CARM on popular "pastors/preacers" - Joyce Meyer

Joyce Meyer

by Matt Slick
Joyce Meyer was born on June 4, 1943.  She is married, has four children, and lives outside of St. Louis, Missouri.  She runs the Joyce Meyer Ministries organization (joycemeyer.org).  When examining the site's statement of faith we are glad to see an affirmation of the Trinity, that man is a sinner, that without Jesus we can have no relationship with God, that salvation is a free gift, and eternal hell of conscious damnation.  There is a concern with the statement on "divine healing," since there are so many aberrant groups that also affirm divine healing but say Christians must claim it and people who are sick are in sin.  However, I am not aware of what Meyer's position is on this.
The Joyce Meyer Ministry takes in a great deal of money.  She travels in a private jet and has several multimillion dollar homes.

"While Meyer's previous salary is unknown, a recent series of investigative articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch revealed Meyer's ministry purchased for Joyce and Dave a $2 million home, a $10 million private jet, and houses worth another $2 million for the couple's children, who also work for the ministry. The articles also outlined Meyer's recent personal purchases, including a $500,000 vacation home. Meyer, 60, lives in Fenton, Missouri, near St. Louis." (1/1/2004, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/januaryweb-only/1-19-13.0.html)

Having a lot or a little money is neither good nor bad.  If she has earned it all fairly through her work, fine.  Nevertheless, this article will focus on her teaching, not on her finances.  Let's take a look at scripture, then Joyce Meyer's teachings.

First, what does the Bible say?

It is absolutely necessary that we Christians use biblical discernment when supporting any preacher and/or teacher of the gospel.  It is irrelevant whether or not we like the person, think the person is a good speaker, or if the person says things that are uplifting.  Instead, we must be as noble as the Bereans.

• "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so," (Acts 17:11).
• "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other," (1 Cor. 4:6).

If the Bible says that even Paul was checked by scripture, and that we are not to exceed scripture's teaching, then aren't we obligated to judge what Mrs. Meyer says against the word of God?  Of course we are.  It is not enough to just believe what she says, no matter how good the words are or how well she presents them.  Let's not be taken in by a public figure who is confident, assertive, and appears to be biblical.  Our duties as Christians include biblical discernment - which can only be done by examining what she says and comparing it with scripture.

What does Joyce Meyer teach?

For the most part Joyce Meyer preaches a positive, biblical message that is of great value to many people.  We applaud her desire to be biblical, to point women to godly submission and humility, to trusting God, being loving, to have value based in what Christ has done for us, etc.  These are all good.  However, there are some very significant errors that need to be addressed.  Some of them are so bad that she is outside of biblical orthodoxy and must be considered a false teacher.  Let's take a look at what Joyce Meyer has said.
Following is a list of quotes from Joyce Meyer, along with responses.

1. Jesus stopped being the Son of God:  "He could have helped himself up until the point where he said I commend my spirit into your hands, at that point he couldn’t do nothing for himself anymore. He had become sin, he was no longer the Son of God. He was sin."(http://storage.carm.org/joycemeyer/joyce-meyer-Jesus-became-sin-stopped-being-son-of-God.mp3)
   1. Response:  This is heresy.  Jesus did not ever stop becoming the son of God.  Essentially what she is saying is that Jesus stopped being divine, the eternal son, second person of the Trinity. This is an attack on the very nature of Christ and it is a dangerous false teaching.  Joyce Meyer needs to repent and retract this statement.  There is no place in Scripture that says Jesus stopped being the son of God.  She's adding to the word of God and placing in the hearts and minds of listeners false doctrine.
2. Jesus was born again:  "The minute that blood sacrifice was accepted Jesus was the first human being that was ever born again," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neKsa_74w7k&feature=related)
   1. Response:  This is just plain wrong.  Being born again means to be saved from the wrath of God for a person's sins (Eph. 2:1-3), to have a new birth (John 3:3), and to be regenerated (2 Cor. 5:17).  Mrs. Meyer is simply wrong biblically.  Why does she teach this?  It can only be because she has bought into many of the errors of the Positive Confession movement where it is sometimes said that Jesus lost his divine nature, went to hell, finished the atonement in hell, and was born again!  This is a serious error since it implies that Jesus needed to be changed...
3. Jesus paid for our sins in hell:  "He became our sacrifice and died on the cross. He did not stay dead. He was in the grave three days. During that time he entered hell, where you and I deserve to go (legally) because of our sin. He paid the price there.” (The most important decision you'll ever make, by Joyce Meyer, second printing, may 1993, page 35)
   • Response:  This is blatantly wrong.  Jesus did not pay the price of our redemption in hell.  He paid the price on the cross.  It was finished on the cross when he said, "It is finished" (John 19:30).  Also, consider the following verses:
   • Col. 1:20, "and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."
   • Col. 2:14, "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
   • 1 Pet. 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
4. Jesus went to hell in our place and was tormented:  "Jesus paid on the cross and went to hell in my place. Then as God had promised, on the third day Jesus rose from the dead. The scene in the spirit realm went something like this: God rose up from his throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless son of God, 'let him go.' Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus. On earth his grave where they had buried him was filled with light as the power of God filled his body. He was resurrected from the dead -- the first born again man." (The most important decision you'll ever make, by Joyce Meyer, second printing, may 1993, page 36)
   • Response:  Where does she get this completely fictitious dialogue between God and the demon powers?  It is made up, not founded in scripture, and mistakenly assumes that Jesus went to hell, the place of torment and suffering after he died on the cross.  The Bible does not teach any such thing.  However, it does say that Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth (Eph. 4:9).  This can mean that Jesus was physically buried, or that Jesus went to Hades to inform those who had already died about who he was and what he did on the cross, or it can be referring to his incarnation as is contrasted with his ascending into heaven (Eph. 4:10).  But there is simply no reason to believe that Jesus suffered in hell and finished the atonement there.  See response to Quote 1.
5. If you don't believe Jesus went to hell, you cannot be saved:   "His spirit went to hell because that is where we deserve to go… There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth." (The most important decision you'll ever make, by Joyce Meyer, second printing, may 1993, page 37)
   1. Response:  This is an amazingly bad statement on her part.  She is saying that you cannot be saved from your sins unless you believe that Jesus went to the hell where we deserve to go.  This is a modification of the gospel message that saves, as is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 that states it is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  Nowhere in scripture are we told to believe that Jesus suffered for us in hell or that he went there, where we deserve to go.  This is very wrong and is heretical.
6. We are called little gods:  "I was listening to a set of tapes by one man and he explained it like this..this kind of gets the point across...he said why do people have such a fit about God calling his creation, his creation, his man not his whole creation, but his man, little gods? If he's God what's he going to call them but the God kind? I mean if you as a human being have a baby you call it a human kind. If if [sic] cattle has another cattle they call it cattle kind. I mean what is God supposed to call 'em? Doesn't the Bible say we are created in his image? Now you understand I am not saying you are god with a capital G. That is not the issue here so don't go trying to stone me or yell blasphemy at me." "The Bible says right here John 10:34...'and Jesus answered is it not written in your law I say we are gods.' So men are called God's by the law..."(Joyce Meyer). (www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrP3OLCH9GI&feature=related)
   1. Response:  In this clip she goes on to quote John 10:34 where Jesus says to the Pharisees "you are gods," which is a quote from Psalm 82:6, which is an imprecatory Psalm of condemnation for the unrighteous judges.  Psalm 82:7 says, nevertheless you will die like men.  She then turned to Psalm 82 and went through it.  The video stopped so I do not know what she would have said about the next, all important verse.
7. Joyce Meyer said she is not a sinner:  "I am not poor. I am not miserable and I am not a sinner. That is a lie from the pit of hell. That is what I were and if I still was then Jesus died in vain. I'm going to tell you something folks. I didn't stop sinning until I finally got it through my thick head I wasn't a sinner anymore. And the religious world thinks that's heresy and they want to hang you for it. But the Bible says that I am righteous and I can't be righteous and be a sinner at the same time." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dmHJdM63hk)
   1. Response:  Mrs. Meyer needs a lesson in basic Bible.  1 John 1:8 says, "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us."  Notice that John the apostle says "we."  He is including himself with sinners.  Also, Paul said in Rom. 7:19-20,24, "For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me...24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?"  Is Joyce Meyer better in Christian character than John and Paul?  I think not.  Mrs. Meyer fails to recognize her own sinfulness, and so mistakenly denies her own sinfulness.  I can only conclude that this false teaching comes from pride because it certainly isn't biblical.
8. The host of hell were literally on Jesus and were laughing:  "They were having the biggest party that had ever been had. They had my Jesus in the floor and they were standing on his back jumping up and down laughing. And he had become sin. Don't you think that God was pacing, wanting to put a stop to what was going on? All the host of hell were upon him. Upon him. Up on him. The angels were in agony.  All the creation is groaning. All the host of hell was upon him. Up on him. They got on him. They got him down in the floor and got on him and they were laughing and mocking. Ha ha ha ha. You trusted God and look where you ended up. You thought he'd save you and get you off that cross. He didn't, ha ha ha." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwNfOaxIcOMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwNfOaxIcOM)
   1. Response:  Where did she get this - in the sacred Book of Joycemeyeronomy?  It is certainly not in the Bible, and yet she has no problem teaching it as an authoritative truth.  Does she not know that the Bible says not to exceed what is written (1 Cor. 4:6)?  Yet, she has done exactly this.  She is in grave error and has violated God's word that says that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and finished the atonement on the cross (John 19:30) - not in hell at the hands of demons!  There is no way demons were literally standing 'on' Jesus.  Meyer is in gross error!
9. Joyce Meyer gets revelation knowledge:  “The Bible can’t even find any way to explain this. Not really that is why you have got to get it by revelation. There are no words to explain what I am telling you. I have got to just trust God that he is putting it into your spirit like he put it into mine.” (http://storage.carm.org/joycemeyer/joyce-meyer-revelation-knowledge.mp3)
   1. Response:  Revelation knowledge?  Is she on par with the apostles who received revelation knowledge from God himself?  Or how about the Old Testament prophets?  Does she, like them, also receive revelation knowledge from God?  If so, how would we know if it were true or not? The answer is simple:  we test what she says against Scripture, and it is obvious that she is getting a lot of things from somewhere else that contradict the word of God.

Joyce Meyer is a preacher

As unpopular as it might be to say, Joyce Meyer is wrong for occupying the position of a preacher of God's word.  Not only does she preach false doctrines, but she also functions as a preacher by teaching God's word, exegeting it, applying it, and telling people what to believe...in public.  She is out of place for doing this.  She speaks as a minister of the gospel teaching with authority.  She needs to stop. if you doubt this, and if you also believe the word of God, then please see the article Should women be pastors and elders?
-------------
On 11/29/2011, CARM called the Joyce Meyer Ministries in Mo., and spoke to a man who directed us to the website, contact info, and how to submit an email.  We told him about CARM and the issues that we wanted to find out regarding her teachings.  He again pointed us to the website and we were told that someone would contact us.  At the website we submitted this email to them via their form at http://www.joycemeyer.org/MediaRelations/MediaRelatedInquiry.aspx on 11/29/2011.

I'm Rev. Matt Slick, the president of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, carm.org.  CARM is a very large and popular apologetics site (1.3 million monthly page views).  I'm doing research on Joyce Meyer and her teachings and have serious concerns about some of the things she has taught. Instead of writing articles based on information from years ago, I would very much like to submit a list of questions to her (and/or interview her) regarding Christian theology, soteriology, and christology to find out what her present views are.  I can submit a list of questions so as to get the most current teachings she has in these areas.  The information would then be used on the CARM.org website, radio show, and books.  I want accurate information so as to not misrepresent Mrs. Meyer in anyway.  Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.   Rev. Matt Slick, M.Div.   President, carm.org.

We have yet to hear back from them.

CARM on popular "pastors/preacers" - Beth Moore

Beth Moore

by Matt Slick

Beth Moore Bio

Beth Moore was born in Green Bay, Wisconsin.  She has received an "honorary doctorate in humanities from Howard Payne University"1.  She is married with two children.  "Beth founded Living Proof Ministries in 1994 with the purpose of teaching women how to love and live on God’s Word. She has written numerous books and Bible studies, including Breaking Free, Believing God, The Patriarchs and most recently, James: Mercy Triumphs that have been read by women of all ages, races, and denominations."2  She taught at Houston's First Baptist Church and now is at the Bayou City Fellowship.
Now, please understand that this is not a "heresy hunt."  Beth Moore definitely teaches a lot of good things right out of the word of God.  In fact, I found little with which to disagree.  For the most part she is right on.  However, there are some significant issues worth addressing.  I'd like to say that Beth Moore definitely needs a proper theological education and needs to learn how to exegete Scripture better.  Both would help her immensely.  Furthermore, she is a Bible teacher.  Is this appropriate for her since she is a woman and Paul says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve," (1 Tim. 2:12-13)?  She is teaching people, including men.  Though she is not doing it from a church pulpit, she is teaching on T.V.  I know that the issue of women teaching men is not popular, but to what do we submit -- popular opinion or God's word?  See, "Should Women Be Pastors and Elders?"

Beth Moore Mission Statement, but no doctrinal statement

On her website lproof.org is a mission statement (http://www.lproof.org/aboutus/OurMission/default.htm).  In it are some pretty good things, including...

• Jesus is the only way.
• Salvation is found only in him.
• Scripture is inspired.
• Promotion of the unity of believers.
• The body of Christ has different kinds of spiritual gifts.
• The future glorification/resurrection of the believer.

However, there is no doctrinal statement, and as such we don't see any affirmation of the Trinity, that Jesus is a man right now with two natures: divine and human.  I could not find anything affirming justification by faith alone in Christ alone, or whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation (it isn't).  It is always helpful for a Christian ministry to have a doctrinal statement because it enables people to quickly see what basis a person is teaching from.  Without one, we have to ask questions wondering what she believes concerning the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the sacrifice of Christ, the physical resurrection of Christ, baptism, how to be saved, etc.  Of course, we can make assumptions that she affirms biblical orthodoxy, but we would prefer to have actual statements and not assumptions.  The fact that there is no doctrinal statement is worrisome.  Now, it could be that she does not want to be doctrinally minded because she is trying to reach across denominational lines.  If this is the case, it is still problematic since there is no real public, doctrinal proclamation of her faith - in detail.  This is unfortunate, especially since she supports the error of contemplative prayer and apparently considers Roman Catholicism to be another Christian denomination.  She needs to step up and provide a detailed doctrinal statement.

How to become a Christian according to Beth Moore

One thing I found interesting on the website was a short statement on how to become a Christian.  It was titled "How to Receive Jesus Christ"3 and consisted of three simple steps.

1. "Admit your need for forgiveness and peace."
2. "Be willing to turn from your sins, believing that Jesus Christ died for you on the cross and rose from the grave."
3. "Through prayer, invite Jesus Christ to forgive your sins & be your Savior."

Certainly God could use such a three step process to bring people into salvation. However, the "list" is incomplete.  There is no mention of what sin is (the breaking of God's laws regarding lying, adultery, theft, etc.).  There is no mention of God's righteous judgment upon the sinner.   The "rose from the grave" needs to be more precise by stating that Jesus rose from the grave in the same body he died in, though it was a glorified body.  There is no mention of what Jesus is saving the sinner from - God's righteous wrath.  In fact, there is no definition of who Jesus is.  From her website we cannot ascertain if Jesus is God in flesh, one of many prophets (Islam), our elder brother from the pre-existence (LDS), or even an angel (JW).

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.

1. 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)
   1. 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.
2. 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)
   1. Response: The context of Gal. 5:1 is dealing with being under the law (Gal. 4:21).  Paul contrasts children under of 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.
3. 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 on 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)
   1. 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 is about sinning in anger or theft, etc.  Beth Moore's "spiritual eyes" here about being gnawed off at the knee and not giving the devil a stronghold are not related and have nothing to do with the text.  Beth isn't supposed to take any text that "might" look like a phrase "could" fit a "spiritual" lesson and then use it.  She is teaching people how to fail to exegete Scripture properly.  She is teaching them to just apply verses willy-nilly in whatever direction seems to 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-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.

Beth Moore Quotes

What does Beth Moore teach?  As I said before, she teaches many good things. However, it is not these that we are have to worry about.  It is the blatant unbiblical teachings to which we now turn our attention.  Here are a few of them.

1. Belief invites the power of God to flow:  "God wields incomparably great power for those who choose to believe. Read it again! Incomparably great power! More than enough to break the yoke of bondage. Our belief unclogs the pipe and invites the power to flow" (Praying God’s Word: Breaking Free from Spiritual Strongholds, by Beth Moore, p. 37)
   1. Response:  We hold the key to unleashing God by belief?  Really?  Is there any Scripture for this?  On the contrary, God's great sovereignty and power are not dependent upon sinful people. Instead, God works all things after the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1:11; Acts 2:23; 4:28).
2. Beth Moore promotes contemplative prayer: "A true lover of God once spoke about practicing God's presence. To me that's such a part of contemplative prayer. That we are able to absorb the reality that as we commune with God through prayer that he is with us that his spirit for those of us who are in Christ fills us that we are drawn near to him that our souls find rest in him."  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sPMPmOEV0c).  In this video she was praising Brother Lawrence, an apostate Roman Catholic Monk.
   1. Response:  Contemplative prayer is a dangerous practice that has been creeping into the church via Roman Catholicism.  It is a form of eastern mysticism that has been packaged in Christian terminology.  In brief, it is a way of trying to commune with God by emptying one's mind, focusing on a word or phrase, and practicing the presence of the divine through inner, silent contemplation (i.e., contemplative prayer).  In this practice, people are instructed to quietly sit, contemplating on a special word or phrase that is supposed to help you focus on the presence of God.  The idea is to not think, but to experience God and to remain silent, without thinking, as you seek God's presence.  What this does is induce an altered state of consciousness.  It is dangerous.  Rom. 12:2 says, "...be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."  The Bible tells us to renew our mind, not empty it.
3. Catholicism is part of the Christian Church:  In this video on God's vision for the church she is teaching on stage.  She has women sitting in small groups on stage who represent different religious groups within the church.  They are the United Methodist Church, a Missionary Baptist Church (black community), a Catholic Church, and the Abundant Life Church (charismatic).  It is not stated if she includes the Catholic Church as being another denomination, but this is a concern. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Lk5YyI43Y)
   1. Response:  The video does not state particulars, but the concern is that she apparently considers the Roman Catholic Church to be just another Christian denomination.  It isn't.  Perhaps she is just grossly ignorant of the Roman Catholic Church's teachings that we have to go through Mary to obtain forgiveness of sins, that we have to take sacraments to have grace infused into us, that we have to keep the 10 commandments to be saved, etc.  If she did, would she consider it Christian?  I hope not.  Still, her ignorance and faulty understanding of both the biblical doctrine of salvation as well as the serious errors of the Roman Catholic Church demonstrate that Beth Moore is not a competent teacher of the word.
4. God Shows Beth Moore A Vision Of The Church:  "I see God doing something huge in the body of Christ. I do not know why I have had the privilege to get to travel around and see one church after another, one group of believers after another, interdenominationally all over this country but I have gotten to see something that I think is huge. And I'll also suggest to you that I am not the only one. And tonight I am gonna do my absolute best to illustrate to you something that God showed me sitting out on the back porch. He put a picture I've explained to you before I'm a very visual person.  So he speaks to me very often in putting a picture in my head and it was as if I was raised up, looking down on a community as I saw the church in that particular dimension. Certainly not all dimensions, not even many, but in what we will discuss tonight the church as Jesus sees it in a particular dimension." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVkJiYEyRwc&feature=relmfu)
   1. Response:  The problem here is that Moore is equating the picture in her mind with Scripture. In other words, she talks about getting an impression, a kind of vision, and there is absolutely no mention of whether or not this vision is biblical.  She seems to view personal revelation as being equal in importance and authority as the word of God.
5. Whispers in the heart as revelation from God apparently are equal to Scripture:  "As we study we may see several examples of Him [Christ] posing a question that only He could answer. Christ certainly uses that teaching method with me. Sometimes He’ll cause me to dig through Scripture for a question He seemed to initiate. Other times the question may come as a personalized whisper in my heart: 'Beth, why are you acting that way?' Often my answer is 'I don’t know, Lord! Can you tell me why?' If I really search His heart, sooner or later He’ll give me insight into my reactions," (Jesus, the One and Only, by Beth Moore, B & H Publishing Group, Nashville, Tenn., 2002, p. 47).
   1. Response:  There is no mention of the superiority of Scripture over the whisper in her heart.  All sensations, all insights, all "whispers in the heart" should be checked against Scripture.  Mrs. Moore should always be pointing people to the word, and telling them to submit all experiences to it.  She fails to do this here, and in her negligence encourages others to look to feelings and experiences over the word of God.  This can only lead to error.
6. Beth Moore gets revelation knowledge direction from God:  "What God began to say to me about five years ago and I'm telling you it is in me on such a treck with him that my head is still whirling over it. He began to say to me, 'I'm gonna say something right now, Beth. And boy you write this one down. And you say it as often as I give you utterance to say it. My bride is paralyzed by unbelief. My bride is paralyzed by unbelief.' And he said, 'Starting with you.' Amen. Because we can do a lot of finger-pointing around here about why we're revival is not happening here and there. Let me tell you something revival will always happen with faith." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOlCicOQygE
   1. Response:  As a Christian, I am fully aware of how God sometimes "speaks to us" via the Holy Spirit who is in our hearts (2 Cor. 1:22) in such ways as bearing witness that we are children of God (Rom. 8:16), or helping us to pray (Rom. 8:26), or convicting us of sin (John 16:8); but this is not what she is talking about.  Instead, she is claiming to know the exact words that God himself is saying through her to the Christian church.  Essentially, she is advocating extra-biblical revelation on a level equal to the apostles themselves.  She did not preface her "Revelation" with any humility or fear before the Almighty.  Instead, she whips out a statement to the audience in such a way that she is claiming a special place of revelatory knowledge from God himself that is to be given to the Christian Church through her.  She is elevating herself to the level of apostle, and this is, of course, unbiblical and dangerous.  What other "revelations" from God will she get?

Conclusion

We must be very careful when listening to a teacher.  Beth Moore, in my opinion, is not to be trusted to properly teach from the word of God.  She is leading many astray with her approval of contemplative prayer, personal revelations, and faulty biblical exegesis.  Yes, I know that many claim to have been helped by her.  That is fine, but the experience of feeling helped is not where truth lies.  Rather, it is God's word that is the standard of what is good and bad, not if we are helped through the wolf of pop psychology in Christian terminology.  Therefore, I cannot endorse Beth Moore.

CARM on popular "pastors/preacers" - Steven Furtick

Steven Furtick

CARM btw is the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

by Matt Slick
Steven Furtick (born Feb. 19, 1980) is the founder and pastor of Elevation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina.  He "attended North Greenville University, received a B.A. in communications and went on to complete a Master of Divinity from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary."1  His church has over 10,000 attendees on a weekly basis.
He has experienced rapid church growth, and he is building various campuses where church services are expanding.  His church started with 19 people in 2006 and is now at over 9,000 as of 2012.  He attributes the growth to "the jars."  As he says, "the oil is something only God can give.  It represents his spirit, his presence, his power...", etc. 2.  He is right to give God the glory.  He promotes Christ, has positive messages about what God wants for his people, and reaches out in faith to expand the kingdom for God.  This is admirable and we should applaud him for it.
Steven Furtick says that he wants Elevation Church to be...

"...a church for the overlooked, for the unloved...we preach Jesus so people far from God can know Jesus. And then we train them up so that others can know Jesus. It is called Kingdom multiplication.  It is what Elevation Church is all about."3

This is fine.  Preaching Jesus so people can come to know him is admirable and is one of the things the Christian church is supposed to do.

Mocking the doctrines of grace

However, shortly after the above quote in the same video and after speaking of multiple conversions occuring at his church, he said...

 "...if that doesn't get you excited and you need the doctrines of grace as defined by John Calvin to excite you, you in the wrong church. Let me get a phone book. There are 720 churches in Charlotte. I am sure we can find one where you can stuff your face until you're so obese spiritually that you can't even move."4

The problem with Mr. Furtick's comments are both subtle and profound.  The Doctrines of Grace are often described by the acronym TULIP.  Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.  This is often called Calvinism.  In other words, the doctrines of grace affirm that man is completely lost in his sin and it is only by the grace of God through the person of Jesus that salvation is possible.  It is not up to man's sinful free will, but God's sovereignty over his creation (Rom. 9:22-23; Eph. 1:4-5).  It further states that because of man's enslavement to sin he is unable to freely choose God (1 Cor. 2:14).  Therefore, the doctrines of grace include God's electing and predestining people to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13), which is by God's choice, not man's (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16), and that the saved are eternally secure because their salvation rests in Christ's work, not man's faithfulness (John 10:27-28).  Now, whether or not you agree with these doctrines, the truth is that they affirm the greatness of God and his sovereign work of saving people.  They are held by millions of Christians all over the world.
Mr. Furtick is entitled to not agree with the doctrines of grace, but to mock them as he did is uncalled for and is potentially a serious spiritual error on his part.  It seems that he is not only ridiculing those who hold to the doctrines of grace, but that he is also mocking the very doctrines which the scriptures teach.  Is not God a God of grace?  Of course he is (Rom. 3:24; 11:6, Eph. 2:8; 2 Thess. 1:12).  Mr. Furtick's mockery divides the body of Christ, helps to create a holier-than-thou attitude and potentially risks a direct violation of scripture.

Furtick supports a woman pastor

Steven Furtick introduced Pastix Christine Caine to preach on a Sunday morning at Elevation Church.5
Women pastors in the church have been debated for many years.  However, just because something is debated doesn't mean that both sides have valid arguments.  The issue is not if a woman is an international speaker, great musician, great parent, etc.  Instead, we must ask if having a woman preacher is what the Bible affirms.  It is not.

• "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet6, 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." (1 Tim. 2:12-13).7
• "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion," (Titus 1:5-7).  (Literally in Greek, the phrase "husband of one wife" is "a man of one woman.")

A woman pastor is, by definition, in the place of authority when she is preaching on a Sunday morning.  She is violating what the scriptures teach concerning such teaching (1 Tim. 2:12-13) and, as Titus 1:5-7 says, the elder (a pastor is an elder, see 1 Tim. 5:17) is to be a male.  Furtick contradicts God's word when he supports a woman pastor by having her preach in his church.  His intentions might be in line with political correctness, liberal thinking, and contemporary applications of the "needs of the church," but they are not biblical.8  I recommend that the reader do a serious study of the issue and see exactly what is biblical.

The Alantic article - on how the Church-growth movement is converting people away from Christianity and to atheism!!!

Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity

When a Christian foundation interviewed college nonbelievers about how and why they left religion, surprising themes emerged.

Larry Alex Taunton Jun 6 2013, 8:07 AM ET  

46
inShare

Left, the pastor George Whitefield; right, the philosopher David Hume (Wikimedia Commons)

 

 

"Church became all about ceremony, handholding, and kumbaya," Phil said with a look of disgust. "I missed my old youth pastor. He actually knew the Bible."

I have known a lot of atheists. The late Christopher Hitchens was a friend with whom I debated, road tripped, and even had a lengthy private Bible study. I have moderated Richard Dawkins and, on occasion, clashed with him. And I have listened for hours to the (often unsettling) arguments of Peter Singer and a whole host of others like him. These men are some of the public faces of the so-called "New Atheism," and when Christians think about the subject -- if they think about it at all -- it is this sort of atheist who comes to mind: men whose unbelief is, as Dawkins once proudly put it, "militant." But Phil, the atheist college student who had come to my office to share his story, was of an altogether different sort.

Phil was in my office as part of a project that began last year. Over the course of my career, I have met many students like Phil. It has been my privilege to address college students all over the world, usually as one defending the Christian worldview. These events typically attract large numbers of atheists. I like that. I find talking to people who disagree with me much more stimulating than those gatherings that feel a bit too much like a political party convention, and the exchanges with these students are mostly thoughtful and respectful. At some point, I like to ask them a sincere question:
What led you to become an atheist?
 
Given that the New Atheism fashions itself as a movement that is ruthlessly scientific, it should come as no surprise that those answering my question usually attribute the decision to the purely rational and objective: one invokes his understanding of science; another says it was her exploration of the claims of this or that religion; and still others will say that religious beliefs are illogical, and so on. To hear them tell it, the choice was made from a philosophically neutral position that was void of emotion.

"I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me." 

 

Christianity, when it is taken seriously, compels its adherents to engage the world, not retreat from it. There are a multitude of reasons for this mandate, ranging from care for the poor, orphaned, and widowed to offering hope to the hopeless. This means that Christians must be willing to listen to other perspectives while testing their own beliefs against them -- above all, as the apostle Peter tells us, "with gentleness and respect." The non-profit I direct, Fixed Point Foundation, endeavors to bridge the gaps between various factions (both religious and irreligious) as gently and respectfully as possible. Atheists particularly fascinate me. Perhaps it's because I consider their philosophy -- if the absence of belief may be called a philosophy -- historically naive and potentially dangerous. Or maybe it's because they, like any good Christian, take the Big Questions seriously. But it was how they processed those questions that intrigued me.

To gain some insight, we launched a nationwide campaign to interview college students who are members of Secular Student Alliances (SSA) or Freethought Societies (FS). These college groups are the atheist equivalents to Campus Crusade: They meet regularly for fellowship, encourage one another in their (un)belief, and even proselytize. They are people who are not merely irreligious; they are actively, determinedly irreligious.

Using the Fixed Point Foundation website, email, my Twitter, and my Facebook page, we contacted the leaders of these groups and asked if they and their fellow members would participate in our study. To our surprise, we received a flood of enquiries. Students ranging from Stanford University to the University of Alabama-Birmingham, from Northwestern to Portland State volunteered to talk to us. The rules were simple: Tell us your journey to unbelief. It was not our purpose to dispute their stories or to debate the merits of their views. Not then, anyway. We just wanted to listen to what they had to say. And what they had to say startled us.

This brings me back to Phil.

A smart, likable young man, he sat down nervously as my staff put a plate of food before him. Like others after him, he suspected a trap. Was he being punk'd? Talking to us required courage of all of these students, Phil most of all since he was the first to do so. Once he realized, however, that we truly meant him no harm, he started talking -- and for three hours we listened.

Now the president of his campus's SSA, Phil was once the president of his Methodist church's youth group. He loved his church ("they weren't just going through the motions"), his pastor ("a rock star trapped in a pastor's body"), and, most of all, his youth leader, Jim ("a passionate man"). Jim's Bible studies were particularly meaningful to him. He admired the fact that Jim didn't dodge the tough chapters or the tough questions: "He didn't always have satisfying answers or answers at all, but he didn't run away from the questions either. The way he taught the Bible made me feel smart."
Listening to his story I had to remind myself that Phil was an atheist, not a seminary student recalling those who had inspired him to enter the pastorate. As the narrative developed, however, it became clear where things came apart for Phil. During his junior year of high school, the church, in an effort to attract more young people, wanted Jim to teach less and play more. Difference of opinion over this new strategy led to Jim's dismissal. He was replaced by Savannah, an attractive twenty-something who, according to Phil, "didn't know a thing about the Bible." The church got what it wanted: the youth group grew. But it lost Phil.

An hour deeper into our conversation I asked, "When did you begin to think of yourself as an atheist?"

He thought for a moment. "I would say by the end of my junior year."
I checked my notes. "Wasn't that about the time that your church fired Jim?"
He seemed surprised by the connection. "Yeah, I guess it was."

Phil's story, while unique in its parts, was on the whole typical of the stories we would hear from students across the country. Slowly, a composite sketch of American college-aged atheists began to emerge and it would challenge all that we thought we knew about this demographic. Here is what we learned:

They had attended church
Most of our participants had not chosen their worldview from ideologically neutral positions at all, but in reaction to Christianity. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. Christianity.

The mission and message of their churches was vague
These students heard plenty of messages encouraging "social justice," community involvement, and "being good," but they seldom saw the relationship between that message, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Listen to Stephanie, a student at Northwestern: "The connection between Jesus and a person's life was not clear." This is an incisive critique. She seems to have intuitively understood that the church does not exist simply to address social ills, but to proclaim the teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ, and their relevance to the world. Since Stephanie did not see that connection, she saw little incentive to stay. We would hear this again.

They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life's difficult questions
When our participants were asked what they found unconvincing about the Christian faith, they spoke of evolution vs. creation, sexuality, the reliability of the biblical text, Jesus as the only way, etc. Some had gone to church hoping to find answers to these questions. Others hoped to find answers to questions of personal significance, purpose, and ethics. Serious-minded, they often concluded that church services were largely shallow, harmless, and ultimately irrelevant. As Ben, an engineering major at the University of Texas, so bluntly put it: "I really started to get bored with church."

They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously
Following our 2010 debate in Billings, Montana, I asked Christopher Hitchens why he didn't try to savage me on stage the way he had so many others. His reply was immediate and emphatic: "Because you believe it." Without fail, our former church-attending students expressed similar feelings for those Christians who unashamedly embraced biblical teaching. Michael, a political science major at Dartmouth, told us that he is drawn to Christians like that, adding: "I really can't consider a Christian a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me." As surprising as it may seem, this sentiment is not as unusual as you might think. It finds resonance in the well-publicized comments of Penn Jillette, the atheist illusionist and comedian: "I don't respect people who don't proselytize. I don't respect that at all. If you believe that there's a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.... How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?" Comments like these should cause every Christian to examine his conscience to see if he truly believes that Jesus is, as he claimed, "the way, the truth, and the life."

Ages 14-17 were decisive
One participant told us that she considered herself to be an atheist by the age of eight while another said that it was during his sophomore year of college that he de-converted, but these were the outliers. For most, the high school years were the time when they embraced unbelief.

The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one
With few exceptions, students would begin by telling us that they had become atheists for exclusively rational reasons. But as we listened it became clear that, for most, this was a deeply emotional transition as well. This phenomenon was most powerfully exhibited in Meredith. She explained in detail how her study of anthropology had led her to atheism. When the conversation turned to her family, however, she spoke of an emotionally abusive father:
"It was when he died that I became an atheist," she said.
I could see no obvious connection between her father's death and her unbelief. Was it because she loved her abusive father -- abused children often do love their parents -- and she was angry with God for his death? "No," Meredith explained. "I was terrified by the thought that he could still be alive somewhere."

Rebecca, now a student at Clark University in Boston, bore similar childhood scars. When the state intervened and removed her from her home (her mother had attempted suicide), Rebecca prayed that God would let her return to her family. "He didn't answer," she said. "So I figured he must not be real." After a moment's reflection, she appended her remarks: "Either that, or maybe he is [real] and he's just trying to teach me something."

The internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism
When our participants were asked to cite key influences in their conversion to atheism--people, books, seminars, etc. -- we expected to hear frequent references to the names of the "New Atheists." We did not. Not once. Instead, we heard vague references to videos they had watched on YouTube or website forums.

***

Religion is a sensitive topic, and a study like this is bound to draw critics. To begin with, there is, of course, another side to this story. Some Christians will object that our study was tilted against churches because they were given no chance to defend themselves. They might justifiably ask to what extent these students really engaged with their Bibles, their churches, and the Christians around them. But that is beside the point. If churches are to reach this growing element of American collegiate life, they must first understand who these people are, and that means listening to them.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this whole study was the lasting impression many of these discussions made upon us.

That these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable. I again quote Michael: "Christianity is something that if you really believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives] of others. I haven't seen too much of that."

Sincerity does not trump truth. After all, one can be sincerely wrong. But sincerity is indispensable to any truth we wish others to believe. There is something winsome, even irresistible, about a life lived with conviction. I am reminded of the Scottish philosopher and skeptic, David Hume, who was recognized among a crowd of those listening to the preaching of George Whitefield, the famed evangelist of the First Great Awakening:

"I thought you didn't believe in the Gospel," someone asked.
"I do not," Hume replied. Then, with a nod toward Whitefield, he added, "But he does."

Founders Ministries - getting the SBC back to its creedal, confessional, Calvinistic roots

Where Circus and Church Meet: A Plea for the Recovery of Sola Scriptura in Worship

I struggled to keep a straight face when he asked me the question.

I was a candidate for the pastorate of this Baptist church, one that was nearly 200 years old, one that had sprung up as a result of the Second Great Awakening in the Ohio Valley.

Surely my ears were deceiving me: did this dear brother in Christ, this member of the pastoral search team, really just ask me, “What is your view of clown ministry in the local church?”

Credit

A thousand disparate thoughts catapulted through my mind over the next thirty seconds as I sat with the search team stunned in awkward silence; Giant cobalt blue shoes. Oversized purple and pink polka dot ties. Orange floppy hats with a flower that squirts water. Miniature red sports cars. The Shriner’s Day parade in my Deep South hometown. How many Gospel clowns fit in a Volkswagon? Ronald McDonald leads worship. The Gospel. Heaven. Hell.

Surely this was one of my pink elephant dreams. But it was all too real. Yes, this church had clowns: aggressive, hyper-involved clowns, a reality that would be a deal-breaker or deal-maker for the future pastor. “Okay,” said I, syllables stumbling from my lips as if upended by a pair of candy-striped oversized shoes. “These clowns work with the children, right?”

“Well, no,” said the church leader. “They do evangelistic outreach . . . And some other stuff." I later learned what the “other stuff” entailed; the clown troupe often performed “dramatic skits” during the morning worship service on the Lord’s Day. And there were also mimes; they had their own service occasionally on Sunday nights, using no words and trapping themselves inside invisible boxes to the glory of God.

This congregation took its clowning seriously and, needless to say, I was not a fit candidate to serve as its preaching elder. Members blanched at my insistence on applying the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura as regulative for both corporate worship and external church ministry.

Sadly, this is not an isolated instance of “innovative” worship.

One church several years ago* installed a baptismal pool in the shape of a fire truck complete with red paint and lights (it has since been removed). The baptistery was specifically designed for baptizing children who made a profession of faith. When a young one emerged from underwater during baptism, streamers and confetti streamed skyward from the small pool and the truck’s lights flashed with two-alarm luminosity. The pastor said this unsubtle device was installed to make baptism more palatable and “interesting” to children.**

These days, it seems, many Baptist churches are suffering from the same peculiarly Americanized form of worship common to contemporary churches. The above true story is exhibit A of what Michael Horton describes as a “greasy familiarity” with which modern-day Christians approach God.

This “greasy familiarity,” Horton writes, is based on “The belief that we have direct and immediate access to him (God) whenever and however we want. Whenever sincere people gather in a building to worship according to their personal tastes and opinions, God is impressed that they took the time, that they cared enough to worship. It was ‘real.’ They were ‘vulnerable.’ They got ‘honest before God.’”

But what is the root issue with such contrivances as “Gospel clowns” and worship that is heavy on plucky familiarity with God and light on theologically informed proclamation? It is a loss of the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) or the absolute sufficiency and authority of Scripture in the corporate worship and life of the local congregation. Evangelicals desperately need to recover this regulative principle in order to remove unbiblical worship and fanciful worship and outreach elements from their midst, to build healthier Christians and healthier congregations.

Taproot issue: authority

Most conservative Baptists agree that the Bible is inspired by God and many consent to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. However, it is Scripture as the church’s sole authority, it’s sufficiency, in matters of worship and church life that seems to have been rejected, at least in practice, by modern day Baptists.

As in contemporary culture, the primary issue at play in local congregations is that of authority. The very notion of authority is rejected by many in a postmodern culture and the church has followed, to great detriment, in its wake. The lone authority typically affirmed by many church members is that of the autonomous individual.

But authority does not exist in a vacuum; someone or something will inevitably take the lead in a church where Scripture is no longer viewed as sufficient. When the regulative principle is cast aside, authority will likely arise in one of three forms:

• Naïve tradition. This is not tradition in the sense of Roman Catholicism’s veneration of it, but is tradition of a sort that argues, “We’ve always done it this way, so it would be unconscionable to do it any other way.” A hymn or chorus with unbiblical content or a troupe performing “interpretative movement” remains as an element of corporate worship because it has existed unchallenged for decades within a given church body. 

• Religious experience. Often, mystical experience will help formulate doctrine for a local church. I once attended a church where leaders trotted out a particular emotion-laden song when they felt the church was in the midst of a “spiritual dry spell.” Every time it was sung, tears flowed freely from the congregation, and a “mini revival” usually ensued. The sermon would be set aside and parishioners concluded that “God showed up today with such power that we didn’t even have preaching.” Paul’s words in Romans 10:17, “Faith comes by hearing and hearing through the Word of Christ,” seem to place a premium on preaching, but hey, who can argue with results, right? This is a first cousin to the third form of authority. 

• Unprincipled pragmatism. This form of authority provides the answer to the question “What works?” Pragmatists sometimes argue, “the message is unchanging, but the method is always changing.” Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) employed this strategy through such methods as the “anxious bench” to “stir up” revival during the Second Great Awakening. His methods manipulated emotions, which, for Finney, was the key in leading sinners to decide to follow Jesus. 

The regulative principle—What is it?

The regulative principle of worship is based on the Reformers’ application (John Calvin and his progeny, the Puritans, in particular recovered and adhered to this doctrine) in the area of worship and church life of their principal sola Scriptura position. In essence, the regulative principle—as defined by most Reformed theologians—holds that true worship may include only those ways which God has either expressly commanded in Scripture or which may be deduced from Scripture by “good and necessary consequence,” while false worship is anything done in worship which God has not expressly described.

Baptists have a substantive history of subscription to the regulative principle. For example, article 7 of The 1644 London Confession established the way in which the church determines how God should be worshiped:

The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not man’s inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions, unwritten whatsoever but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures.

Similarly, Chapter XXII, Article I of venerable The Second London Confession of 1689 states:

The Light of Nature shews that there is a God who hath Lordship, and Soveraigntye (Sovereignty) over all; is just, good, and doth good unto all; and is therefore, to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the Heart, and all the Soul, and with all the Might. But the acceptable way of Worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself; and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations, and devices of Men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

Not only does the Second London Confession establish the reality of the regulative principle, but it also sets forth the elements that the Bible prescribes for corporate worship. This is the genius of the regulative principle; there is no guesswork when it comes to deciding whether or not an element is fit for corporate worship. The Second London Confession argued, correctly, I think, that God has provided such as list of fit elements within His special revelation:

The reading of the Scriptures, Preaching, and hearing the word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual songs, singing with grace in our Hearts to the Lord; as also the Administration of baptism, and the Lords Supper are all parts of the Religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and Godly fear; moreover solemn humiliation, with fastings; and thanksgiving upon special occasions, ought to be used in an holy and religious manner.

Numerous Baptist pastors and theologians from the pages of history have subscribed to Scripture’s sufficiency and authority in matters of church worship and practice including Benjamin Keach, John Gill, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, John Leadley Dagg and James Petigru Boyce.

Gill is exemplary here; one of the first major writing Baptist theologians and pastors in England, Gill (1697-1771) propounded his view of the regulative principle most clearly in a pamphlet entitled “The Dissenter’s Reasons for Separating from the Church of England.” Gill penned it in 1751 in response to a Welch Anglican who sought to have all dissenting children in Wales catechized according to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. It was an attempt to expunge them of Baptist beliefs.

Gill hammered the established church on several points he viewed as unscriptural including its improper administration of the Lord’s Supper and baptism, its ‘sign of the cross’ in baptism, its practice of infant baptism, its unbiblical system of church polity, and its wearing of vestments. Gill wrote of these things, “they are nowhere enjoined in the word of God.” One can only imagine what Gill might have written in response to “gospel clowns.”

Conclusion

My denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, waged a strenuous warfare in the 1980s in which it decisively defeated the deadly sloth of liberalism, drove liberal theology from its ranks and re-established the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

Now, the crying need of the hour within the SBC and among our fellow Baptists is to recover the sufficiency and authority of God’s Word and to rediscover the regulative principle to inform the worship and life of the church. May it please God to grant us grace sufficient for such a reformation.

Notes:
*Originally this was reported as having happened "recently." Part of this post has been taken from an article written several years ago and the event in question was, at that time, recent. The word "recently" has been replaced by "several years ago" to reflect this.
**Other minor changes have been made in this paragraph to reflect more accurately the fact that this occurred several years ago. The parenthetical statement was also added after receiving that information today. Thanks for those who pointed these things out.

Jeff Robinson

The Shephard

HEN a shepherd has at last overtaken his poor, silly, wandering sheep, he does not straightway fall to scolding or beating it for having cost him so much toil and trouble. No; but he observes that it is very weary, that it has torn itself among thorns, and cut itself among jagged rocks, and therefore he first tenderly sees to its wounds, and then bears it back to the fold in his own arms. Poor trembling sinner, the gospel has at length laid hold upon you; you cannot longer run into the paths of sin, grace has stopped your mad career, and made you tremble at the guilt of sin. You are afraid of Jesus, for you know how sorely you have grieved him; you fear that he will chide you severely, and perhaps spurn you from his presence. Oh think not so of the Good Shepherd! He is already gazing on your bleeding wounds, and preparing to bind them up; he will soon take compassion on your weakness, and bear you in his arms. Trust to him, poor sinner, just as the poor sheep trusts the shepherd. A man is more precious than a sheep, and Jesus is more tender than the most careful shepherd. To coming sinners he is gentle indeed. When the prodigal returned all ragged, and filthy, his loving father did not put him in quarantine till he had been cleansed and purified, but there and then he fell upon his neck and kissed him, without so much as giving him one upbraiding word. He came straight from the swine-trough to his parent's arms. That welcomed prodigal is the type of such sinners such as you are. You too shall have all kisses, and no frowns; all love, and no wrath; all kindness, and no severity. Oh! if you knew the Saviour, you would not delay. Now, now poor heavy-laden sinner, trust the Lord Jesus, and live. He has never treated one returning prodigal with harshness, and he cannot change, and will therefore deal as generously with you as He has done with others. Whether thou wilt trust him or no—I will—I do. Poor sinner, may the Holy Spirit lead thee to look to Jesus and live.

---

No. 20.—Sword and Trowel Tracts, by C. H. SPURGEON.—6d. per 100, Post free, 8 stamps.
Passmore & Alabaster, 23, Paternoster Row.

Difference between a seeker-sensitive, vision-casting, purpose-driven Leader and a Christian Pastor