Posted on 12/21/2001 11:34:36 AM PST by onedoug
I agree that we may not agree and do not presume to judge you because your opinion differs from mine.***
When I watched Meyer on TV there were men in the audience. Could that have been an exception to the rule?
I have a nice home and belongings as well. You're right in that not making a person a sinner. I guess my concern is one of using ministerial monies to further riches in excess. We need to be very careful with all folks in the ministry on this issue.
We may not agree on this issue but we DO agree on the core and substance of Christianity! ;o) Have a great day.
Mark 3:29 "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.''Luke 12:10 "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him."
Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
Romans 4: (3) For what does the Scripture say? ""ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.'' (4) Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. (5) But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. . . .
Romans 3: (20) because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (21) But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (22) even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; (25) whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; (26) for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (27) Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. (28) For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.. . . (31) Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Romans 5:(1) Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, (2) through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. (3) And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; (4) and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; (5) and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (6) For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (7) For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. (8) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. (10) For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (11) And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,through whom we have now received the reconciliation. (12) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned (13) for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (15) But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (16) The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. (17) For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (18) So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (19) For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. (20) The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 8:
(1) Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. (3) For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, (4) so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (5) For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. (6) For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, (7) because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, (8) and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (9) However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (10) If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. (11) But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. (12) So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh (13) for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (14) For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (15) For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "" Abba! Father!'' (16) The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, (17) and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. . . . (28) And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (29) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; (30) and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (31) What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? (32) He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? (33) Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; (34) who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. (35) Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (36) Just as it is written, "" FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED.'' (37) But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. (38) For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, (39) nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
If the subject of eternal security continues to be discussed I will probably continue to look at this thread, because this has been an in-house debate for centuries. To throw in my two cents... when Jesus says we have eternal life I take eternal literally, not until you sin yourself out of the Kingdom, and I also do not see how one can be "un-born" again. Now there are definetly some difficult verses (Hebrews 6, and some passages in Revelation about blotting ones name out of the book of life) which is why the debate has been ongoing. cheers
I don't dare take from the fact that what Christ did on the cross was all that was necessary for our salvation. In no way shape or form do I mean to imply that. If all He ever did was die for me that was enough. But He did so much more. I think my problem with the doctrine is that many people use the "once saved always saved doctrine as a license to sin. When I say sin, I am not talking about lying, stealing, murdering, and all of the other things we "KNOW" to be wrong. I mean the sins of pride, judgementalism, legalism, and so forth.
I also have a strong disbelief in the doctrine within this doctrine that once you are saved you can't change your mind or that you can't fall from the faith. This is clearly an unbiblical doctrine. In the OT and NT we are told that one can depart from the faith and given many examples of this happening through scripture.
I am sorry if it seemed to you that I was implying that you specifically believe that what Christ has done is not enough. That is not my intent. I was merely looking at the logic of "if this, then that" (if we can lose salvation then we must get it back by doing something--which makes me think that we, therefore, must "do" something for salvation). I understand your concerns about what people do, or may have a mindset to do: feeling free to sin (in whatever form that takes) as if they have license to do so. As Paul says, "may that never be." And I agree with you, that many people do so, whether intentional or otherwise. Christians, however, have been cautioned not to be like this. Paul, I believe, said "we must work out our salvation." But what this tells me is of the valid point I believe you are making (correct me here if I misunderstand): we must work against our sin nature (this reminds me, again, of Paul saying "For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish; But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good." [Romans 7:19-21]), allow the Father to work through us through the Holy Spirit, in that we may always model ourselves after Christ, our example. Having said that, the Holy Spirit convicts us individually, working on us in what He perceives must be worked on first, then on to the next. He cannot work on us effectively if we don't allow Him (this, to me, is sin also).
As far as one changing their mind about salvation, perhaps those are the ones who never received Christ as their Savior to begin with. But it is also written that God predestined those who would be saved---and if He knows who will accept Christ as their Savior, how would you posit what the Father knows about each of us who He has given to the Lord?
Paul tells the Galatian church that they were severed from Christ and had fallen from His grace because of their reliance on the law to find favor with God instead of their reliance on the Spirit of God. This is clearly an indication that you can be cut off from Jesus after having experienced a walk with Him. Paul says that Christ makes us free and tells us to make sure we stay free. This is the responsibility of the believer. How does the believer do this? By staying in the word, being led by the Spirit, and obeying the word in all manner.
In Romans Paul tells us ( 11:19-23 ) Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again." Again we see the responsibility of the believer. Man has a choice whether to believe or not to believe. Jesus tells us that the devil can rob us of our unbelief. Satan can't rob us of His love for us but he can, and often does, rob us of our belief.
Predestination, in the idea that God has already chosen who will be saved and who will not, is in direct conflict of God's desires. God's desire is that none should perish and that ALL come to repentance. In Ephesians we see Paul's statement that Long ago before He made the world He chose us, in Christ to be holy and without fault in His eyes. His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into His own family through Jesus Christ and this gave Him great pleasure. Because He foreknew that man would fall in the garden, He made a way of escape from hell for us.
Who is the "us" that Paul is referring to? Is it not "whosoever" believes? Paul goes on to tell us that when we believed in Christ He identified us as His own. Paul, of course, was writing to the Ephesians when He said this but does it not apply to all Christians? The idea that hand picks those who will be saved and those who will not also takes away from the nature of His creation ( man ). Man can choose to accept Christ or he can choose to reject him. God desires a reciprocal love freely offered by His moral creatures. Of all physical creation, only mankind possesses the ability to respond to the loving grace of the Creator through the loving obedience of faith.
God is all knowing in the fact that He forsaw the fall of man in the garden. In His mercies He made a way of escape from sin through Jesus's death. He predestined Jesus' death. He predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself. IOW, He had a plan. I AM assure of my salvation in that I am assured that what Jesus is was all that was necessary for me to be saved from eternal damnation. When He cried out tetelesatai on the cross He had done all that was necessary to purchase my soul. I had to choose to accept His gift, so freely given. I had to choose to believe the word of God. I have to choose to allow the Spirit to operate in my life and be willing to be led of Him.
Romans 8:28 - 30: (28) And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (29) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; (30) and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.There are three groups of people in the world, as Paul describes below: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the called (those who come from the Jews and the Gentiles), and the called heard God's voice:Ephesions 1:4 -6; 9 -12: (4) just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love (5) He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, (6) to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
(9) He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him, (10) with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him (11) also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, (12) to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
1 Corinthians 1:23-25: (23) but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, (24) but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (25) For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.Concerning losing our salvation or changing our minds, Jesus said He is the good shepherd, and He will not let even one of His sheep go--just as a shepherd (I like to read Psalm 23 about the shephard), initimately knows the ways of each of his sheep and cares for them, Jesus even more so.
John 10:10 - 15: (10) The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. (11) I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (12) The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. (13) The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. (14) I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- (15) just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Correct me if I'm wrong; doesn't this doctrine stem from a belief in salvation by grace in that there is no work we can do that can save us?
I can agree that there is no good work we can do that would save us but that there is one selfish work involved in our salvation. That selfish act is our acceptance of Jesus' death on the cross as our atonement for our sin. I suppose that one could cast aside this gift if they choose.
To be unwilling to accept the need for even the selfish act of acceptance as a prerequisite for salvation leads to incomprensible doctrines like Jesus' atonement being only for some people and that God's grace is irresistable.
A CRITICAL LOOK AT JOYCE MEYER
=S BOOKDebunking Common Objections
First off, let me preface the following by debunking a few common responses from Charismatics (I am referring, of course, to Word/Faith Charismatics) when they're challenged and confronted about heresy within their camp.
1) I do not question Joyce's motives. This is not a subjective issue but an objective one.
2) I never argue or divide over peripheral doctrines. I only argue and divide over essential doctrines. Charismatics do not understand the difference between essentials and peripherals and that is exactly why they become defensive when someone criticizes the doctrines of demons that they hold dear. And it's also why they themselves are very divisive when it comes to the gifts of the Holy Spirit and other non-essential issues.
Charismatics, when asked, would be hard pressed to explain the difference between essentials and peripherals or even list a few of the essentials. Essential doctrines are essential for salvation. Non-essentials are not essential for salvation.
For example, if someone says that the Trinity is a pagan doctrine from Satan (as did William Branham), they cannot be considered a believer. But if someone has the "wrong" view of the Rapture, they would not for that reason be considered a non-Christian. Salvation hinges upon the essentials just as life on this planet hinges upon having food, air, and water. Our physical lives do not hinge upon clothes, cars, and buildings. We can live without them. They are not essential to life and are thus non-essentials.
Not in all my years as a Charismatic did I ever hear any Charismatic teacher, pastor, or evangelist explain the above or make a clear distinction between the two different types of doctrine. Rather, time and time again they would "knock down all doctrinal walls" and make great claims of super spirituality over "dead churches" and "theologians" who differ with them on the subject of the Gifts.
Heresy, by the way, is when an essential is distorted beyond recognition or replaced with a counterfeit. Aberrant is when a peripheral doctrine is distorted or replaced with something else. A wrong view of the Rapture is merely aberrant. It only becomes heresy when salvation hinges upon a "correct" interpretation of it.
3) I do not take Mrs. Meyer out of context or twist her words. My experience has been that in any attempt to defend such teachers, most Charismatics put words in the mouths of their mentors rather than face up to solid, word-for-word quotations. The blade cuts both ways, I will not read into what is said nor will I allow others to interpret plain statements to mean things other than what was intended by the speaker/writer.
4) I am not an "anti-Charismatic." I was led to the Lord by watching The 700 Club, belonged to Grace World Outreach Center (now called Grace Church-St. Louis) for a couple of years, and then belonged to Life Christian Center for 8 years or so. All these ministries are local Charismatic ministries and I love these folks dearly.
5) I am not "attacking" Charismatics, I'm "responding" to their attacks upon the body of Christ. All cults cry, "You're attacking us." Ain't so. Those who proclaim and believe damnable doctrines of demons had better get used to good Christian folks responding to their attacks upon our faith. It's not only a good defense of the faith, it's biblical! In fact, one of my favorite pastors, Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, is a Charismatic and he is very vocal in his opposition to the heresies within the Word/Faith Charismatic movement.
6) The most popular charge is that this type of criticism is "unloving and divisive." 1 Corinthians 13:6,7 says that love rejoices with the truth" and "always protects." It is very loving to protect someone from a damnable lie that masquerades as the truth. And about division, are we to unite with cultists or remain separate from them?
7) "Judge not lest you be judged!" Matthew 7: 1. In verse 15 Jesus warns us to "watch out for false prophets." How can we evaluate whether or not someone is a false prophet unless we use some degree of judgment? Jesus was speaking about judging self righteously and hypocritically. Paul tells us in I Corinthians 5:3, "And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this.." (New International Version) And in verse 12 he states, "Are you not to judge those inside [the church]?" Judging in a biblical manner is the result of discernment.
8) "It's wrong to name names." I don't know where Christians ever got such an unbiblical idea except from those who wish to guard their prey. Did not Paul name names? Names like Hymenaeus, Philetus, Demas, and Alexander. And did not David mention Doeg the Edomite? What do people have to hide by not wanting their names named? If someone was molesting young children in your neighborhood and I knew their name, would you be content to only know that they were out there or would you want to know their name?
Consider the Tylenol scare years ago. Would you have been satisfied if the media had said, "Watch out! There's a popular pain reliever on the market that's been tampered with which could kill you. We don't want to upset the company that produces it lest we offend them. Therefore, we won't name them. Lots of luck!" I don't think so. Such would be a "warningless-warning." Good for nothing and only protecting the guilty.
9) "Did you go to Joyce Meyer personally as laid out in Matthew 18 before writing this review?" Do not make the mistake that the cults make by reading into (eisegesis) a passage something that is not there. Instead, read out of (exegesis) the passage what is there. Read verses 15 - 17 and you'll find that we are to approach those who have personally sinned against us. Joyce has done me no personal wrong. So in accordance with Matthew 18, 1 did not go to her personally.
Even if I were to attempt to approach her with the heresy she presents in her book, do you think she would hear me out? Not a chance in Purgatory. Those close to her were given the cold shoulder when attempting such a thing. Who then am I? I am not a supporter. I am not a well known pastor of a big church. I am a nobody. To try would only be an exercise in futility.
Did she did bother to consult me before publicly proclaiming a doctrine that is dangerous to my lost loved ones and "neighbors" within my local community? No. Should she have? No, the public arena is open to all who would use it. Therefore, I am not doing Joyce any personal wrong, either. If she so chooses to poison people's minds with heresy, 1, and others like me, are just as free to inoculate people's minds to such poison.
"Is this biblical?" Anyone who knows their Bible would not ask such a question. The Apostle Paul dealt with Peter over a non-personal issue that involved sound doctrine. And he did so publicly.
"When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" Galatians 2:14
Had Peter personally sinned against Paul? No. Did Paul have a reason to be concerned? Yes. Did Paul go privately to Peter and only later take two others with him before "telling it to the church?" No. Why? Matthew 18 does not apply to such instances. What we have in Galatians chapter two is a precedence for publicly handling doctrinal issues and disputes. Scripture is replete with such examples.
Notice, too, that Paul was not nit-picking. Peter was starting to undermine the Gospel with rules and regulations thus producing "another gospel" and Paul was rightfully concerned. As you read on, you'll see that I am not criticizing Joyce over benign doctrines. What she espouses in her book is a cancer that has spread within the body of Christ.
I realize that some folks find it hard to stomach confrontation, but we are commanded to "defend the faith, contend for the faith, and fight the good fight of the faith." Consider the Apostle Paul's attitude in responding to heretics.
"And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ." 2 Corinthians II: 12-13
Paul was relentless in his defense of the truth. He would, no doubt, be considered a "heresy hunter" by today's Word/Faith Charismatic pastors and evangelists. They, like Paul's enemies, want to be considered peers with Evangelical pastors and evangelists. The fact that many Evangelicals do consider them their peers is regrettable. For,
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?" 2 Corinthians 6:14-15
If Word/Faith Charismatics want to be considered believers, let them prove it by renouncing the heresy that is so prevalent within their camp. Because of my involvement with the Charismatic movement, I know what I'm talking about. I was repeatedly exposed to heresy as a Charismatic. And because of my intense involvement in cult research and evangelism for about 9 years, I don't feel that I can be criticized as one unfamiliar with sound doctrine.
"What Should You Believe?"
"What Should You Believe?" is the title to chapter 4 (page 35) and the chapter I will focus on. Since the book's title implies that its purpose is to help someone to make "the most important decision (they) will ever make," we can assume that this chapter will discuss the facts whereby they may make an intelligent decision.
Joyce writes, "During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin. He paid the price there. ...no plan was too extreme. ... Jesus paid on the cross and in hell." (Underlining in the original) On page 36, she continues....... God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, 'Let Him go.' Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus. ...He was resurrected from the dead - the first born-again man. (Underlining in the original.)
The first subchapter heading is, "WHAT HAPPENED ON THE CROSS?" (Caps and underlining in the original) The heading is similar to Kenneth Copeland's infamous tape, "What Happened From The Cross To The Throne" (I 984) in which he goes into great detail about the subject. Copeland apparently borrowed the title from E. W. Kenyon's book by the same name as well as the same heretical theme. Joyce no doubt has been greatly influenced by both these men. Both works are Charismatic "classics."
In this subchapter she writes, "His spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go. Remember in the very beginning of this, I said, 'When you die, only your body dies. The rest of you, your soul and spirit, goes either to heaven or hell."'
"There is no choice of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth I am presenting. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place in hell." (Underlining added.)
On page 38 she claims, "Jesus went to hell for you." (Underlining in the original)
What she's just covered is the classical (and damnable) Word/Faith "Born-Again Jesus Gospel." It's been espoused by the likes of Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Fred Price, John Jacobs, Charles Capps, Benny Hinn, Jan Crouch, and (locally) David Crank just to name a few. It's usually presented under the guise of "revelation knowledge" given by the Holy Ghost and based upon Scripture. Odd how none of these folks give credit to the originators of this heresy but rather credit (in reality, blame) such blasphemy on the Holy Spirit.
Does this message have "the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes it" as Joyce implies. If so, it is the Gospel (Romans 1: 16). And if not, it is a "different gospel." (Galatians 1:6-9) Let's see for ourselves as good Bereans (Acts 17:1 1).
Let's start with the idea of Jesus in Hell. Charismatics, not understanding the Born-Again Jesus Gospel or its implications, try to make their case by saying, "Well of course Jesus went to Hell. Doesn't it say so somewhere in the book of Acts?"
While it is true that Jesus went to Hell, the real area of attention needs to be narrowed down to this: Did He go there to pay for our sins? Payment is the issue, not visitation. What kind of payment? According to Joyce and others, it's the same kind of payment that took place on the cross! Perhaps even better.
"He paid the price there."
"Jesus paid on the cross and in hell." (Underlining in the original)
"...Jesus took your place in hell."
"Jesus went to hell for you." (Underlining in the original)
Enemies Of The Cross
Can anything be clearer? Does it sound as if she is "glorying in the cross" (Galatians 6:14)? Rather, she and the others share the one common denominator of every cult in the whole world; they disparage the cross. Thus they are "enemies of the cross of Christ (Philippians 3:18).
Remember this definition. An enemy of the cross is one who implies that the work of Jesus Christ on the cross was insufficient for our salvation. Period! Their destiny? Destruction! (Philippians 3:19) Thus, no enemy of the cross can be my brother in Christ.
Look into it. Every cult disparages the cross. And the cross being the core, the very crux of the Gospel makes any message that disparages the cross "another gospel."
Think about it, Jehovah's Witnesses view the work of Christ as simply a down payment for their salvation. It was not sufficient in and of itself. It must be supplemented with a regular serving of field service, literature placement, baptism, obedience to dress and hair codes, meeting attendance, and a myriad of good works on the "salvation treadmill."
On top of that they claim that the cross is a pagan symbol. Likewise, Mormons don't display crosses. Why? They believe that part of the atonement was accomplished in the Garden of Gethsemane where "He sweat as it were great drops of blood." That's why a Mormon who commits murder must have his own blood shed (i.e., firing squad) in order to atone for that particular sin (the dreaded Blood, Atonement doctrine).
Reverend Sun Myung Moon teaches that Jesus failed His mission on earth by allowing Himself to be crucified.
"If Jesus had not been crucified, what would have happened? He would have accomplished the providence of salvation both spiritually and physically."
Oneness Pentecostals teach that it's essential for one to be baptized in order to be saved. The finished work of Christ was not enough. The Church of Christ teaches this also. Both groups also add many works that salvation hinges upon. Is it any wonder they have no assurance of salvation.
Roman Catholicism teaches Purgatory. Harmless? It's a place of fiery torment equal to the flames of Hell where one is purged (i.e., cleansed) of his sins, according to official Roman Catholic doctrine. In fact, the Council of Trent anathematizes (curses) anyone who believes that the cross is sufficient. Does His blood or fire cleanse us? Enough said. What is more important, the cross is relegated to Plan A while Purgatory is Plan B for those to whom the cross is insufficient.
Let me define a couple of words I've been using to help make my point. Disparage means to belittle, diminish, lessen, reduce, devalue, discount, impair, lower, degrade, minimize, curtail, or decrease.
To better illustrate this, let's say that a man says, "I love my wife with all my heart. (Then whispering) But listen, don't tell anybody, I've got a girlfriend on the side." Does he really love his wife with all his heart? How can he? It's double talk. He has just disparaged her. Her value to him is less than I 00%.
The word insufficient means not enough, not ample, unsatisfactory, or inadequate. The adulterous man's wife is not sufficient to meet his needs.
"It Is Unfinished??"
Did Jesus say, "It is unfinished!"? The Greek word for "it is finished' means "paid in FULL." What do the cults claim? It was not paid in full. It was merely a down payment.
But does the Word/Faith movement teach about the cross?
"When Jesus cried, 'It is finished!' He was not speaking of the plan of redemption. There were still three days and nights to go through before He went to the throne ... Jesus' death on the cross was only the beginning of the complete work of redemption." -- Kenneth Copeland (underlining added.)
Compare that with this,
"...when Jesus uttered his last words on the cross, saying, 'It is finished' (John 19:30), he did not mean that the whole purpose of the providence of salvation was attained through the cross. ...Therefore, Jesus meant by the words 'it is finished' that he finished establishing the basis for the providence of spiritual salvation through the cross, which was the secondary providence of salvation." Sun Myung Moon in his work, "Divine Principle" pages 151 and 152.
Do you smell a rat? Copeland also stated, "Satan conquered Jesus on the cross..." Holy Bible: Kenneth Copeland Reference Edition page 129 (italics in the original). Who should we believe, Jesus or Kenneth? Does he glory in the cross or disparage it? He not only implies that it is insufficient, he's blatant, bold, and arrogant about it.
Some are apt to argue that Copeland does glory in the cross. While it is true that he has tapes and books on the cross and the blood of Christ and talks a good talk, it is also true that he disparages the cross. He is no better than the adulterous husband who speaks "highly" of his wife. In the book of Galatians, Paul portrays men, like Copeland, who accept "another gospel" as "confused, led astray, and bewitched."
Likewise, Joyce is just as confused. On page 38, she writes, "...that sinless blood had been shed to pay for man's sins." She cannot both glory in the blood and disparage it at the same time. Either it paid for our sins or it was merely a down payment. Because it can't be both, which is it? If you read the works of the major cults you'll find at times that they too speak "highly" of the cross and the blood of Christ.
If we can let Copeland and his ilk off the hook, we must also do the same for every cult that disparages the cross. For, "Differing weights and differing measures -- the LORD detests them both." (Proverbs 20: 1 0 NIV) Either all enemies of the cross are destined to destruction or they are our brothers in Christ. We can't be choosy based on who gives us the best "Holy Ghost goose bumps."
Does Joyce have a problem with the Born-Again Jesus Gospel? Apparently not. She endorses the rantings of one of the worst enemies of the cross in the world and makes it the main theme of her book, which, by the way, she offers at her meetings to lost souls who are looking for the truth.
Hot-line Or Hot Air?
Worse yet, Charismatics claim to have a "hot-line" to heaven. They receive Words, tongues, prophecies, interpretations, dreams, and visions from "God" yet why hasn't He bothered to warn them that they're following false brothers, wolves in sheep's clothing, enemies of the cross?
Can you imagine a parent watching their son eat rat poisoning and instead of warning him of the danger he's in, patting him on the head and saying, "I love you son. Keep loving me. I'll always be with you. I will never leave you or forsake you"? Not on your life! That parent's first words would be of warning, not praise. To my knowledge, nowhere at any time has God ever given one of these "great men or women of God" a public word of rebuke for teaching heresy. Why not? Because they have turned their backs on God by rejecting His finished work upon the cross.
I believe this fact alone voids their claim of having the true gifts of the Spirit. I do not discount the existence of the gifts today, I distinguish the difference between the real and the counterfeit. Those with the "gifts" ought to be the most discerning. The facts prove just the opposite.
Many Charismatic leaders (Paul Crouch for one) endorse Oneness Pentecostals as our brothers in Christ yet Oneness Pentecostals deny and attack (not question or doubt) the doctrine of the Trinity which classifies them as a cult. Just because Oneness Pentecostals seem to "speak in tongues" and have the "gifts of the Spirit" doesn't necessarily make it so. God does not bless cults with His precious gifts. And Charismatics would know better if they truly had a hot-line to heaven.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) claims to have the gifts of the Spirit. Yet just a few years ago the leadership of the church purchased forgeries of what they thought were documents written by Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of their religion. They paid over one million dollars directly to the forger because the documents were potentially damaging to the church.
Their intent was to lock them up in a vault in Salt Lake City, Utah as they have had a habit of doing for decades. I ask those of you who are Charismatic, does this not void their claim to having the gifts? If this is so, what makes them any different from Charismatic leaders who, having the "gifts," do not realize they are following bonafide enemies of the cross? Perhaps the line is dead.
Charismatics are very divisive over their "gifts." They will tell you implicitly and explicitly that they are the super Christians because they have the gifts. So this is not a test that's to be put off easily. Their "gifts" either work or they don't. The bottom line: They fail the test with flying colors.
Lost And Found Deity
Paul not only warned the Corinthian church of accepting "another gospel," he warned them of accepting "another Jesus." (2 Corinthians 11:4) On page 38, Joyce writes,
"For three days He was alone paying for our sins as "only a man." (underlining in the original)
Here again she regurgitates the teachings of Kenyon and Copeland. It's all part of the myth of Jesus losing His Deity on the cross, going to Hell as a mere man, being reborn in Hell, receiving back His Deity and thus becoming God once again. Since we are reborn, we too (they reason) become "little Gods" (which she does not go into in her book).
You would think that Hebrews 13:8, which Charismatics are so fond of quoting, would prevent this sort of heresy since it says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Charismatics frequently quote it but do not read out of it what is there (exegesis) but rather read into it what is not there (eisegesis).
Instead of reading that He is immutable (unchangeable,) they read it to mean that "Jesus Christ does the same (things) yesterday and today and forever." Whenever they quote this verse, its usually in reference to healing and miracles. This is just another example of "anointed" Scripture twisting.
And no, Jesus does not do the same things today that He did in the past. Let Charismatics provide just one person who having been born blind can now see with 20/20 vision.
It is heresy to say that at some point in time, God ceased being Triune in nature. When the nature of Jesus is changed, "another Jesus" is produced. Keep in mind that the Gospel is a Who and a what: Who is Jesus and what did He do. The theology of the Word/Faith movement, as clearly spelled out in Joyce's book, has both "another Jesus" and "another gospel." Lest Charismatics think this a minor point, let me point out that the majority of all cults have "another Jesus." Not good company to be in.
Counterfeit Scripture & Bible Butchering
Next, as if enough hasn't been covered, is attributing things to God that He never said. Can Joyce or any other Charismatic give me "chapter and verse" where God said "Let Him go"? Or as others have said, "It is enough!" Is this not mythology? Are their ears itching so much that anything goes?
Charismatic creation of Scripture is nothing new. Who hasn't heard the "verse," "No one can come to the Father except the Spirit draws him"? When confronted with this "verse," pastors Jeff Perry (St. Louis Family Church) and Rick Shelton (Joyce's pastor-Life Christian Center) both reference it as John 6:44.
The New International Version quotes Jesus as saying, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."-John 6:44. Where do you see the word "Spirit"? And who is drawing us to whom? Sloppy? For a new believer, yes. For a minister of the Gospel, unthinkable! Teachers will be judged more strictly for their handling (and mishandling) of God's Word.
Firstborn = Reborn = Born-Again???
Remember, a non-Christian is reading this book and thinking that Joyce Meyer knows her Bible better than he does so what she said He said must be so. This is not commendable. There are no heavenly brownie points for putting words (and doctrines) in God's mouth.
Did the Jesus you and I serve and worship become "the first born-again man"? I believe it was Kenneth Copeland who played biblical sleight-of-hand in a paragraph of one of his books where he mentioned "firstborn" then "reborn" then "born again" in reference to Jesus' visit to Hell. Jesus being the firstborn has absolutely nothing to do with being born again. It has to do with His preeminence. Anyone who has studied to show himself approved unto God, properly handling the word of truth would not make such a grievous error.
Satan seems to enjoy twisting the meaning of the word "firstborn." He's taught Jehovah's Witnesses that it means that Jesus is the "first and greatest creation of Jehovah God." Ask any JW how he knows that Jesus was only a mere man and they'll always bring up the fact that He is called the firstborn. Smell a rat yet?
When I first became aware of this aspect of the Born-Again Jesus Gospel, red flags went up immediately. My Jesus was not born-again. God does not need to be born-again.
Joyce, if she had "studied to show herself approved unto God, a workman who does not need to blush with embarrassment, properly handling the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15 Walter Martin paraphrase), would never believe or teach such damnable heresy. The very fact that one would follow enemies of the cross is proof that they have not studied to show themselves approved unto God.
What is needed is not a defensive attitude but rather repentance. Neither Joyce nor local Word/Faith pastors Rick Shelton, or Jeff Perry have repented of either teaching or allowing to be taught to their flocks such heresies and for allowing them to follow enemies of the cross. They have not renounced those who continue to teach them, nor have they denounced such damnable doctrines. How then can they win this city (St. Louis, MO) for Christ, protect their flocks, equip the saints, or contend for the faith? They haven't, they aren't, and they can't. Period!
Extracting Some, But Not All, Of The Cancer or How Not To Edit Heresy
I was notified by a mutual acquaintance that Joyce was corrected by a pastor about this book before he would allow her to speak at his church and as a result, made some changes in her book. I soon purchased the "Second Printing - May, 1993" edition and found that it was definitely revised but found that no mention is made of the fact. (Up to this point, I have been quoting from the "First Printing - August, 1991" edition.) The only chapter that appears to have been changed is chapter four. Some of the Born-Again Jesus Gospel was altered or deleted but the bulk of it remained.
Assuming Mrs. Meyer believes that error has been deleted and that the book is now clean, this prompts me to ask: Why hasn't she warned anyone to trash the old book? Why hasn't she recalled the original edition? Why hasn't she made a note in the new edition of her errors in the previous edition? Why has she opted to let the changes go by quietly unnoticed? Has she explained to her pastor what she's done so that he may publicly repent of allowing her to fall into and teach such error in her previous printing of the book?
Or were the changes simply insignificant? Not really worth mentioning? In reality, the changes were very significant. She deleted the following bold faced words from the second printing,
"As God's Spirit left Him." (page 37)
"...this truth I am presenting." (page 37)
"Jesus took your place in hell." (page 37)
"...the Father filled His spirit again. For three days He was alone paying for our sins as "only a man." The price had to be paid by someone just like us." (page 38, underlining in the original)
"He went to hell to pay the debt you owed,. (page 4 1)
These deleted portions are indeed significant. They represent a mix of doctrines peculiar to the Word/Faith movement's Born Again Jesus Gospel. (An odd deletion is the "I am presenting." Whether she explicitly states that she is presenting it or not, she is still "presenting" it. And it doesn't become more "truth" by this deletion.) But perhaps they are merely minor issues in Joyce's mind. By her editorial actions, she seems to be saying, "Yes, having Jesus' atonement in Hell is error but nothing to lose any sleep over. In fact, it's so trivial that I only edited part of it out of my book." If that's her thinking, I must ask, is "another gospel" which sends the lost to Hell a doctrine to be treated as a secondary doctrine along with the rapture, baptism, eschatology, tithing, or the gifts?
I don't know why she made any changes at all because the book is still poisoned with heresy. If she had a grip on the Gospel (as the title of the book declares), she would have publicly repented of all the error published in the first printing, renounced the Born-Again Jesus Gospel, and denounced those who still teach it.
Some would argue that it's no big deal. Let's check to see what the word of God has to say.
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Galatians 1:6-9
Benny Hinn changed his mind about the Born-Again Jesus Gospel (but treated it as if it were merely a non-essential issue-no repentance was thus necessary.) Perhaps Joyce should at least take a tip from Benny.
Ask former Jehovah's Witnesses if they left the Watchtower or former Mormons if they left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because these organizations hold a wrong view on some peripheral doctrine or because they proclaim a counterfeit-gospel. They leave as fast as possible because the gospel that's presented is counterfeit and therefore deadly.
Summary??
"Summary" is the subchapter heading on page 40. It covers eleven points (though unnumbered) which would be considered the Gospel if it weren't for the seventh point. It reads, "He went to hell in your place and gained victory there, triumphing over the enemy. (Acts 2:3 1)" Since she notes Acts 2:3 1, let's see what she's referring to. The King James Version reads,
"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."
The King James Version reads,
"Foreseeing, he spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption."
Hades, the realm of departed spirits, consisted of at least two compartments: one for the wicked and the other for the righteous. We see this clearly illustrated by Jesus Himself in the story (not parable) of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-3 1). The area for the righteous was also called Paradise before Jesus moved its occupants to the third Heaven (Ephesians 4:8-10 and 2 Corinthians 12:2,4).
Jesus told the thief on the cross, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). How do we reconcile passages like these? In interpreting a Scripture like Acts 2:3 1, we use a rule of interpretation called the Full Counsel of God, or Scripture Interprets Scripture. With it we look at all the passages that deal with a given subject to determine what is being said and taught. It's nothing more than looking at the overall context of the entire Bible.
We also use a rule that says that vague, unclear, and problematic passages are interpreted by the clear passages, not the other way around. These basic rules of interpretation are part of what's called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. As a Charismatic, I was never taught anything about hermeneutics. Properly handling the word of truth is foreign to the Word/Faith movement. And it shows.
Having said that, did He pay for our sins and redeem us in Hell or upon the cross? It's really very simple. The question is answered by the super-abundance of Scriptures that points us to the cross. Most notably, Paul gloried in the cross, not hell.
Adding just one work to the finished work of the cross disparages the cross thus creating "another gospel." Although the Born-Again Jesus Gospel does not require any additional work on the part of the repentant sinner for his salvation (as the cults teach), the result is the same. Any work, whether Jesus' torment in Hell or our works implies that the work of Christ upon the cross is insufficient. Only enemies of the cross disparage the cross. Not true Christians. Except for her statement, "He went to hell to pay the debt you owed," her summary could be called the Gospel. What a shame.
"You Put Up With It Easily Enough"
That's what Paul said to the Corinthians for receiving a "different gospel, Jesus, and Spirit" (2 Corinthians 11:4). Why then should we put up with someone who proclaims a counterfeit-gospel just because they are within the flock? Is spiritual cyanide less deadly when it's within the camp of God than when it's on the outside? Should we sit idly by wringing our hands? Or worse yet, continue to fellowship with those trapped within the kingdom of the cults without so much as giving a word of warning?
To those of you who are in the Word/Faith movement, ask yourself what "gospel" you accepted in order to be saved? Was it the Born Again Jesus Gospel? (i.e., the death, burial, torment in hell, born-again in hell, and bodily resurrection of Christ for our sins.) Or was it the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ for our sins? (I Corinthians 15:1-4) Which one do you proclaim? Which one will you defend?
Is it true that,
"There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place"? (still referring to hell and not the cross - page 37, Second Printing - May, 1993)
The Apostle Paul thinks not. And most of all, God thinks not. Joyce Meyer has stood the Gospel on its head. She has perverted it beyond recognition. And beyond its ability to save.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20
And woe to those who put "another gospel" for the Gospel! Mrs. Meyer would not have made such a grievous statement if she had not gotten her theology from a brood of vipers, enemies of the cross of Christ.
Finding Christ is certainly "The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make" but is the information provided in Joyce Meyer's book helpful or damnable? Can an intelligent decision be made based upon it? I think not. Just as a counterfeit life preserver is useless no matter how strongly and sincerely one clings to it, a counterfeit gospel is useless no matter how much faith or sincerity is attached to it. Nor is Joyce Meyer's book "A complete and thorough understanding of what it means to be born again." It is anything but.
If Charismatics and others who are sympathetic to the Word/Faith movement are mad as a result of this review, they should be mad at those who promote heresy-not those who expose it. As the Apostle Paul has well said,
"Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?" Galatians 4:16
If I might slightly reiterate my earlier reply at #126: virtually everything you posted, kansas_goat_roper, is interpretative of doctrine formed over the Church's history, and not necessarily necessary in and of itself for Salvation.
Rather, the gospel accounts of Christ's apostles abandoning him, with only women at the cross and tomb, consistently drives, and I believe, reinforces the role of women as the first christian witnesses.
Hence it seems, if these women had not so borne that primal realization of the Resurrection forward, there'd likely have been no church to subsequently form the doctrine you mention for.
He is the righteous judge who will pass sentence upon those who disobey and reward those who obey. God is no respector of persons ( Romans 2:11 ). From the OT to the NT we see this as a fact:
2Ch 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Col 3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
1Pe 1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
In regards to being elected of God, I believe that many are called ( invited or appointed ) but few are chosen. Meaning there are few that receive the salvation made available to them in comparison to the many that He sends His message to. Election for the believer isn't necessarily an issue of God specifically choosing him or her to salvation. Our election comes because of our spiritual union with Christ. Once we accept Christ as Savior the Spirit's work of sanctification transfers us into Union with our Savior so that we share His destiny, His election. ( I believe that this parallels yourt own description of God's elect ).
I simply cannot find that God has "hand picked special individuals" for salvation and some for eternal damnation. His word, from cover to cover is contrary to that idea. The following paragraph is from the Canons of Dordt, Forst Head of Doctrines, Article 7. I must say that the bible clearly refutes this doctrine as it is false:
Election is the unchangeable pupose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit; to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy, and for the praise of the riches of His glorious grace. God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.
It is not "mercy" to provide salvation to a few. It is mercy to provide salvation for ALL ( and He did ).
**********************************************************************
Yes, I agree that God's ways are Higher than mine and His thoughts better than mine. I believe that we are to put on the mind of Christ. ( mind being "nous" meaning the mind, comprising alike the faculties of perceiving and understanding and those of feeling, judging, determining or the intellectual faculty, the understanding ).
Paul tells us : I Cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1Cr 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Please don't take this as me saying that we will ever know more than God because we won't. However, Jesus plainly addresses the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven being revealed to us in Matt 13. We can better understand the person or nature of God revealing to us His thoughts and ways.
The New Testament says very little about pastors. In fact, as a term for ministers, the word (poimen) appears only once in Ephesians 4:11. While the word is familiar to use from modern usage, we are uncertain as to the exact role of pastors in the New Testament or how they functioned in relation to elders, bishops and other leaders. Probably all these roles were fluid, being in the formative stages.
The meaning of the New Testament word "pastor" is "shepherd," and so we think of pastors as leaders who tend a flock. Psalm 23 speaks of the Lord as our Shepherd, teaching, leading, guiding and providing for us. Jesus called Himself the Good Shepherd, setting a model for all true spiritual leaders who lay down their lives for the sheep. When Jesus called Peter the second time after His resurrection, He asked him to "feed my sheep." Thus, pastors are to nurture people and help them to grow.
While the New Testament does not tell us specifically what pastors did, we do know that both men and women provided spiritual leadership for churches which met in their homes. In the early church, almost all Christian meetings were held in private homes. Among these house-church pastors was Mary, the mother of John Mark, who later became a missionary with the apostles Paul and Barnabas. It was to her house church that Peter came in Acts 12:12 after an angelic visitor set him free from prison. The Bible says that many had assembled there and were praying, no doubt petitioning God for Peter’s release. Their prayers were answered!
Another house church leader was Chloe, according to I. Corinthians 1:11. In that passage, Paul relates that "some of Chloe’s household " had reported that there was strife among the Corinthian Christians. Those Chloe sent with this message to Paul were probably Christians who were members of her house church. They may have been relatives or household servants, or they may have been Christians who lives in the area and gathered at her home for worship. These believers would have come under Chloe’s spiritual guidance, care and protection. But Chloe’s influence extended beyond her own flock. Evidently, she had sent a deputation from her house church to Paul, who knew her or knew of her, to inform him of the need for correction in the Corinthian church. She was a trusted leader and source of reliable information for the apostle Paul.
Acts 16:14-15, 40 tells us about Lydia, Paul’s first European convert to Jesus, who offered Paul hospitality in her home. Scripture relates that when Lydia was converted, her entire household was baptized and that her home became the first meeting place for European Christians. Lydia was a business woman who traded in valuable, dyed garments. The fact that Scripture mentions no husband or father indicates the high prominence of this woman. Since first-century Greek and Roman women were almost always under the legal guardianship of a husband or father, Lydia may well have been a wealthy widow or only daughter who inherited her parents’ estate. Thus, she became the head of her own household. She either managed the family business or developed a business of her own after her husband’s or father’s death.
The Book of Acts says that Lydia’s entire household was baptized upon her conversion to Christ. This follows the custom of ancient Roman families. Under paganism, household gods were believed to protect and help the family and its enterprises. Thus, it was the duty of members of these households, relatives, slaves, and their families to worship the gods adopted by the head of the household.
Roman households were often large since almost all businesses were home-based before the industrial age. Those who worked for Lydia in her business, and possibly others engaging in the trade who belonged to the dye-makers guild, would have been among her converts. By virtue of her position as head of household, Lydia had the opportunity and responsibility to lead all of its members to Christ and then to establish and lead them in the faith. This put her in a similar position to the modern-day pastor. To fulfill part of this responsibility, Lydia invited Paul to come and preach in her home.
Paul and Silas established their gospel mission headquarters in Lydia’s house and no doubt preached there regularly. After their release from prison, Scripture tells us that they returned to Lydia’s and, having met with the brethren, exhorted them. This may have been the first church planted on European soil, and its pastor was a woman.
Another New Testament woman who led a house church was Nympha (Col. 4:15). Paul sent greetings to her and to the church at her house. Some modern scholars try to get around this by saying that Nympha was "just" the hostess, not the pastor. If that were so, who did pastor her house church, and why would Paul so rudely fail to greet the pastor as well as the hostess?
Another woman house-pastor was Prisca, or Priscilla, as Paul often affectionately calls her. Romans 16:3-5 expresses his gratitude to her and her husband, Aquilla. This couple had a team ministry and worked with Paul in planting the gospel in Rome, Corinth and Ephesus. In his Roman letter, Paul sends greetings to the church that met in their house, which they pastored together.
It has often been pointed out by Greek scholars that Paul’s practice of mentioning Prisca’s name before that of her husband emphasizes that she was the more prominent leader. Just as today we would address a letter "Mr. and Mrs.," so in ancient times, the husband’s name was customarily given before the wife’s. Prisca must have been an outstanding Christian worker for Paul to have reversed custom by honoring her in this way.
The brief, personal letter II John is addressed to a church and its pastor, a woman with whom the apostle John evidently had warm ties. John opens the letter, "to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth. . ." "Children" was a term of endearment that John used for Christian believers. (I. John 2:1, 12, 18, 28). "Truth" was a term John often used in his writings for the revelation of Jesus (See, for example, John 1:14, 17; 8:32; 16:13; I. John 1:6-8; 2:4, 21; 3:19; II. John 4; III John 3-4.) The word "elect," while it usually refers to believers as chosen by God for salvation, can also be used to refer to the ordained clergy. The second-century church father Clement of Alexandria does this repeatedly in his Stromata book 6, chapter 13. John’s use of these terms plus the general tone of the letter with its pastoral direction as in verse 10 demonstrate that II John was written to a Christian church, not just a family.
While scholars agree that II John was addressed to a church, most balk at the idea that the "elect lady" was its pastor. They try to get around this by spiritualizing these terms, saying that they are metaphors for the church. This approach ignores the universal Greek practice of naming a letter’s recipient(s) at the beginning. Without an addressee or location, it cannot explain to whom or how the letter was delivered. It also ignores the plain sense of the text. Additionally, its logic is inconsistent because if both the "lady" and the "children" stand for the church, how could the letter be written to "the church and the church?" If so, to which church is it written? No one writes a letter to a symbol but to a real person or group.
Interestingly, both of the Greek words in II John 1 which are ordinarily translated into English as "elect" and "lady" were also used in the first century as women’s names just as today we might name a girl "grace" or "Missy." A number of Greek manuscripts of II John 1 use initial capitals for either or both of these words, indicating personal usage.
In the second century, Clement of Alexandria identified the "elect lady" as a specific individual. He wrote that II John "was written to virgins. It was written to a Babylonian lady by name Electa." (Clement of Alexandria, Fragments from Cassiodorus IV, 1-2 tr. by William Wilson, Fathers of the Second Century, A. Cleveland Coxe, ed., New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885, vol. 2, p. 576.) Although he does not elaborate, it appears from this statement that Clement had heard of this woman and knew that she was the spiritual leader of virgins. Why he called her Babylonian is a mystery since Babylon had ceased to be a nation many generations earlier. Perhaps she was of Babylonian descent or came from pagan Rome, which Christians often derisively called "Babylon." Electa may have been the leader of an order of Christian virgins, or Clement may have assumed that her followers were virgins because of the growing emphasis on asceticism in his day, a half-century after the letter was written.
During the early and medieval periods of church history, it was very common for devout women to dedicate their homes for Christian worship and to attract other similarly minded people to join them. Usually, the converts who came under the pastoral care of such women were household members or women colleagues. In Electa’s case, if Clement is correct, they were dedicated Christian virgins who constituted one of the order of the clergy in the ancient church along with widows.
This brief letter closes by conveying a greeting from the church of another woman—"the children of your elect sister greet you." This woman was evidently their pastor since John again uses the term "children" which in his writings means Christians under the care of a spiritual leader. Also, he calls her "elect" which either means ordained or chosen.
An interesting possibility exists that these two women pastors were natural sisters as well as sisters in the Lord and in His work. We know from the late third and early fourth century church historian Eusebius that in his later years, the apostle Philip and two of his four daughters who were prophetesses lived at Hierapolis in Asia. A third daughter lived in Ephesus, the city where John preached. Unlike the other apostles who were martyred decades earlier, the apostle John lived to a very old age, possibly over 100 years. Close ties existed between John, the church at Ephesus, and Philip and his daughters. It is possible that after Philip’s death, John wrote his second epistle to one of Philip’s surviving daughters still ministering at Hierapolis (the "elect lady" or "Lady Electa") and conveyed greetings from her sister’s church at Ephesus. If so, we have in II John evidence that these daughters of Philip established and led Christian communities.
The fourth-century church historian Eusebius quotes a letter written by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, bishop of Rome between 189-198 AD. "For in Asia, also, mighty luminaries have fallen asleep, which shall rise again at the last day, at the appearance of our Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall gather again all the saints. Philip, one of the twelve apostles who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters. Another of his daughters, who lived in the Holy Spirit, rests at Ephesus. Moreover, John, that rested on the bosom of our Lord, who was a priest that bore the sacerdotal plate, and martyr and teacher, he also rests at Ephesus." Quite possibly, the "elect lady" and her "elect sister" of II John are two of these "mighty luminaries" who "lived in the Holy Spirit" and whom Polycrates and Eusebius commemorated. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book III, chapter. xxxi tr. by Christian Frederick Cruse, Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Book House, 1955, p. 116.)
And this man's credentials are............? That you agree with Him or that he disagrees with Meyer?
Have you ever listened to Meyer yourself?
An example of her ministering on "everyday" subjects is as follows:
"We all have emotions, and they are here to stay. I believe one of the greatest goals of every believer should be "Emotional Stability". We should seek God to learn how to manage our emotions and not to allow them to manage us. An excerpt from the definition I found in Webster's Dictionary states that emotions is "to excite and to move out." Think about this: You're out shopping, but you've gone for just a specific item you' re in need of. You've made a commitment to the Lord to get out of debt. You've promised Him to tithe and give offerings as He directs. You've agreed to really watch your spending and not purchase things that you don't need. But now while shopping, you discovered that the stores were all having a big sale of 50 percent off the already marked down merchandise. What would you do? You get excited. The more you look around, the more excited you get. Emotions are rising higher and higher. They begin to move out (as the definition said), and part of the devil's plan is for you to follow your emotions.
God wants you to use wisdom. Wisdom says wait a little while until the emotions settle down and check if you really believe it's the right thing to do. The bible says in Colossians 3:15 to be led by peace in making decisions. Don't let your emotions make your decisions. A good statement to remember is this: "Wisdom says wait; emotions say hurry."
An emotional person is defined as: "One easily affected with or stirred by emotion; one who displays emotion; one with a tendency to rely on or place too much value on emotion; one whose conduct is ruled by emotion rather than reason."
Be honest with yourself in this area; and if you believe that you are not managing your emotions, begin to pray and seek God about "Emotional Maturity."
In the past years of my life, I experienced a lot of ups and downs, or what we call "Mood Swings." Picture a swing, up - down, up - down, up - down. This kind of behavior was hard on me, as well as, everyone around me. I felt bad about myself. People out of control always feel unhappy about themselves. God created us to operate with a free will. We choose what we will do and what won't do. There is a God-given desire inside the believer to do the right thing. When we allow our flesh to rule, we know we are out of control; however, we are created to be operating in the fruit of self-control.
Self-control is a freedom not a bondage. You are free to use wisdom, free to obey God, free to follow the leading of the Spirit. You are free not to be pushed around by your feelings. You don't have to do what you feel like doing. You are free to do what you know is wise.
Self-control will help you feel better about yourself. When I was experiencing so many ups and downs, it also made me physically tired. It takes a lot of energy to go through all kinds of emotional changes. I noticed, as God helped me to learn to manage my emotions, I also enjoyed more energy. Maybe you should stop and ask the Lord if that's why you've been so tired lately. Do you let your emotions manage you?
My moods were hard on my family too. After I was well on my way to stability, my husband, Dave, revealed a secret. He told me that during the years I was acting up, while he would be driving down the highway after work at night, most of the time he would ponder on the thought, "I wonder what she will be like tonight?" It is really very sad to imagine a person to have to be put through that kind of situation. My husband has always been very stable, and it is very comforting to live with someone you can depend on to be level and in control all the time. He was very happy for me, and himself also, when I began getting victory in this area. Children also need a stable atmosphere to grow up in. Stability is really an important issue for all of us.
Jesus is referred to as "The Rock". That says in itself that you can depend on Him to be stable, the same Jesus all the time—always faithful, loyal, true to His Word, and mature, not one way one time and another way the next time.
Jeremiah 17:8 and Psalm 1:3 both instruct us to be like trees firmly planted. I Peter 5:8-9 (Amplified) teaches us to be well-balanced, temperate (self controlled) to keep Satan from devouring us. To withstand him, it says to be rooted, established, strong, immovable, and determined. Philippians 1:28 tells us to be constant when Satan comes against us. Psalm 94:13 says God wants to give us power to stay calm in adversity. All of these are referring to being stable. Make "Emotional Maturity" a priority goal in your life.
I'm going to close with these statements for your consideration:
1. He who lives by emotions lives without principle.
2. We cannot be spiritual (walk in the spirit) and be led by emotions.
3. Emotions won't go away, but you can learn to "Manage Your Emotions."
4. You can have emotions, but you can't trust them."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.