Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cults & World Religions' started by Mayflower, Mar 27, 2005.
Besides that she she is a women preacher, and like to know which kind of false teaching she gives ?
She is Word of Faith, anti-Trinitarian and host of other health/wealth gospel heresies. She is one of the most dangerous false Christian teachers today.
Wow... I didn't know she was anti-Trinitarian. Can you point me to a specific source in which she has written/stated this so that I can refer others to it?
Doh! My post count is back down again.
From her website:
The first statement is modalistic.
A good critique.
Here are a few others links about her ministry.
And there is much more info on her. Even CRI has some info on her.
What's the difference between saying that and saying "One substance & three subsistences.'?
Inquiring minds want to know.
May I ask where it is proclaiming modalism? Not being wise here, should she use a different word that manifested? Unless she is saying that they do not exist as coeternal.
[Edited on 3-27-2005 by The Lamb]
The give away for modaliosm is the term "manifested". She says that God is one but appears to us in three personalities - not that He is three Persons. That is modalism and a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The real key is the meaning poured into words. Meyer means "personality" where she says "person." How do we know this?
Because it is part and parcel of the Word of Faith, Jesus-being-born-again-in-hell, it-was-not-finished-at-the-cross theology. And that is her theology big time (if you look, that is both the greatest criticism of her and the doctrine she touts most).
It should not surprise us when she is a supporter of and works with the other Word of Faith anti-Trinitarians Jess Duplantis, T.D. Jakes and Kenneth Copeland.
Remember, it is not just words, but the content of words. That has been the case since before Nicea. If I used the same words as Meyer, but in the typical orthodox sense, it would be fine. But she is not using the orthodox sense.
I agree that the term "manifested" would appear to indicate modalism... but I've heard uneducated laypeople use this term without being commited anti-trinitarians... they just don't know any better. And we have to ask ourselves... honestly... do you really believe that Joyce Meyer has actually studied the doctrine of the Trinity and as a result of her studies she specifically uses the term "manifested" to indicate an intentional rejection of orthodox trinitarianism in favor of heretical modalism?
I'm just not that willing to give her that much credit!
[Edited on 3-28-2005 by SolaScriptura]
Agreed. But it is impossible to be a thorough Trinitarian and have the concept (which IS central to her theology) that Jesus needed to be "born again in hell."
I'm pretty sure this is heretical too. Appolinarianism?
I wouldn't be so quick to jump on Meyer as an anti-trinitarian without more information. Remember - we have people in our own congregations who are theologically imprecise in their descriptions of the Godhead.
Not that I'm defending her - I believe she IS a heretic and needs to be silenced, refuted, etc.... but this may not be an issue she is wrong about. You have to remember that the WoF camp is usually not very theologically precise anyway - but neither are most laypeople.
As an experiment - I googled the words "manifested in three persons" to see what I'd get.
Is this gentleman anti-trinitarian ?
How about our good reformed buddy Tim Challies ?
Both use the same language. The latter example (Tim Challies) is very well versed theologically.
This has been what I've noticed about WoF all along - they sound like people who need a basic theology class more than anything, but they have persistently refused to be instructed when instruction has been offered. That would indicate heretical leanings. I'm specifically thinking here about Benny Hinn & the Copeland/Hagan combo. Pastorway's explanation was helpful - thanks!
I agree. That is why I said the language itself was not anti-Trinitarian, any more than the exact language of Arius was before Nicea. What makes me come to that conclusion is the very precise and repeated formulations of Christ born again in hell that she uses.
T.D. Jakes has made much more obvious heretical statements, as has Duplantis.
Some apologist had dinner with her and her husband a while back to discuss theology and they refused correction. I would agree wholeheartedly with your assessment, though.... except for Hinn and Copeland. I believe both of them are purposely and deliberately misleading folks for their own personal gain.
Tilton (who is making a comeback) is also on my list.
I believe all three of these folks should be soundly denounced from every pulpit on the face of God's green earth with the same attitude Jesus had to the Pharisees in John 8.
Somebody like Meyer needs the 'John 6' Jesus.
The rest of poor, misled folks, need the John 4 Jesus.