encompasses much of the teachings of the ‘Latter Rain’ movement. They’re also connected to “Kingdom Now” and “Dominion Theology.”

Much of what they teach is centered on the belief that modern-day apostles and prophets will give the church a ‘new word.’ This will then bring the world into revival. Once the world’s systems and peoples are readied, Jesus will return to earth.

The “New Word” is vital to their success, because many of their teachings cannot be found in the already canonized Bible. This "New Word" is exactly what Todd Bentley said was the reason why he could do and say much of what he did.

The statement of faith itself IMO rules them out from being Apostles. We dont need a "new word" rather a restoration of the faith once delivered to the Saints.

They are somewhat associated with the "Manchild Doctrine" which I hold myself. They have perverted it by teaching the overcomers will rule nations before the second coming.

The Manchild will not bring anything that is new to scripture but will be new to those who have never heard the whole counsel of God.

[U376977]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The statement of faith itself IMO rules them out from being Apostles. We dont need a "new word" rather a restoration of the faith once delivered to the Saints.

They are somewhat associated with the "Manchild Doctrine" which I hold myself. They have perverted it by teaching the overcomers will rule nations before the second coming.

The Manchild will not bring anything that is new to scripture but will be new to those who have never heard the whole counsel of God.

I believe in the Manchild teaching also. But it seems to me that OP just do not want to move into the whole counsel of God; the depths of the Word. Why is that?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by U376977

I believe in the Manchild teaching also. But it seems to me that OP just do not want to move into the whole counsel of God; the depths of the Word. Why is that?

They have bogged down in the idea that as long as one believes in and teaches Acts 2:38 thats all thats really important. That way they can think they are still on the "cutting edge" of Christianity.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The statement of faith itself IMO rules them out from being Apostles. We dont need a "new word" rather a restoration of the faith once delivered to the Saints.

They are somewhat associated with the "Manchild Doctrine" which I hold myself. They have perverted it by teaching the overcomers will rule nations before the second coming.

The Manchild will not bring anything that is new to scripture but will be new to those who have never heard the whole counsel of God.

Originally Posted by U376977

I believe in the Manchild teaching also. But it seems to me that OP just do not want to move into the whole counsel of God; the depths of the Word. Why is that?

Can someone explain to us briefly what this Manchild Doctrine is about?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Can someone explain to us briefly what this Manchild Doctrine is about?

I will post my short but to the point study on it this afternoon.