Posted on 01/14/2015 5:13:53 AM PST by Gamecock
If you want to get people mad at you (I mean really mad) just criticize Beth Moore’s teaching. Trust me on this. Many a young pastor has found himself being roasted over the rhetorical bonfire of women’s ministry meetings for daring to raise concerns about Beth Moore’s rather exotic approach to biblical interpretation.
Well I agree that the point she was making could be derived from Scriptures. The question is why did she not do that then. Seems to me these self proclaimed prophets put themselves on par with the NT apostles. Not even close. The apostles backed up their words with the Power of God.
If this lady performs miracles for the Glory of God's Gospel, we should take note. Until then, she is just another self proclaimed "profit."
You nailed it. These Osteen type ministries feed off of eisegesis.
Wonder how Moore handles the Apostle Paul's teachings of women in the church. Thinking she is not a fan of that.
Never heard of her.
I think I saw that one.
The guy was at a revival meeting and started warning about false prophets, and she’s nodding and amening, until he said that SHE was the false prophet, and then she grabbed the mic back and had her bodyguards usher the guy out.
First issue is unlike the men you listed Moore doesn’t come close to their knowledge of Scriptures. She doesn’t even have a degree in Bible studies.
Here’s some of Beth Moore’s teaching:
Exegetical Errors
If Mrs. Moore is exercising the position of a Bible teacher, then she should be able to properly exegete Scripture. Unfortunately, she is guilty of frequent allegorization where she misapplies Scripture. To allegorize means to use a symbol as representing a more complex idea. The problem is that with allegorizing, Scripture can be made to say almost anything. Let’s take a look at a few of the many examples of Beth Moore’s improper Biblical interpretive practices.
Quote: Speaking of the demoniac of Matt. 8:28-34, she says, “before we proceed to the next point, consider a fact revealed in verse 27. The demonic didn’t live in a house. He resided in the tombs. I wonder how many people today are living “in the tombs”? I know a woman who is still so oppressed by despair that decades after the loss of a loved one, she still lives “in the tombs,” (Jesus, the One and Only by Beth Moore, B & H Publishing Group, Nashville, Tenn., 2002, p. 143-144).
Response: The Biblical text is about Jesus’ authority over the demonic realm, not about people living “in the tombs.” The two demoniac’s that were living in these dark places were exceedingly violent (v. 28). They said to Jesus, “What do we have to do with you, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” Jesus then commanded the demons in these two men to leave, and they went and entered into swine (vv. 31-32). The point of the text has nothing to do with people who are held in bondage by emotional traumas. Beth’s allegorizing the text to make it fit her need is a wrong use of the text.
Quote: “As stated in the introduction to this book, we may not always be sure God wills to heal us physically in this life of every disease or prosper us with tangible blessings, but He always wills to free us from strongholds. You will never have to worry about whether you are praying in God’s will concerning strongholds. “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free,” (Gal. 5:1)(Praying God’s Word: Breaking Free from Spiritual Strongholds by Beth Moore, B & H Publishing Group, Nashville, Tenn., 2009, p. 36, italics in original)
Response: The context of Gal. 5:1 is dealing with being under the law (Gal. 4:21). Paul contrasts children under the law and “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28). Paul was warning the Galatians about being enslaved to the Mosaic law, which is why he says in the next verse “ . . . that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.” Beth Moore has improperly applied a verse, taking it out of its original context and meaning, and used it in a manner for which it was not intended—as the Biblical context demonstrates.
Quote: After writing about literal Barbie dolls used in churches, put in pews, with hands lifted up, she mentioned how one of them had a gnawed off leg. “Though the group didn’t know it, they’d hit the nail right on the head, or maybe the leg right on the stump. That was me all right. No, I don’t have a missing leg, but if you could see me with your spiritual eyes, surely at least one of my legs was gnawed off at the knee. Ephesians 4:27 warns, “Do not give the devil a foothold.” Uh, too late. Satan has wounded me, but he hasn’t devoured me. He got the leg, but he’s never gotten the thigh, though goodness knows he wanted it. I may walk with a spiritual limp, but thanks be to God, who holds me up and urges me to lean on Him, at least I can walk. So can you,” (Get Out of That Pit: Straight Talk about God’s Deliverance by Beth Moore, Thomas Nelson, Nashville Tennessee, 2007, p. 87).
Response: The context of Eph. 4:27 is this: “Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one of you, with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. 26 Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not give the devil an opportunity. 28 Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.” The stronghold in Ephesians is about sinning in anger or theft, etc., something the devil can use against us and others. Beth Moore’s “spiritual eyes” about being gnawed off at the knee and not giving the devil a stronghold have nothing to do with the text. Beth should not take any text that “might” look like a phrase that could fit a “spiritual” lesson and then use it to make a point. She is failing to exegete Scripture properly. She is teaching to just apply verses willy-nilly in whatever direction seems fit. This is dangerous.
Scripture means what it means in context. Beth Moore needs to examine the context of Scripture, note what it actually says, and then stick to it. She should not take a word or phrase in Scripture, expand it, throw in a “spiritual” meaning not taught in the verses, then misapply it in a five-step how-to-get-out-of-your-pit-of-depression pop psychology speech that is housed in Christian terminology. Proclaiming God’s Word is a very serious matter and all Bible teachers should seek to be as faithful to Scripture as possible—lest we violate God’s Word and mislead His people.
At first, I thought you meant that they GAVE her a good review, as in approved of her.
I read it and they clearly don’t.
I’ve encountered a lot of her kind of thinking in Christian circles. Too many people are too willing to accept at face value anyone who claims to be speaking for or about God.
All someone has to do is preface it with *God told me* and it’s about on par with Scripture, and God help you if you doubt it or speak against it.
OTOH, ironically, one such person, when I related something that I felt very strongly God spoke to me, said to me that she questioned whether it was really God I had heard from since it didn’t fit in with what SHE thought God would be like in regard to the situation.
The sad part is Moore probably doesn’t know she is teaching Modalism.
How could she know? She has no theological training or education.
I’ve spent 100’s of hours studying Beth Moore’s teaching and I have found that she does indeed teach modalism. I had been trying to convince our pastor that we should not use her studies. I was listening to a Bible study video and noticed that some of her statements sounded suspiciously nontrinitarian. So I did lots of reading about Oneness doctrine (from their camp and ours) to see how it is expressed by their scholars and what scripture they use to advance it. Beth Moore was very intentionally teaching Oneness doctrine in the video. She was saying that the Son is “God Himself” and other Oneness ideas from the Messianic texts of Isaiah. She was also teaching that our healing is guaranteed by the atonement—but only spoke of physical and emotional healing, not spiritual healing. This is WOF theology as well as Pentecostal. It is the ‘health’ portion of the health and wealth gospel. She teaches quite a bit of WOF theology in various places as well. I also found a Life Today TV video where she was teaching Oneness (nontrinitarian) theology. I sent the evidence to my pastor just recently and he CC’ed the entire staff, elders and ministry team, officially disallowing Beth Moore materials to be used. I met with quite a bit of resistance from various people (church leaders) before finally getting to this point. Demons don’t like it when their doctrine is exposed and squashed, but its sometimes surprising to see who the resistance comes from.
I think that Moore does know that she is teaching nontrinitarian doctrine and she is intentional about it. I used to think she was just ignorant, but after the 100’s of hours I’ve put in I’ve seen that she is intentional and consistent. She’s a smart and crafty woman. I now think of her as this generation’s Bill Gothard, who has now been fully exposed as a false teacher (read the book about him).
Beth Moore does not believe in the trinity, but she is stealth in her teaching of Oneness doctrine and avoids using their more obvious language, like “modes” and “manifestations”. The most overt oneness teaching I’ve heard from her in in a video hidden within one of her Bible studies. How many pastors and elders will ever watch that?! And it’s not available for scrutiny on the internet. I had to pay to download it from Moore’s site. That’s the way she runs things—everything for a fee. I wanted to see it once when I took a close look at the viewer’s guide for that video and noticed that she didn’t appear to say anything about Christ’s atonement for sin. In fact, I’ve noticed that she very much avoids preaching about the atonement throughout her ‘ministry’. She really doesn’t teach the person and work of Christ, not of the Spirit.
Good work.
These guys talk about Beth Moore at the 36 minute mark. The whole video is worth watching though. You can see the stuff they are talking about taking place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJQyd3LKwlQ
Interesting video. I’ve been aware of quite a bit of that but it’s interesting to hear it all strung together on a timeline and evaluated by someone who’s very knowledgable about end times prophesy. Nice collection of apostates there.
“Why Beth Moore and Not Me?”
Because she is not God’s super-special, beloved girlfriend like Beth Moore is (to hear Beth tell it).
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.