Analysis of "Delivered by Truth" criticism to Tim Maddocks and David Ng

Dec 05, 2025Dec 05, 202511 min readedit

Article source: https://notefp.link/david-ng-tim-maddocks

Loading the Audio Player... Please reload the page...

1. Defining Constructive Criticism

To determine if the criticism provided by “Delivered By Truth” (DBT) is constructive, we must define the term biblically. Scripture states that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Constructive criticism in a biblical context should:

  1. Test all things: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1).
  2. Aim for restoration and truth: It should correct error to protect the flock and restore the individuals, not merely to destroy character.
  3. Be rooted in Scripture: It must rely on “It is written,” rather than personal opinion.

The DBT series aims to be a “Biblical Refutation,” stating the intent is not to attack personally but to examine practices against the Bible. However, a constructive analysis must also ensure it does not create “straw men” (misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to easily defeat it) or ignore the nuances of the accused’s actual ministry.

2. Analysis of Specific Accusations

A. The Authority to Rebuke and Cast Out

The Criticism: DBT argues that humans should not rebuke demons directly. The argument relies heavily on Jude 1:9 (“The Lord rebuke thee”) and Zechariah 3:2 suggesting that even angels defer to God,. DBT claims only Jesus has the divine authority to rebuke and that humans are presumptuous to do so.

The Ministry Context: Tim Maddocks and David Ng teach that believers are commissioned to cast out demons in Jesus’ name. They emphasize that this authority is not their own power but is delegated by Christ. Maddocks explicitly states, “We need to be sinless… all of our sins have been forgiven… we are gaining victory over our sinful nature because we’re letting Christ live out his life within us”.

Biblical Harmonization:

  • Delegated Authority: The Bible records Jesus giving specific authority to disciples: “In my name shall they cast out devils” (Mark 16:17). The Greek word epitimao (rebuke) is used when Jesus speaks to demons, but the disciples were also commanded to “cast out” (ekballo).
  • The Name of Jesus: The biblical pattern is not that humans have inherent power, but that they utilize the name of Jesus. Paul said, “I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her” (Acts 16:18).
  • Conclusion: The criticism that humans cannot command demons to leave seems to overlook the Great Commission (Mark 16:15-18). However, DBT is correct that the power belongs solely to God. Maddocks and Ng appear to align with Scripture here by emphasizing that they order spirits out in the name of Jesus, not their own.

B. Conversing with Demons and Asking Names

The Criticism: DBT accuses Maddocks and Ng of “consulting with familiar spirits” (Deuteronomy 18:10-12), characterizing their interaction with demons as mediumship,. The critic points out that Jesus only asked a demon’s name once (Legion), and Paul never conversed with them,.

The Ministry Context:

  • David Ng: Ng claims he asks the Holy Spirit to reveal the names or legal rights, rather than asking the demon directly, though he acknowledges demons sometimes speak or name themselves under compulsion,.
  • Tim Maddocks: Maddocks admits to asking questions. In one instance, he asked a demon, “Were you happy when you saw Jesus die on the cross?” to teach bystanders a theological lesson about the state of the dead.

Biblical Harmonization:

  • Jesus’ Example: Jesus asked, “What is thy name?” (Mark 5:9). This establishes a precedent, though it was rare.
  • The Danger of Dialogue: The Bible warns against heeding “seducing spirits” (1 Timothy 4:1). Engaging in theological conversations with demons (as Maddocks did regarding the crucifixion) carries high risk, as Jesus typically silenced them (Mark 1:25).
  • Conclusion: The criticism has merit regarding conversational engagement for the sake of information or theology. Relying on a demon’s testimony to prove doctrine (even if the demon is forced to tell the truth) is precarious. However, asking a name for the specific purpose of expulsion (as Jesus did with Legion) is not strictly unbiblical, provided it is not a “consultation” for guidance.

The Criticism: DBT argues the concept of “legal rights” is extra-biblical and that repentance is sufficient without identifying specific demons or rights.

The Ministry Context: Ng and Maddocks teach that “open doors” (sins, occult objects, unforgiveness) give demons ground to remain. They teach that specific confession closes these doors. For example, burning occult objects or confessing specific bitterness removes the demon’s ability to stay.

Biblical Harmonization:

  • Footholds: Ephesians 4:27 says, “Neither give place to the devil.” The word topos (place) implies a foothold or opportunity.
  • Confession: 1 John 1:9 promises cleansing upon confession.
  • Occult Objects: In Acts 19:19, believers burned magical books, suggesting that physical objects were linked to spiritual bondage.
  • Conclusion: While the specific phrase “legal rights” is not in the KJV, the concept of sin and occult participation granting Satan access is biblically sound. The criticism may be semantic. However, DBT is correct to warn against a ritualistic need to name every specific demon, as faith in Christ’s covering is the primary mechanism of freedom.

D. Christians and Demon Possession

The Criticism: DBT asserts that Christians cannot be demon-possessed, citing that light and darkness cannot coexist. They argue true believers are temples of the Holy Spirit.

The Ministry Context: Maddocks and Ng share numerous stories of Seventh-day Adventists and other Christians manifesting demons due to secret sins (pornography, pride, anger) or deception. They argue that “possession” implies control in specific areas due to un-surrendered ground.

Biblical Harmonization:

  • Saul: King Saul, anointed by God, was troubled by an evil spirit due to disobedience (1 Samuel 16:14).
  • Judas: Satan entered Judas, a disciple (Luke 22:3).
  • Ananias and Sapphira: Satan filled their hearts to lie, though they were part of the church (Acts 5:3).
  • Conclusion: This is often a debate on the definition of “possession.” If defined as “total ownership,” DBT is right—a Christian belongs to Christ. If defined as “demonization” (having a demon exercise control over an area of life due to sin), the Bible supports that believers can be influenced or entrapped by Satan (2 Timothy 2:26).

3. Nuanced Analysis of the Methods

The Role of Sanctification

Maddocks and Ng emphasize that deliverance is not magic; it requires the “armor of God” and a life right with Christ. Maddocks shares a story of a student who could not cast out a demon because he harbored secret hate; once he confessed, he had authority. This aligns with the Spirit of Prophecy, which states, “Satan cannot hold the dead in his grasp when the Son of God bids him live” but also emphasizes that “sin… opens the door”.

The “Rebuke” Controversy: DBT claims Ellen White’s instruction to “rebuke the evil spirit” in children refers to prayer, not verbal command. However, the quote in Child Guidance says, “This is the time to rebuke the evil spirit” in the context of a child throwing a tantrum. Maddocks/Ng interpret this as taking authority over the enemy harassing the child. While DBT argues this is “fanaticism”, the broader context of Ellen White’s writings acknowledges real spiritual conflict.

Victim Blaming: DBT criticizes the deliverance model for “victim blaming” by suggesting people are possessed because of their sins (e.g., bitterness).

  • Maddocks/Ng Perspective: They view identifying the sin (e.g., unforgiveness) as empowering the victim to close the door and find freedom, not to condemn them. They teach that God desires to heal the brokenhearted.
  • Biblical Check: Jesus often linked healing with sin (“Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” - John 5:14), though not always (John 9:3).

Areas of Valid Concern (Constructive Criticism)

  1. Conversational Theology: Maddocks’ account of asking a demon about the crucifixion is risky. Relying on demon testimony for doctrine is dangerous, even if it confirms truth, as demons are the “father of lies.”
  2. Over-emphasis on Demons: There is a risk, noted by DBT, of seeing a demon behind every natural emotion (grief, natural anger). This can lead to paranoia.
  3. Sensationalism: While Maddocks warns against pride, stories of physical manifestations (levitation, morphing faces) can distract from the gospel if not handled carefully.

4. Conclusion

The criticism from “Delivered By Truth” contains valid warnings against making deliverance a spectacle, relying on extra-biblical rituals, or engaging in necromancy-like conversations. However, the criticism risks becoming “narrow-minded” if it denies the reality that believers can be harassed by darkness or if it strips the church of the authority Jesus explicitly delegated.

Are Maddocks and Ng in Error?

  • On Authority: No. They correctly teach that authority comes from Jesus and requires a sanctified life.
  • On Open Doors/Sin: No. The concept that sin gives Satan access is biblical (Ephesians 4:27).
  • On Methodology (Conversing): Cautionary. Engaging demons in conversation to teach theology (as in Maddocks’ story) goes beyond the biblical precedent of simple expulsion and risks deception.
  • On Sanctification: No. They emphasize that without full surrender and filling the “empty house” with the Holy Spirit, demons will return.

Final Summary: The ministries of Tim Maddocks and David Ng, when viewed through the full context of their teaching, emphasize repentance, faith in God’s word, and the power of Jesus’ name. While specific anecdotes (like tricking a demon) may be critiqued as imprudent based on the silence of Scripture regarding such dialogues, the core of their teaching—that Christ has given His followers power to set captives free through faith and repentance—aligns with the Great Commission. Constructive criticism should correct the methods of engagement (e.g., advising against lengthy conversations) without denying the necessity and authority of the ministry itself.

References

Appendix - Direct Quotations

David Ng on Communicating with Demons

David Ng explicitly states that he stopped the practice of asking demons to speak or identify themselves because they are deceitful and it is counterproductive. He emphasizes communicating with the Holy Spirit instead.

  • Quote 1: “you don’t want to call them all individually by name you just want to know the one… we used to command the demon to come forward that’s kind of the Pentecostal way to come forward and speak their name… you know that causes all sorts of problems and they lie and they bring you on a wild goose chase so now we learned through experience and counseling that it’s best to just cooperate with the holy spirit so we’re asking the Holy Spirit to impress upon the person that we’re helping please impress upon them who is the demon…”,.
  • Quote 2: “so we’re not communicating with the demons we’re asking the Holy Spirit to cut through and reveal what it is right what is the demon that’s oppressing this individual.”.

Tim Maddocks on Communicating with Demons

Tim Maddocks repeatedly advises against holding conversations with demons, citing their superior experience in deception and the danger of being misled.

  • Quote 1: “so as a deliverance practitioner I have to be very careful that I don’t let them deceive me also and this is why we don’t we don’t hold a conversation with them we don’t ask them questions because they are they have 6,000 years of experience at deceiving people who am I to think that I’m smarter than them so I’m going to depend on the power of Jesus to get rid of them i’m not going to depend on their answers to get me help.”,.
  • Quote 2: “and that’s another thing that we need to remember to do too don’t get into conversation with evil spirits because they lie satan was cons called the father of lies and the demons are good children they just they know how to lie to there’s no point in trying to have a dialogue with a demon because they are experts at deception and if we try to dialogue with them then we are likely to be deceived as well as the person we’re trying to help.”,.

Tim Maddocks’ Verbatim Caution Regarding the Crucifixion Question

In the specific instance where Tim Maddocks asked a demon about the crucifixion (to prove a theological point to the Buddhist relatives present regarding the state of the dead), he prefaced the story with a caution that this was an exception inspired by the Holy Spirit, not his standard practice.

Verbatim Quote: “I think it must have been the Holy Spirit that inspired me because uh like I say I don’t like I don’t want to talk to demons i’m ordering them out i’m going to tell the demon what God has done for the person i’m going to quote scripture to the demon but I don’t want to ask it questions but in this case I asked it a question i fired this question out very quickly were you happy when you sealed Jesus crucified and instantly it said yes it didn’t have time to think about its answer I guess and then I said ‘Were you happy when you saw Jesus come out of the tomb?’ And it scowlled…“.