# Beth Moore Split Thread



## Bandguy

LadyFlynt said:


> Beth Moore, I do not.



What about Beth Moore is objectionable? I don't know much about her personally, but know that she is big amongst some ladies in my church.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Beth Moore is big, she is warm fuzzies, she uses some pop psyc running on emotionalism, she is not Reformed in any manner of speaking that I can find, and she teaches men.


----------



## Davidius

LadyFlynt said:


> Beth Moore is big, she is warm fuzzies, she uses some pop psyc running on emotionalism, she is not Reformed in any manner of speaking that I can find, and she teaches men.



 

She speaks at a big conference for college students each year (in reference to the last part). 

wasn't there something about word-faith as well?


----------



## LifeInReturn

LadyFlynt said:


> Beth Moore is big, she is warm fuzzies, she uses some pop psyc running on emotionalism, she is not Reformed in any manner of speaking that I can find, and she teaches men.



So how do you *really* feel ?


----------



## Bandguy

Are warm fuzzies a bad thing when teaching women...I have always been under the impression that God created women to be more emotional and therefore, that is the best way to communicate with them. I have never heard of her seeking to communicate with men. That is a new one to me. I have seen her do lots of women's Bible Studies and conferences. Do you have any evidence as to her being non-reformed?


----------



## Bandguy

*Beth Moore*

On another thread, I asked the following question:



> What about Beth Moore is objectionable? I don't know much about her personally, but know that she is big amongst some ladies in my church.



Colleen responded with this:



> Beth Moore is big, she is warm fuzzies, she uses some pop psyc running on emotionalism, she is not Reformed in any manner of speaking that I can find, and she teaches men.



I responded with further questions:



> Are warm fuzzies a bad thing when teaching women...I have always been under the impression that God created women to be more emotional and therefore, that is the best way to communicate with them. I have never heard of her seeking to communicate with men. That is a new one to me. I have seen her do lots of women's Bible Studies and conferences. Do you have any evidence as to her being non-reformed?



And now here we are with the new thread so that the other one won't go too far off track.


----------



## Davidius

I've often heard the statement about women being created to be more emotional but I've always wondered how true this is. It's never seemed to me to be any more than an assertion. I'd really appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this for me and show me how this is biblical anthropology if it really is. 

As far as Beth Moore teaching men goes, she teaches at Passion, a big conference for college students (men and women), each year.


----------



## Bandguy

David,

Are you married? Have you ever watched Oprah or the View. Watch it and you will see how devoid of logic those shows generally are. Sorry if this offends but they aren't marketing to men.


----------



## Davidius

Bandguy said:


> David,
> 
> Are you married? Have you ever watched Oprah or the View. Watch it and you will see how devoid of logic those shows generally are. Sorry if this offends but they aren't marketing to men.



I'm not offended at all.  Your point is well-taken.

But does that mean that women were created to be less logical and more emotional? I know plenty of irrational men. It just seems to me that we should limit blanket statements about human nature to what the bible tells us. Of course, I'm willing to consider the point because I have to say that it seems that way sometimes. But I'd rather not base generalized judgments on the way things seem if I can help it, that's all.



joshua said:


> Nor are they marketing to the Proverbs 31 lady!


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I've often heard the statement about women being created to be more emotional but I've always wondered how true this is. It's never seemed to me to be any more than an assertion. I'd really appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this for me and show me how this is biblical anthropology if it really is.
> 
> As far as Beth Moore teaching men goes, she teaches at Passion, a big conference for college students (men and women), each year.


You and I are of similar age and a similar station in life but for the life of me I cannot determine how it is that you do not find the opposite sex emotional more so than we are.


----------



## Bandguy

Josh,

I concede that point. You are certainly correct there. But, is appealing to a woman's emotions necessarily a bad thing?


----------



## Davidius

No Longer A Libertine said:


> You and I are of similar age and a similar station in life but for the life of me I cannot determine how it is that you do not find the opposite sex emotional more so than we are.



lol 

See my above reply! I have to agree that sometimes it seems that way but perhaps this is just some result of the Fall. What I'm wondering is if it's a part of Creation. It seems important because it seemed like Joseph was saying that because women are more emotional they should be taught with emotionally-driven material.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> lol
> 
> See my above reply! I have to agree that sometimes it seems that way but perhaps this is just some result of the Fall. What I'm wondering is if it's a part of Creation. It seems important because it seemed like Joseph was saying that because women are more emotional they should be taught with emotionally-driven material.


I've always been told by Reformed ministers that emotionalism is one of the chief reasons women are not permitted an elders or leadership position in the church.

Even look at the secular world and see how Margaret Thatcher or Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton have to surrender so much of their femininity to be taken seriously in the man's game. (Not trying to be sexist just observing)

That being said we do talk to women with gentler tones than we do with our male companions when discussing spiritual matters, my experience anyhow.


----------



## Davidius

No Longer A Libertine said:


> I've always been told by Reformed ministers that emotionalism is one of the chief reasons women are not permitted an elders or leadership position in the church.



The thing is, emotionalism is not the reason Paul gives. He appeals to the Creation order whenever he talks about gender roles, not psychological disposition. 

Again, all I'm asking is whether we should confine generalized statements applying to _all women_ to what the bible says about them.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The thing is, emotionalism is not the reason Paul gives. He appeals to the Creation order whenever he talks about gender roles, not psychological disposition.
> 
> Again, all I'm asking is whether we should confine generalized statements applying to _all women_ to what the bible says about them.


I think creation order was organized with this distinction in mind as well however.


----------



## Davidius

No Longer A Libertine said:


> I think creation order was organized with this distinction in mind as well however.



What I'm saying is, Paul's argument is that "man was created first and woman second." It doesn't seem like a psychological distinction to me. 

Can you show me where it's implied in Genesis that Eve has weaker mental faculties than Adam and is more emotional? No offense, but it's these kind of assertions that give my feminist medieval history professor at UNC ammunition against the Church. Women have suffered all kinds of abuse throughout history because it was assumed that they were less rational and more emotional. If she's going to have the ammunition, I'd at least like to see how the generalization is clearly deduced from scripture.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What I'm saying is, Paul's argument is that "man was created first and woman second." It doesn't seem like a psychological distinction to me.
> 
> Can you show me where it's implied in Genesis that Eve has weaker mental faculties than man and is more emotional? No offense, but it's these kind of assertions that give my feminist medieval history professor at UNC ammunition against the Church. Women have suffered all kinds of abuse throughout history because it was assumed that they were less rational and more emotional. If she's going to have the ammunition, I'd at least like to see how the generalization clearly deduced from scripture.


Sounds like she's getting emotional She is a helper made with wonderful differences than we, the Bible isn't a detailed medical book of human anatomical, chemical and psychological workings but it does tell us that the human condition is a fallen one.

The fall causes a rebellion against the ordained order and that is not something your prof is going to take a liking toward without a regenerate heart.

As for being "weaker" that depends on the arena of ordained function. Certainly men are created stronger physical specimans for matters of field labor but child labor is a trial only a woman could handle, we have different roles, the problem with today's society is that we strip women of their femininity in the name of some perverse dicotomy that acts like self-autonomy equals fulfillment. 

Women are denied their natural longings or pressed by the world and their flesh to forsake their callings as wives and mothers ahead of careers.


----------



## Davidius

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Sounds like she's getting emotional She is a helper made with wonderful differences than we, the Bible isn't a detailed medical book of human anatomical, chemical and psychological workings but it does tell us that the human condition is a fallen one.
> 
> The fall causes a rebellion against the ordained order and that is not something your prof is going to take a liking toward without a regenerate heart.



 Yes, she is _definitely_ over-emotional.

But really, that doesn't really answer my question. I know that the bible is not an anatomy textbook, but you're talking about a generalized psychological nature that has to apply _to every single woman._ For that sort of thing I'd want the testimony of scripture. You said in the post before that you thought irrationality and emotionalism are inherent in women due to the creation order but you didn't show why that it is so. 

And it doesn't have anything to do with her not liking the fact that men were created to be the head of women. It's fact that women have been mistreated and _improperly_ subjugated in history because of the very ideas you're espousing as pure assertions.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Yes, she is _definitely_ over-emotional.
> 
> But really, that doesn't really answer my question. I know that the bible is not an anatomy textbook, but you're talking about a generalized psychological nature that has to apply _to every single woman._ For that sort of thing I'd want the testimony of scripture. You said in the post before that you thought irrationality and emotionalism are inherent in women due to the creation order but you didn't show why that it is so.
> 
> And it doesn't have anything to do with her not liking the fact that men were created to be the head of women. It's fact that women have been mistreated and _improperly_ subjugated in history because of the very ideas you're espousing as pure assertions.


That wording is a bit abrassive,"irrationality" can be begotten by over emotionalizing but they are not necessarily partners.

Women cry in movies, that isn't wrong in and of itself, making important decisions on the whim of what a deceitful heart feels at a certain moment would be however.

No doubt women have been mistreated by we sinful men but we should rebuke ourselves and ask for forgiveness and pray for the wisdom to lead Godly lives and inspire Biblical submission accordingly.


----------



## Davidius

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Women cry in movies, that isn't wrong in and of itself, making important decisions on the whim of what a deceitful heart feels at a certain moment would be however.



I cry in movies. What's your point?



> No doubt women have been mistreated by we sinful men but we should rebuke ourselves and ask for forgiveness and pray for the wisdom to lead Godly lives and inspire Biblical submission accordingly.



What does submission have to do with emotionalism and being illogical? I totally agree that women should be submissive. But this has nothing to do with their mental faculties. 

Anyway, there's probably no point in deliberating this any longer. We've successfully managed to totally hijack the thread about Beth Moore. Maybe someone will come along and bring it back on track.


----------



## turmeric

Can we distinguish here? I don't think God made women like this stereotype of "emotionalism" because God made everything good, and irrationalism isn't good. God made woman with the capability to "read" emotional situations more easily than men, I'm quite sure one reason was so they could deal with little, non-verbal creatures who can't give a rational dissertation to explain where it hurts. That being said, women are usually the ones who teach infants to talk, and in fact, they _do_ teach theology to men - when they're kids! Their brains are designed for a very complex and absorbing task - forming little humans. A man's brain simply isn't designed to do this as well. But I don't think that means that woman is meant to be incapable of rational thought, any more than it's fair to say to your child with a skinned knee, "Billy, you're going to have to lie on the sidewalk and cry till Mommy gets home, because I'm a man and can't nurture!" Now _that's_ irrational!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Bandguy said:


> Josh,
> 
> I concede that point. You are certainly correct there. But, is appealing to a woman's emotions necessarily a bad thing?



It depends. Are you married to her? If not, does this include preaching? 

Unfortunetly, the SBC is actually like that in there preaching(meeting the felt needs of the people rather then telling them truth). =/


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I cry in movies. What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> What does submission have to do with emotionalism and being illogical? I totally agree that women should be submissive. But this has nothing to do with their mental faculties.
> 
> Anyway, there's probably no point in deliberating this any longer. We've successfully managed to totally hijack the thread about Beth Moore. Maybe someone will come along and bring it back on track.


Well your wimpiness is just an anomaly and not the rule of masculinity 
The point being women need an emotional connection that we often do not a woman's intuition can blow my reason away every now and then and make me ponder differently.

We are different, we think differently, we connect differently and it is silly to ignore our differences and how lovely it is when they come together to provide the whole picture, that's what Im saying. But in the state of creation order we make the decisions for better or worse and if we are wise we listen to the woman's input and follow much of it after evaluating it.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I will concede that women are *generally more emotional/emotion based than men. This can be a wonderful thing; it can be a woman's greatest weakness as well. Beth Moore's focus is sooooo on the emotionalism that the concrete focus of scripture gets lost. It becomes about us and how our Heavenly Father/Lover (yes, you read that right...I remember us blushing as Beth discussed the Song of Solomon one time in the manner she did) is doing everything for and because of us rather than the scripture and the gospel being about God's Glory. It's 'as though' God created everything for us, instead of us and everything else for His Glory. I'm not at home right now, I only have the books...do not own the videos (generally those are owned by the churches hosting her studies)...therefore I am not able to pull anything as 'evidence' at this moment other than what I remember from doing her studies (I am not home right now).


----------



## Bandguy

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I cry in movies. What's your point?



Sissy!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

turmeric said:


> and in fact, they _do_ teach theology to men - when they're kids!



Kids aren't men dear.  

The sentence should actually read:

"and in fact, they _do_ teach theology to their kids." (My correction)


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Is Beth Moore like Joyce Meyer?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Andrew P.C. said:


> Is Beth Moore like Joyce Meyer?


She's not THAT bad.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

No Longer A Libertine said:


> She's not THAT bad.




Darn, I was about to lay a smackdown.


----------



## Davidius

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Well your wimpiness is just an anomaly and not the rule of masculinity





Bandguy said:


> Sissy!



 Whatever! 



Andrew P.C. said:


> Darn, I was about to lay a smackdown.


----------



## Bandguy

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Whatever!




I was just kidding man. Don't cry.


----------



## Davidius

Bandguy said:


> I was just kidding man. Don't cry.



I know


----------



## LadyFlynt

OUch!!! No! I wouldn't even think to compare the two!

Beth in her videos claims to be speaking "to women", but if men CHOOSE to sit in on her lessons, that is their choice. My understanding is that she does have plenty of men in her classes, the church permits it, and she has spoken from the pulpit. Regardless of what is "permitted", she should have taken a stand against it. Rebecca Jones is Reformed and writes for women. I have issues with her from a conference I attended where she spoke...I give her credit for refusing to speak with men in the general audience though.


----------



## Bandguy

LadyFlynt said:


> OUch!!! No! I wouldn't even think to compare the two!
> 
> Beth in her videos claims to be speaking "to women", but if men CHOOSE to sit in on her lessons, that is their choice. My understanding is that she does have plenty of men in her classes, the church permits it, and she has spoken from the pulpit. Regardless of what is "permitted", she should have taken a stand against it. Rebecca Jones is Reformed and writes for women. I have issues with her from a conference I attended where she spoke...I give her credit for refusing to speak with men in the general audience though.




What if a man were to sit in with his wife just so he can oversee what is being taught and correct or affirm it?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Bandguy said:


> What if a man were to sit in with his wife just so he can oversee what is being taught and correct or affirm it?



Brother, that's why I'm in disagreement with women teaching in public forums. I do think it's ok for a women's bible study at home though.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Then perhaps there shouldn't be a "ladies" study...considering most of her studies are not "ladies' topics". In Beth's case, it is Sunday School from my understanding, a place where I do not believe families or the Church should be split up during teaching (another ball of wax).


----------



## Bandguy

LadyFlynt said:


> Then perhaps there shouldn't be a "ladies" study...considering most of her studies are not "ladies' topics".



They're not? What topics does she teach?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Examples:

David: A Heart Like His
Jesus: The One and Only
Breaking Free: Breaking the Chains of Bondage
Believing God:
John: Beloved Disciple
The Patriarchs
Daniel
Living Beyond Yourself: Fruits of the Spirit


----------



## Bandguy

Interesting. Is it possible that she takes what scripture teaches about these men and their lives and applies it to ladies issues? Just wondering.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yes and no...she speaks about being a mother, a wife, childhood abuse. But in the same way they can apply to a man...nothing really different (and if you want to hit on the type of abuse, I know men that were abused the same way). Seriously, she seems to turn the focus of Christ into a pop-star sort of crush.


----------



## kvanlaan

To go back a bit, someone queried whether or not it was OK to appeal to a woman's emotions. When dealing with teaching Scripture, I'd have to say no (when dealing with watching Oprah, OK). Appealing to emotions sounds rather "Finney-esque" regardless of the intended goal. The idea of appealing to emotions almost sounds like coersion instead of letting the Holy Spirit get to work.


----------



## LadyFlynt

kvanlaan said:


> To go back a bit, someone queried whether or not it was OK to appeal to a woman's emotions. When dealing with teaching Scripture, I'd have to say no (when dealing with watching Oprah, OK). Appealing to emotions sounds rather "Finney-esque" regardless of the intended goal. The idea of appealing to emotions almost sounds like coersion instead of letting the Holy Spirit get to work.


 

Stated so much better and in fewer words (men vs women  )


----------



## Bandguy

LadyFlynt said:


> Yes and no...she speaks about being a mother, a wife, childhood abuse. But in the same way they can apply to a man...nothing really different (and if you want to hit on the type of abuse, I know men that were abused the same way). Seriously, she seems to turn the focus of Christ into a pop-star sort of crush.



I can certainly understand about how childhood abuse could apply to a man. I don't, however, see how being a wife and mother would apply to men at all. I could never relate to those kinds of things. Is it inherently wrong, however, if she is speaking to particular issues that ladies deal with, such as childhood abuse, and it end up being something that a man could concievably relate to? Should female Bible Teachers such as Moore, Joni Erikson Tada never address issues of abuse in fear that it could possibly relate to a male experience somewhere?


----------



## Bandguy

kvanlaan said:


> To go back a bit, someone queried whether or not it was OK to appeal to a woman's emotions. When dealing with teaching Scripture, I'd have to say no (when dealing with watching Oprah, OK). Appealing to emotions sounds rather "Finney-esque" regardless of the intended goal. The idea of appealing to emotions almost sounds like coersion instead of letting the Holy Spirit get to work.




Your point is well taken. I certainly have no desire to allign myself with the heresy of Finney in any manner. May God forgive me if I have.


----------



## LadyFlynt

No, it's not wrong IF they are teaching women...Moore is NOT just teaching women, she is teaching men and preaches/teaches from the pulpit as well.


----------



## Davidius

LadyFlynt said:


> No, it's not wrong IF they are teaching women...Moore is NOT just teaching women, she is teaching men and preaches/teaches from the pulpit as well.



Yes, she shares the teaching platform with men such as John Piper at the Passion college conference every year, teaching about things that definitely are not female-specific and definitely not to a female audience.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Bandguy said:


> I can certainly understand about how childhood abuse could apply to a man. I don't, however, see how being a wife and mother would apply to men at all. I could never relate to those kinds of things. Is it inherently wrong, however, if she is speaking to particular issues that ladies deal with, such as childhood abuse, and it end up being something that a man could concievably relate to? Should female Bible Teachers such as Moore, Joni Erikson Tada never address issues of abuse in fear that it could possibly relate to a male experience somewhere?



My question is(sincerly): Where do we see female bible teachers in the old days?(Obviously besides the gnostics, which is not true christianity. As Phil Johnson calls it "the mother of all heresies."


----------



## Andrew P.C.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Yes, she shares the teaching platform with men such as John Piper at the Passion college conference every year, teaching about things that definitely are not female-specific and definitely not to a female audience.



John Piper? Seriously?


----------



## Bandguy

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Yes, she shares the teaching platform with men such as John Piper at the Passion college conference every year, teaching about things that definitely are not female-specific and definitely not to a female audience.




Now that is a surprising revelation. I never thought of Piper as one who would go for something like that.


----------



## Bandguy

Andrew P.C. said:


> My question is(sincerly): Where do we see female bible teachers in the old days?(Obviously besides the gnostics, which is not true christianity. As Phil Johnson calls it "the mother of all heresies."




Do you believe that Joni Erickson Tada is a heretic? I am thinking there is something in the Bible about the older women teaching the younger women.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Bandguy said:


> Do you believe that Joni Erickson Tada is a heretic? I am thinking there is something in the Bible about the older women teaching the younger women.


I dont know the girl, brother.

Yes indeed. Titus 2. Not doctrine though. 

3Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, (F)not malicious gossips nor (G)enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 

4so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 

5to be sensible, pure, (H)workers at home, kind, being (I)subject to their own husbands, (J)so that the word of God will not be dishonored.(NASB)


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Bandguy said:


> Now that is a surprising revelation. I never thought of Piper as one who would go for something like that.



I think there needs to be some prrof of this before jumping to assumptions.


----------



## Davidius

Bandguy said:


> Now that is a surprising revelation. I never thought of Piper as one who would go for something like that.



Same here, with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and all.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Same here, with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and all.



Brother, do you have proof? I would really like to see this.


----------



## Bandguy

Andrew P.C. said:


> I dont know the girl, brother.
> 
> Yes indeed. Titus 2. Not doctrine though.
> 
> 3Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, (F)not malicious gossips nor (G)enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,
> 
> 4so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,
> 
> 5to be sensible, pure, (H)workers at home, kind, being (I)subject to their own husbands, (J)so that the word of God will not be dishonored.(NASB)




If they are not teaching doctrine, then what does their teaching have to do with the Word of God not being dishonored? Looking at the list of things they are to teach the younger women, I see some things that are taught within the Word of God. Would you not call that doctrine (e.g. Subject to their own husbands)?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Bandguy said:


> If they are not teaching doctrine, then what does their teaching have to do with the Word of God not being dishonored? Looking at the list of things they are to teach the younger women, I see some things that are taught within the Word of God. Would you not call that doctrine (e.g. Subject to their own husbands)?



Is that not wisdom rather then knowledge?


----------



## Bandguy

Andrew P.C. said:


> Is that not wisdom rather then knowledge?



Of course it is wisdom. It is also doctrinal teachings directly from the Word of God.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Bandguy said:


> Of course it is wisdom. It is also doctrinal teachings directly from the Word of God.



Sure, from a practical standpoint.


----------



## Davidius

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother, do you have proof? I would really like to see this.



See this link:

https://www.268store.com/268store.php?m=product_list&c=9



> Boxed set includes 10 messages from *6 main sessions with speakers Louie Giglio, John Piper and Beth Moore*, plus 4 breakout sessions with Beth Moore, Greg Matte, Tim Elmore and Tim Hughes.



This is how it is at every Passion conference.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> See this link:
> 
> https://www.268store.com/268store.php?m=product_list&c=9
> 
> 
> 
> This is how it is at every Passion conference.




Wow, that really sucks.


----------



## Bandguy

Andrew P.C. said:


> Sure, from a practical standpoint.



Do you not believe that all doctrinal teaching from the Word of God is practical? I do.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Bandguy said:


> Do you not believe that all doctrinal teaching from the Word of God is practical? I do.



Is justicifcation practical?


----------



## Bandguy

Andrew P.C. said:


> Is justicifcation practical?



From Webster's:



> 1 a : of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal <a practical question> <for all practical purposes> b : being such in practice or effect : VIRTUAL <a practical failure>
> 2 : actively engaged in some course of action or occupation <a practical farmer>
> 3 : capable of being put to use or account : USEFUL <he had a practical knowledge of French>
> 4 a : disposed to action as opposed to speculation or abstraction b (1) : qualified by practice or practical training <a good practical mechanic> (2) : designed to supplement theoretical training by experience
> 5 : concerned with voluntary action and ethical decisions <practical reason>



Link


It is certainly practical in that it effectively brings about the purposes of God in the elect, and is not merely a theory. It transforms the lives of lowly sinners. Are you telling me that justification, the salvation of the elect, is not practical for us to know. I think that it is very practical to understand the grace of God in Justification in that it keeps us humble, and glorifies God.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Bandguy said:


> From Webster's:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> It is certainly practical in that it effectively brings about the purposes of God in the elect, and is not merely a theory. It transforms the lives of lowly sinners. Are you telling me that justification, the salvation of the elect, is not practical for us to know. I think that it is very practical to understand the grace of God in Justification in that it keeps us humble, and glorifies God.



this needs another thread brother.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Sooooooo......


Where's all the nice documentation on Beth Moore promoting stuff semi-word of faith-ish, hollarin' about prophecies she's had and other false teachings associated with her ?

They do exist. I've heard them. just waiting for someone to actually post them, since it looks like we've left the original topic.


----------



## kvanlaan

Joseph, don't worry, I am not aligning you (or maligning you, as the case may be) with Finney or anyone else of that ilk. I just don't like the appeal to emotions or any other human feelings. Appeal to the soul *only* with the gospel *only* and let it rest at that. It reminds me of a Towzer quote (I think it was him, anyway): "I can see how much God you've got by how much entertainment you need." 

With things as out of hand as they are in the "Christian" world today (re: Saddleback church's "He Reigns" production, among other things), I think a return to no-nonsense Puritanical evangelism is the way to go. But that's just me and my $.02.


----------



## CDM

See this thread on Beth Moore.


----------



## bwsmith

I haven’t read her material – many Godly women I know have. I “googled” her name and found her website –http://www.lproof.org/about_beth_moore.asp

Her accomplishments seem consistent with a dependance on the Lord Jesus Christ however. And having read through this thread, I wonder that some posters might profit from her instruction?


----------



## BJClark

No Longer A Libertine;



> Women cry in movies, that isn't wrong in and of itself, making important decisions on the whim of what a deceitful heart feels at a certain moment would be however.



Even Jesus wept...was He being overly emotionally because He shed tears? Or is it only the context in which men shed tears that make it different?

And I have known many men (some Christians, some not) who have made important decisions based on 'their feelings' at the time. 

However, women can be more emotional based on the nurturing side God created us with, and it can be both a weakness and a strength. 

My husband can look at things from what seems like a 'logical' perspective, and ignore the emotional aspect and how the decision made will effect everyone involved not only emotionally, but in general. I can look at the same situation, and see both his logical arguements and the good/bad of them, and see how they will effect everyone involved, whereas he only thinks in terms of the most logical outcome of a given situation, based on trying to use his own logic.

There have been times he has ignored the emotional context, and only looked at what he saw as the most logical conclusion, and made some really bad decisions. And to his credit, in most cases, he now looks at what I see and takes those things into consideration, and makes wiser decisions for the entire family.

God tells us "lean not on your own understanding" but many times even though things seem logical, and if this course of action seems most logical (in man's eyes), then it must be the most logical course of action to take...it's a given right...it seems logical, so therefore it is the most logical, so therefore we must go this direction...it doesn't matter what a womans (God given) emotions tell her...emotions are illogical and therefore should be ignored and not taken into consideration when making decisions. 

Hmmm, sounds as if that goes against Scripture of the wife being a helpmate for the husband, and God's understanding of His creation of women, and it not being good for men to be alone.

It appears even God understands men can not always make the best decisions only looking at the logical side of an arguement, and he needed a helpmate to help him see a situation from all sides.


----------



## Chris

LadyFlynt said:


> Beth Moore is big, she is warm fuzzies, she uses some pop psyc running on emotionalism, she is not Reformed in any manner of speaking that I can find, and she teaches men.




She's popular in my area. I dated a girl who babbled a bit about her. From what I gathered, Moore seems to do more good than harm - but I'm not sure that's really a ringing endorsement. 

I know she endorsed a book on contemplative spirituality that was attacked pretty hard a year ago or so. Part of me wonders, though, if that attack wasn't a bit over-the-top. I never actually read the book - it just seems as if some people are too willing to attack, just as others are too willing to tolerate anything and everything. 


LadyFlynt, if you don't mind, could you expound a bit on the points you brought up? I'd really like to know more about Moore, and I respect your opinions. Further, it seems appropriate to hear about Moore from a woman.

(I hope that doesn't qualify as you (a woman) teaching men (me)....)


----------



## LadyFlynt

Naw, I'm not sitting down holding a formal lecture in trying to teach you theology...

I have taken a couple of her studies, technically have 6-7 of her workbooks on my shelf. The two I actually did were Breaking Free (dealing with bondage of past and legalism) and John:Beloved Disciple. I really enjoyed the first as it was very timely for me. John I ended up quitting. She dragged what seemed to be the same stories from Breaking Free into John. Some of it I felt was unneccessary and did nothing more than appeal to the emotions. A couple of examples I can remember from her studies are her constant references to childhood sexual abuse (not all women have experienced that, so it became the beating of a dead horse after awhile), reading a certain passage of Song of Solomon and comparing it to Christ but in more visual ways that weren't the most appropriate, spending 15 minutes talking about power walking in the rain with a headset playing her favorite contemporary christian music and how she just felt Christ filling her and her stopping in the middle of the road, etc....

I'm fine with a bit of this...but in the videos it is constant. She is a sweet person. She may have some "good things" to say...but it just seems that she turns the men of the bible into your best girlfriend. I would need to sit and go through her workbooks separately and see how far she takes things in them separate from her videos. My biggest issue is her being a very public figure for women in contradiction with her teaching and preaching to men.


----------



## Chris

Thanks for that reply. 

Lots of women here seem to like her - I think she's spoke at a couple of local churches before. There's one local church that often brings in big-name people to pump up the congregation. Seems like she was one of them, once.


----------

