RE: Beth Moore (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

OLEEguacamole -> RE: Beth Moore (4/5/2008 4:12:48 PM)

according to the commentary posted above, the verse in revelation, crystal does fit the concept. God's judgements, baptism etc. so the metaphor in the OT is okay, but not the NT?

and is not lying and interpretation two different things?



mushhead -> RE: Beth Moore (4/5/2008 6:03:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash

according to the commentary posted above, the verse in revelation, crystal does fit the concept. God's judgements, baptism etc. so the metaphor in the OT is okay, but not the NT?

and is not lying and interpretation two different things?

Your being too vague. What concept does crystal fit?

As for metaphors in the NT: I did not even mention the validity of metaphor in the NT. What I did mention, over and over again, is that it is not legitimate to turn a metaphorical sea into a literal sea. You do understand the definition of "metaphor;" don't you? If so, then you would know that the very suggestion of a literal metaphor is an oxymoron.

As for the difference between lying and interpretation: yes their is a difference. However, Moore knows that it is not legitimate to tell people that the metaphorical casting of sins into the sea is an actual event involving the Crystal Sea. If she does not, then she has no business teaching God's word.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: Beth Moore (4/5/2008 7:32:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash

according to the commentary posted above, the verse in revelation, crystal does fit the concept. God's judgements, baptism etc. so the metaphor in the OT is okay, but not the NT?

and is not lying and interpretation two different things?

Your being too vague. What concept does crystal fit?




repost from #43


quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash

that concept could be from this:
Re 4:6
and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind.

from Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary on Rev 4

Compare Job 37:18, "the sky . . . as a molten looking-glass." Thus, primarily, the pure ether which separates God's throne from John, and from all things before it, may be meant, symbolizing the "purity, calmness, and majesty of God's rule" [ALFORD]. But see the analogue in the temple, the molten sea before the sanctuary in this sea depth and transparency, but not the fluidity and instability of the natural sea (compare Revelation 21:1). It stands solid, calm, and clear, God's judgments are called "a great deep" (Psalms 36:6). In Revelation 15:2 it is a "sea of glass mingled with fire." Thus there is symbolized here the purificatory baptism of water and the Spirit of all who are made "kings and priests unto God." In Revelation 15:2 the baptism with the fire of trial is meant. Through both all the king-priests have to pass in coming to God: His judgments, which overwhelm the ungodly, they stand firmly upon, as on a solid sea of glass; able like Christ to walk on the sea, as though it were solid.

from Micah 7:
7:18
Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity And passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession ? He does not retain His anger forever, Because He delights in unchanging love .
7:19
He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot.Yes, You will cast all their sins Into the depths of the sea.
7:20
Jeremiah 31
31:34
"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."



mushhead -> RE: Beth Moore (4/5/2008 8:31:40 PM)

quote:

Compare Job 37:18, "the sky . . . as a molten looking-glass." Thus, primarily, the pure ether which separates God's throne from John, and from all things before it, may be meant, symbolizing the "purity, calmness, and majesty of God's rule" [ALFORD]. But see the analogue in the temple, the molten sea before the sanctuary in this sea depth and transparency, but not the fluidity and instability of the natural sea (compare Revelation 21:1). It stands solid, calm, and clear, God's judgments are called "a great deep" (Psalms 36:6). In Revelation 15:2 it is a "sea of glass mingled with fire." Thus there is symbolized here the purificatory baptism of water and the Spirit of all who are made "kings and priests unto God." In Revelation 15:2 the baptism with the fire of trial is meant. Through both all the king-priests have to pass in coming to God: His judgments, which overwhelm the ungodly, they stand firmly upon, as on a solid sea of glass; able like Christ to walk on the sea, as though it were solid.

The vast majority of the above explanation is wildly speculative; and even if it were completely accurate, that does not change the fact that the metaphorical sea that our sins are cast into is not the literal crystal sea.

I'm not sure if you are trying to defend Moore's teaching, but the only such a defense can be legitimate is for you to provide a passage of Scripture that identifies the metaphorical sea as the literal crystal sea. As we both know, this cannot be done as no such scripture exists. Now let me show you the absurd teachings that can flow from Moore's hermenuetical methods.

1- We are told that our sins will become "white as snow."
2-We are also told that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills.
3-Yet another passage informs us our sins cast from us "as far as the east is from the west."
4-And finally we are told that the New Jerusalem is shaped like a cube.
quote:

1- “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; (Isaiah 1:18b)

2- for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. (Psalm 50:10)

3- as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
(Psalm 103:12)

4- The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. (Revelation 21:16a


If Moore's teaching that God throws our sins in the Crystal Sea is a legitimate teaching, then isn't it just as legitimate for me to say:
1-Because the New Jerusalem is shaped like a square that has specific dimensions; then I can say our sins that are cast as far away as the east is from the west, is not referring to an infinite distance, but instead is referring to casting our sins to the furthest most eastern side of the New Jerusalem?
2 And because God talks about owning the cattle on a thousand hills, I can teach that the eastern side of the New Jerusalem is where those thousand hills are located?
3-And finally, because our sin is made white as snow, I can say that when Jesus' followers enter the New Jerusalem they can look toward the eastern most region of the city and see the 1000 hills capped with snow that is actually the forgiven sins of the inhabitants of the city?

Of course I can teach this, because accurately portraying what God actually says is no longer the standard for acceptable teaching. In the new paradigm of biblical teaching, I, following Moore's example, can take actual biblical teachings and principles and make up whatever scenerio my fertile imagination can create.

Alas, this does create a problem...more specifically a contradiction: how do the sins get from the bottom of the crystal sea to the tops of the thousand hills? (Beware: fertile imagination in operation - proceed at own risk!) The solution to the problem is easy. The sin saturated water in the Crystal Sea evaporates, forms clouds, and then, just as in natural weather events, the clouds break open, and it snows on the tops of the hills where it is much colder than in the lower elevations of the New Jerusalem.

Yeah, me thinks this is, by far, the better way to interpret the scripture!



all_i_do -> RE: Beth Moore (4/5/2008 8:37:17 PM)

I am not really fond of her style of teach, but that should not even be the point or not if she is a good teacher - is she teaching the word as God wrote it should be the question.

If the Crystal Sea thing was the only stretch she made I could probably live with her teaching, but it's not - she stretches things quite often.

As you can see from some of the post even well seasoned Christians can get caught up in the stretch and what about all those out there that don't know the word very well - they are going to think there is a crystal sea that is holding all of our sins - and no that might not hurt their walk, But what if Ms. Moore starts falling in to the whole emerging teachings like so many other SBs are doing and starts teaching that Jesus dying on the cross was child abuse. This isn’t a stretch - she fell in to the contemplative prayer movement pretty fast - until someone pointed out to her that is was not of God, most good teachers have discernment about bad teachings.


Stretching God's word is not good in any form or fashion.



mushhead -> RE: Beth Moore (4/5/2008 8:48:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: all_i_do

I am not really fond of her style of teach, but that should not even be the point or not if she is a good teacher - is she teaching the word as God wrote it should be the question.

If the Crystal Sea thing was the only stretch she made I could probably live with her teaching, but it's not - she stretches things quite often.

As you can see from some of the post even well seasoned Christians can get caught up in the stretch and what about all those out there that don't know the word very well - they are going to think there is a crystal sea that is holding all of our sins - and no that might not hurt their walk, But what if Ms. Moore starts falling in to the whole emerging teachings like so many other SBs are doing and starts teaching that Jesus dying on the cross was child abuse. This isn’t a stretch - she fell in to the contemplative prayer movement pretty fast - until someone pointed out to her that is was not of God, most good teachers have discernment about bad teachings.


Stretching God's word is not good in any form or fashion.

alll_i_do,
great post...I couldn't say it better myself if I tried. Oh yeah! I did try.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: Beth Moore (4/5/2008 10:15:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

quote:

Compare Job 37:18, "the sky . . . as a molten looking-glass." Thus, primarily, the pure ether which separates God's throne from John, and from all things before it, may be meant, symbolizing the "purity, calmness, and majesty of God's rule" [ALFORD]. But see the analogue in the temple, the molten sea before the sanctuary in this sea depth and transparency, but not the fluidity and instability of the natural sea (compare Revelation 21:1). It stands solid, calm, and clear, God's judgments are called "a great deep" (Psalms 36:6). In Revelation 15:2 it is a "sea of glass mingled with fire." Thus there is symbolized here the purificatory baptism of water and the Spirit of all who are made "kings and priests unto God." In Revelation 15:2 the baptism with the fire of trial is meant. Through both all the king-priests have to pass in coming to God: His judgments, which overwhelm the ungodly, they stand firmly upon, as on a solid sea of glass; able like Christ to walk on the sea, as though it were solid.

The vast majority of the above explanation is wildly speculative; and even if it were completely accurate, that does not change the fact that the metaphorical sea that our sins are cast into is not the literal crystal sea.

I'm not sure if you are trying to defend Moore's teaching, but the only such a defense can be legitimate is for you to provide a passage of Scripture that identifies the metaphorical sea as the literal crystal sea. As we both know, this cannot be done as no such scripture exists. Now let me show you the absurd teachings that can flow from Moore's hermenuetical methods...



ahhh, so commentaries are not part of studying scripture in a sound way.

did she say it was a literal sea? the scriptures that say our sins were burried in the sea, do not pause to say(BTW, just a metaphor).

but the real problem here is this:
quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead
mrsdash,
I don't remember what she cited for her reasoning. It seems - from my best effort at remembering - that in a discussion about the forgiveness of sin, she just said it, without making any effort at proof texting.

i f one is going to call some one a liar and accuse them of teaching the Word in error, they should biblically speaking be able to soundly demonstrate that fact.

further if we are going to say she might teach falsely in the future so call her false or dangerous now?
that's so not right.
accusing a believer of sin or false teaching is serious. it should be done with all biblical integrity.



all_i_do -> RE: Beth Moore (4/5/2008 11:35:35 PM)

not sure what Mushhead will say, but commentaries are just that and when you read one you know that your reading someone's opinion.

Beth Moore doesn't make that distiniction - she stretches the scripture and states it as that is the way it is, good teachers always tell you when they are sharing their opinion.



mushhead -> RE: Beth Moore (4/6/2008 12:25:05 AM)

quote:

ahhh, so commentaries are not part of studying scripture in a sound way.

ditto to all_I_do's response.

quote:

did she say it was a literal sea? the scriptures that say our sins were burried in the sea, do not pause to say(BTW, just a metaphor).

Yes, she said it was the literal sea. There is no doubt the sea into which our sins are cast is a metaphor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash
but the real problem here is this:
quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead
mrsdash,
I don't remember what she cited for her reasoning. It seems - from my best effort at remembering - that in a discussion about the forgiveness of sin, she just said it, without making any effort at proof texting.

i f one is going to call some one a liar and accuse them of teaching the Word in error, they should biblically speaking be able to soundly demonstrate that fact.

further if we are going to say she might teach falsely in the future so call her false or dangerous now?
that's so not right.
accusing a believer of sin or false teaching is serious. it should be done with all biblical integrity.

Demonstrate what? Demonstrate that the teaching is unbiblical or demonstrate that she actually taught it? As for my memory: you should not be confused by what I am saying. I do not remember the details of the study, but I remember clearly that she said God throws our sins into the Crystal Sea. That is the jist of my part in this discussion. That teaching is false.

As for the accusation that I am calling her a false teacher based on what she might teach in the future:
I have not said a single word about anything she might teach in the future. Everything that I have said to you on this subject has been about the "crystal sea" teaching. And, as I said in an earlier post, that alone would not cause me or my wife to take issue with her. It was only after she did the same thing in subsequent studies that we finally decided we could not participate in her studies. I also have heard her take the same liberties with Scripture in her personal appearances. So, not only have I refrained from talking about what she might do in the future, I also did not come to my conclusions about her based on one isolated incident.

As for calling her a liar: Websters defines a lie as:
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression


Moore definitely made a statement that was both false and misleading. I cannot speak about why she did this, and frankly it doesn't matter. I can only assume that she did so because she thought the vision of God throwing our sins into the Crystal Sea that is spread out before the throne would increase the impact of her message. But whatever her reasoning, it is clear that her knowledge of the Bible precludes her being ignorant of the fact that her statement was wrong. In other words, she knew what she was saying was not true - and that is the classic defintion of a lie.

As for calling someone a false teacher must be done with Biblical integrity: you are correct. However, I did not say that Moore is a falst teacher. I said that she taught falsely in this incident. And in one post that I offered near the beginning of this thread, I said the same thing I just wrote (above): the "Crystal Sea" incident was not the only time she taught something that is untrue.

In any case, I have provided explanation after explanation of how this teaching is false, and why the hermenuetical method Moore applies is dangerous. Absent any evidence that her teaching on the subject is actually Biblical, I stand by my conclusion that she has taught falsely and lied about the content of God's word.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: Beth Moore (4/6/2008 1:09:04 AM)

the bibles words: sins thrown into the sea. where does that state metaphor? are we just suposed to know? and why do we assume moore was lying and saying a literal sea?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead
mrsdash,
I don't remember what she cited for her reasoning. It seems - from my best effort at remembering - that in a discussion about the forgiveness of sin, she just said it, without making any effort at proof texting.



joeshappywife -> RE: Beth Moore (4/7/2008 4:12:33 PM)

quote:

Beth Moore doesn't make that distiniction - she stretches the scripture and states it as that is the way it is,


While I agree that she definitely uses her spiritual creativity, I disagree that she always, or even most of the time, states her ideas as fact. I have done several of her studies and to the best of my recollection, any time that she begins to describe something her sactified imagination has come up with, she puts all sorts of disclaimers in front, in the middle and at the end of it. I hear her wanting her listeners to realize that her creativity, which was given to her by God, is only that though...creativity.

I must admit that the specific reference to the crystal sea is one I am unfamiliar with, so I cannot say how emphatically she makes this claim, but I don't feel that she should be characterized as a teacher that mishandles God's Word.



stampinlady -> RE: Beth Moore (4/8/2008 9:32:30 AM)

quote:

but I don't feel that she should be characterized as a teacher that mishandles God's Word.


I agree. She's no different than any preacher on a Sunday morning adding his 2 cents in. I don't care for her animatedness( is that a word) but I have read a few of her books and was truely blessed by them.



mushhead -> RE: Beth Moore (4/10/2008 9:50:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joeshappywife

quote:

Beth Moore doesn't make that distiniction - she stretches the scripture and states it as that is the way it is,


While I agree that she definitely uses her spiritual creativity, I disagree that she always, or even most of the time, states her ideas as fact. I have done several of her studies and to the best of my recollection, any time that she begins to describe something her sactified imagination has come up with, she puts all sorts of disclaimers in front, in the middle and at the end of it. I hear her wanting her listeners to realize that her creativity, which was given to her by God, is only that though...creativity.

I must admit that the specific reference to the crystal sea is one I am unfamiliar with, so I cannot say how emphatically she makes this claim, but I don't feel that she should be characterized as a teacher that mishandles God's Word.

joeshappywife,
first let me say that it is a good thing that you are a happy wife (I like your screen name). The incidents that I am referring to are very old. I haven't payed any attention to anything Moore has done for more than a decade (except her involvement with the "contemplation prayer video" that she apologized for), so I cannot speak knowledgeably about how she has grown in her minsitry. If she now clarifies where she is using her "sanctified imaginiation," then I have no problem. However, she did not do that in the cases I am referring to.

I do agree that labeling her as someone who mishandles the word of God is better than calling her a false teacher. Personally, I think she is a very gifted teacher who, as I said previously, taught falsely about some things.
I say that because I want to be very, very, clear that I do not consider her to be a false teacher. Her core doctrine is sound.



Jeffo -> RE: Beth Moore (4/11/2008 1:08:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead
(except her involvement with the "contemplation prayer video" that she apologized for)


I'd like to read about this. Is there anything on the web about this? Thanks.



Kat_D -> RE: Beth Moore (4/11/2008 1:41:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffo

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead
(except her involvement with the "contemplation prayer video" that she apologized for)


I'd like to read about this. Is there anything on the web about this? Thanks.


According to THIS, she has retracted her apology.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: Beth Moore (4/11/2008 2:12:40 PM)

has anyone here actually watched this video?

info here:

http://www.crosswalk.com/1386003/

http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/article_info.php?articles_id=4848



mushhead -> RE: Beth Moore (4/11/2008 9:15:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kat_D

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffo

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead
(except her involvement with the "contemplation prayer video" that she apologized for)


I'd like to read about this. Is there anything on the web about this? Thanks.


According to THIS, she has retracted her apology.

Kat_D,
I don't have time right now to read the link you provided, but did she really retract her apology? Did you read her apology? If so, then what do you think about her retracting - especially in light of what she said in her apology? It seems incredible that she would even try to retract those statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrsdash

has anyone here actually watched this video?

mrsdash,
Yes. Not only have I watched it (but not in the last year or two), I own a copy of the video. It is a theological wreck. Contemplative prayer is actually a form of eastern meditation that is virtually identical in practice with transcendental meditation. Tony Jones, who is the director of emergentvillage.com acknowledges in his book "Soul Shaper" the eastern pagan religious influence on the practice, yet he still claims it is a Christian practice.
quote:

"Further, it's linked with the recent popularity in the West of Eastern religions, resulting in books with such titles as Christian Zen and Christian Yoga. While this makes some Christians nervous, others revel in the fact that God is revealed in all truth, no matter the religion of origins." (Tony Jones; Soul Shaper; pg. 87)

The problem with this is that we do not need contemplative prayer as a means to connect more deeply with God. More troubling is the willful disobedience to God's word which tells us that, not only are we not to participate in the practices of false religions, we are not to use the practices of false religions to worship the One True God (Deut. 12:4-5 and Duet. 12:29-32).

One last thought...It is very troubling that more Christians are not equipped to recognize the error in Jone's claim that pagan (false) religious systems contain some truth about God. They do not!



stellaluna -> RE: Beth Moore (4/14/2008 3:14:05 PM)

The Beth Moore studies are quite popular here among a lot of churches, but I've never been involved with one. I saw a video of her at one of our local Christian bookstores recently and I don't think I could sit through a whole one. I need my teachers to take it down a notch.



Melitac -> RE: Beth Moore (4/15/2008 1:01:09 AM)

I tried to read one of her studies. I'm not sure which one it was, but the first sentence in the first chapter was something like; "Is it working for you? You belief system, that is...?

This opening really bothered me. Because Chrsitianity isn't supposed to "work" for us. It is meant for Gods glory and meant to "work" for Him only.

She had her chance with me and blew it with that opening line in that one book.

Then I began to notice how faddish she was and never looked back at her again.

My discernment bell just rings off the hook whenever I see her name....
I guess thats just me. But I'm ok with it.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: Beth Moore (4/15/2008 2:32:56 AM)

or.... B. was talking about having a belief system that matched the word of God accuratley and correcting any error in your belief system.



Melitac -> RE: Beth Moore (4/16/2008 12:12:49 AM)

I am sure you are right.

But my point is that the very first sentence turned me off.
It just hit me as very snippy and snotty.

Christians that I admire and respect have never had to be, or have they ever been, snippy or snotty.



OLEEguacamole -> RE: Beth Moore (4/16/2008 12:24:24 AM)

i think we react to different personalities, differently. it's likely many women find her to be anything but snipp/snotty. some personalities seem to clash, some compliment etc. [:)]



LaurainAL -> RE: Beth Moore (4/16/2008 7:52:44 AM)

Did I mention that I will be attending a Beth Moore conference in June? I have never seen her "live". I wonder how animated she will be?

I am looking forward to it anyway.



Kat_D -> RE: Beth Moore (4/16/2008 10:55:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaurainAL

Did I mention that I will be attending a Beth Moore conference in June? I have never seen her "live". I wonder how animated she will be?

I am looking forward to it anyway.


One of my friends just went to see her. While, as most in this thread have stated, she found nothing wrong with anything Beth taught, she did say that the whole presentation from worship on, was pretty much orchestrated to play on the emotions of the women in attendance...which is what so many women's conferences do and is the primary reason I tend to stay away from them. It's definitely NOT my thing.

She said one thing that sort of turned her off was when Beth would make a specific point that she really wanted to stress, she would ask the women to look into the eyes of the person next to them and repeat what she had said to that person. My friend felt very uncomfortable with that.

She also said she is extremely animated, theatrical, hyper, and never stops moving during her entire presentation, which is the reason some of us have a hard time watching her.

But, again, she said there was nothing that Beth said that was scripturally off, and she did take away some nuggets that she will apply to her life.



Jeffo -> RE: Beth Moore (4/22/2008 12:50:13 PM)

My wife is going through her Believing God Bible study with DVD in a group she's in. Beth Moore is saying it's important to speak Scripture out loud to repel Satan:

'The tongue has staggering potential to wreak havoc; yet not coincidentally, it also has potential to reap the stuff of heaven on earth. We can be sure that God and Satan are both vying for authority over our mouths. Nothing threatens the enemy more than a believer with the Word of God living and active on her tongue, ready to apply it to any and every situation. James 3:2 tells us that no part of the body is harder for the person to submit to godly authority than the tongue. Therefore, we should not be surprised that nothing possesses more power to reap benefit.'

Saying that God and Satan are both vying for authority over our mouths is getting into very dangerous territory theologically. As far as James, the power of the tongue is in how much it can affect other people. We can speak evil or we can praise God. The evidence of our faith will be partly shown in what we say.

'God ordains that words of faith have more power than thoughts of faith alone. "Say to this mountain, "Move from here to there"'

This passage is referring to lack of faith, not speaking.

She quotes 2Co 4:13 'Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, "I believed, and so I spoke," we also believe, and so we also speak,'

This is referring to proclaiming the gospel.

I read the book Believing God and liked it a lot. She has some good insights. But she uses Scripture fast and loose, similar to Rick Warren and takes things in isolation and way out of context to try to prove her own theory.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI