Curious About Freeper's Views Of Joyce Meyer

"You got me plum-hypnotized," Elmer Gantry says to Sister Sharon Falconer in that film/novel.

She seems pretty good at down-home preachin'. And while not a classic beauty, she yet ministers out a fair amount sex appeal, along with the word.

I post this to philosophy since, as I know she has a fair amount of, at least internet detractors, it yet seems that her ability to project the Word, is as anchored in the integrity of faith as any other TV preacher I can recall.

In short though, Meyer lately fascinates me, and I'm curious what other Freepers may think. Particularly Evangelicals!

I would guess she well wished she had never written that text. I would also guess that through maturity {growing in spiritual knowledge} she put it aside. Christ went into hell the Bible says as much but her understanding was off. I understand it was to minister to the dead before his cruicificition{sp} and scripture supports it.

May the Lord help us all if every single thing we ever said scripture wise or other was to be an everlasting comdemnation if we are wrong. I do not believe there is one person in this thread or for that matter in this all to human world who can claim that type perfection. If your post is accurate her hand was called and she was corrected. She may have well said her points were wrong. Even the greatest among preachers and teachers are guilty of being wrong. A point made by Catherine Marshall about her husband in one of his sermon notes or cues that went something like this. "Point is weak wave arms".

How many times are to ask forgiveness for a sin and repent? One time and it is remembered by GOD no more. Are we to keep reminding a brother or sister of their past sin? No where is that taught either it only serves to destroy or harm the brother or sister. She it seems was rebuked on this matter in a Biblical way and unless she continues to preach it that should be the end of the matter. I've only listened to Joyce Meyers in the past few of years myself off and on it's not a regular event. I would say a total of about 6-12 times in a 4 year time frame. It would be interesting to know which preacher actually corrected her. I think I can guess.

From just what I can gather on line reading an independent biography she has no church but is rather a speaker. She has a headquarters for that ministry that from the description of it is far reaching. She evidently was Lutheran and has since left that church.

To dispell some stuff flying around in here her husband is the administrator of Joyce Meyer Ministries. As well her son oversees the ministry’s missionary outreach. She began her ministry by leading home Bible studies, when she and her family joined the independent charismatic church they still attend.

I copyed and pasted some of this info for accuracy from christianbook.com. While all are free to question and debate her teachings some of which I don't follow as well. For a while it got to be a character assination of Joyce Meyer herself.

I think she's a Christian and I don't think GOD is through with her nor is she the anti-Christ nor gay as one poster suggest. GOD as he did with others he chose to minister his word will set her straight in his time. The main problem with some of the web sites that do wholesale critques of ministries they take a very liberal interpitation of the term charismatic along with other labels such as cult and use it as an all inclusive paint brush to mark all who if as much as a dot or jittle is out of place with their own churches or personal doctorines as such. One of them critised in these type sites as being charismatic is a matter of fact a critic of many of their practices especially Holy Laughter and a few other matters. He will also well call the hand of every other church in equal terms on matters including his own congergation. He does not claim his as the only one going to heaven either. That type of teaching angers me the most from anyone. No the book's passage is not correct as I believe the Bible to be but for that I will not toss away the whole ministry of what she's accomplished either. Wait till the master completes his work with the clay before naming it. It's still an imcomplete work.

As for Christ work not being complete at the cross? GOD's plan of salvation was complete at that time and the sacrafice exceptable unto GOD. A Blood sacrafice is excepted or rejected at the time it is offered. It is finished. Christ at that time felt again the presence of GOD.

Scripture points out him ministering in hell that is not the same thing as being reborn there. It had another purpose which is clearly stated. When Christ arose on the third day he said do not touch me for I have not yet gone to the father. Where was he then? The Bible says where he was and Christ said in John he had not yet accended to the father. John Chapter 20 says that. Hell was concured on the cross through the sacrafice. Christ endured every pain & temptation we could know including not experiencing feeling the presense of GOD while on the cross.

eternal security. . . . 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.

I have not heard it put quite this way, but I suppose you could consider it a selfish act. And yet, not. Perhaps you could consider it a prideful act not to accept Christ as Savior instead. Those who reject Him believe they're good enough on their own, not having done anything "wrong enough" (i.e., murder, etc.). But Christ said if you have committed murder in your hearts, you are guilty of the same as committing the act.

If that is her only flaw then good for her. I, myself, have many, many flaws. Being in the same vein with other's such as Hinn, Hickey, Roberts, Copeland, is not the worst she could do. I happen to have learned a lot from EACH of these as have I also learned much from Charles Stanley, Spurgeon's writings, and many other denominational teachers. Do I bnecessarily agree with everything or even understand they teach? No. I don't agree 100% with any man. I agree 100% with God only ( not that I always want to *grin* ). I am grateful to the teachings of Meyer for she has used practicality in her explanations.

You know, I am not fond of the Catholic church. I have my own personal difficulties with a lot of the doctrines that they adhere to. However, when my father was dying I saw more of the Holy Spirit at work through the sweet nun who came to sit with him ( voluntarily )than through anyone I knew at that time. At first, I immediately dismissed her because she was Catholic. I thought such horrible thoughts about her because of the teachings of her faith. As my father grew weaker and closer to death, that little woman ministered to his and my family's spirit so selflessly. She had such love and compassion for him and us. She would read the word and pray. Oh how that little woman prayed. That little woman exuded the love of Christ. She would sing sweet hymns to comfort him when he was in agonizing pain. I was so convicted of my ill feelings towards her that I confessed my feelings to her and asked for her forgiveness. She would have never known that I felt this way unless I had told her but God knew. She was the epitome of servitude. She bore a lot of my family's burdens that she did not have to. It was this little woman who was with me as I said goodbye to the man I loved the most in this world. She prayed with me through the hurt and pain of doing so. As my dad was taken from our home the morning he died, I was really in a pathetic state. The undertaker came to get his body and I literally stood in front of the door, blocking it, begging them to not take him. I was begging anyone who would or could to bring him back. This was my daddy. This little woman arrived ( at 5:05 AM )and helped me through what, to this very moment, I deem the worst experience I have ever had. She ministered to my soul through her words of wisdom, prayer and simply her being willing to allow me to unleash my pain on her. When my father's memorial service came around she was there. All I wanted to do was take sedatives to get me through it. I didn't care about God and I didn't want to lean on Him. I hurt too bad. Besides, I felt that He had let me down by letting my daddy die. This woman bore the brunt of my hostility towards God and anyone I came into contact with. Yet, she loved me enough to tell me that what I was feeling was natural, that God understood and He still loved me. I thank God for that little Catholic woman everyday. Maybe to you this isn't important but I was at the point in my own anger and grief that I told God I no longer wanted anything to do with Him. That I couldn't trust Him to answer my prayers. Basically, I wanted to reject Him. Thank God for this woman's ministry to the hurting. Why do I use this example? Because I learned NOT to categorize people by their denominational affiliations.

Last Friday we had to return to the hospital so my wife could have some coronary testing done. It was the very same hospital {Catholic origin} we were married in 16 years ago. Despite all the changes of modern medicine and technology one thing in that hospital remained the same. Every hall way, every waiting room, even in the patients rooms there was a form of ministry. You still saw nuns some in their traditional wear some not that you knew were. This is the only hospital I have seen where a clear extensive effort is made to deal with both the medical and spiritual needs in more than just a general way.

Like you I may not agree with their doctorine 100% but I see them as dedicated souls to their ministry. Ministry goes far beyond the pulpit that it is but a small portion of it. All can be as such no requirements to meet except what is done through a pure heart in the name of the Lord. The nuns can at times of need be far wiser than many a preacher in prostatant churches I've heard.

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.