S/O -- Beth Moore studies.... Why do some churches not like them?

[Pam L in Mid Tenn]

What is the problem with Beth Moore Bible Studies? Some churches say that her theology is wrong? What is the problem? I know that she is Southern Baptist and that her studies are "Baptist"..... but is there really theological error?

[Chris in VA]

There's a good article in Christianity Today about her, fwiw.

[TravelingChris]

I don't know about any theological problems but I will read the Christianity Today article. Why I don't like them is the method used for study.

[AuntieM]

If you have followed her from the beginning, you know she has changed her position on some things over the years. Perhaps that provides a wider scope of things to object to?

 

Going over to read the CT article.... Though I don't always agree with them, either!

 

I have enjoyed some of her studies, but I have to take her in small doses. JMO.

[BikeBookBread]

There are so many different schools of theology. Without knowing the theological background of who is saying her theology is "wrong", it is impossible to determine what they disagree with. Covenantal, arminian, reformed, conservative, liberal, Word of Faith, Episcopal, Catholic, Lutheran, dispensationalist, charismatic... too many views out there to list them all. All churches have the belief that someone's theology is wrong in one area or another. I guess the question needs to be asked... is it a "hill to die on" for that church?

 

I like some of her studies more than others (Daniel, the David/God's Own Heart study, the Patriarchs are my favorites -- less conjecture is asked for). The ones that require lots of conjecture and "feelings" the the ones with which I have a problem (I really didn't care for Jesus, the One and Only -- in my opinion, it asked for too much conjecture and opinion based upon how the reader "felt". I personally agree with her theology about 90% of the time (as I am beginning to take on a more covenantal or reformed view of the Bible).

 

FWIW, I've participated in a Beth Moore study at a covenantal and reformed church, and although she is 100% dispensationalist and (to my understanding) reformed churches don't hold this view, it wasn't an issue, the study was still used and it was the best Bible study I have ever attended (it was "David - a Man after God's Own Heart" - my favorite Beth Moore study).

[TXMomof4]

I don't know about everyone, but our church does have some differences with her on theological issues. However, most of them don't change the "meat" of the study. I like her studies because they are just that - at least the ones I've done. You look at scripture and apply it to life, not looking at life and applying scripture to the situation, KWIM? So many women's studies I've done in groups have been very shallow and it drives me batty. "Don't gossip, be content, love God! It says so in the Bible!" I want something that helps me dig deeper into what the word says, not just someone to reiterate what it says.

[Pam L in Mid Tenn]

Changed her position on WHAT things??? I keep hearing that general statement, but without any specific examples.

 

BTW..... I did not see any problem with the CT interview.

 

I've done several of her studies..... A Woman's Heart, Breaking Free, Jesus the One and Only, Beloved Disciple...... and although I don't agree with "everything" I don't see anything that is glaringly theologically unsound.

 

Can someone give me specific examples?

[TXMomof4]

If you have followed her from the beginning, you know she has changed her position on some things over the years. Perhaps that provides a wider scope of things to object to?

 

 

 

Snark is not intended for you - just the idea. Heaven forbid someone grows in their understanding? I hate to think of some of the views/positions I held 10 years ago. Things I was adamant about. Shoot - even 10 days ago sometimes.

 

Pam - just speaking for myself, I do have some theological differences on baptism. Once saved, always saved is another thing that my church would argue with her about. But, it doesn't change the meat of the study. Some of my conclusions may be a bit different than hers, but she is still a gifted teacher.

Edited September 21, 2010 by TXMomof4

[Pam L in Mid Tenn]

I do not agree with Baptist's views on baptism or end times. Are those the types of things that are "the problem"?

 

Thanks everyone!

[simka2]

I do not agree with Baptist's views on baptism or end times. Are those the types of things that are "the problem"?

 

Thanks everyone!

 

I would say yes. Basically, anyone who doesn't hold to baptist theology...wouldn't agree with her theology. But that only occasionally affects the study, because in her studies it is mostly scriptural studies (contect and general application). She doesn't major on the theological differences that seperate denominations.

 

I have a problem with "some" not all of her studies/books, for different reasons. I really didn't like Insecurity (felt like it painted women really badly) and I also wasn't to fond of Breaking Free (although maybe the new format is less Name it, Claim it.)

 

I haven't had my coffee yet so high order thinking hasn't quite arrived!!!!

[LaissezFaire]

I don't know about any theological problems but I will read the Christianity Today article. Why I don't like them is the method used for study.

 

Same here. I think the studies are probably really good but I do not like watching a DVD of someone lecturing as a study. I like to read the word and dig in.

[Daisy]

Some say that she has headed in a more contemplative spirituality direction. You can google that if you want more information. I really couldn't say, as I have not researched her much.

 

I liked the parts of her Bible studies that were more inductive in nature; step by step through a book of the Bible. I didn't care for her book on "generational curses." I can't remember the name of it, but it rubbed me the wrong way. I can't even put a finger exactly on what it was that irritated me as it has been a long time ago.

 

I usually skipped her touchy-feely questions because honestly, I was looking for a clear interpretation of Scripture sans my emotional filter.

 

I haven't participated in a study of hers in years simply because I prefer a more inductive approach to Bible study.

[FriedClams]

For those looking for a great study - Kay Arthur rocks. LOTS of meat, not a lot of interpretation. I don't care for Beth Moore, not on great theological grounds, but I want to study scripture, not someone else's interpretation.

[vonfirmath]

I like some of her studies more than others (Daniel, the David/God's Own Heart study, the Patriarchs are my favorites -- less conjecture is asked for). The ones that require lots of conjecture and "feelings" the the ones with which I have a problem (I really didn't care for Jesus, the One and Only -- in my opinion, it asked for too much conjecture and opinion based upon how the reader "felt". I personally agree with her theology about 90% of the time (as I am beginning to take on a more covenantal or reformed view of the Bible).

 

I'm not fond of Beth Moore's studies for exactly this reason. I've found Precepts is more my style.

[AuntieM]

Snark is not intended for you - just the idea. Heaven forbid someone grows in their understanding? I hate to think of some of the views/positions I held 10 years ago. Things I was adamant about. Shoot - even 10 days ago sometimes.

 

Pam - just speaking for myself, I do have some theological differences on baptism. Once saved, always saved is another thing that my church would argue with her about. But, it doesn't change the meat of the study. Some of my conclusions may be a bit different than hers, but she is still a gifted teacher.

 

 

Snark not perceived! As I typed the response myself, I was wishing I could remember what I experienced/observed *personally* and as I was a bit rusty I neglected to include an example.

 

For one thing, If you did the early studies (like the one on the tabernacle, bikebookbread's favorite), then see one of her later studies (I am thinking it's Believing God, but this is where memory fails me...), *Beth herself* announces that she's changed her thinking over the years! And I agree, there is room for growth and change (PTL for that!). My comment was merely to imply that if you had problems with her stance, then she changed it, well, then maybe now there are even more targets for disagreement. There are lots of great teachers who will say they have changed their position of certain things as they grew in their walk (John MacArthur comes to mind). There are others who admit their early, unrefined zeal may have hurt the cause (hmmm... Paul?). Of course there is room for change.

 

PERSONALLY, these are some of the things which give me caution in approaching a Beth Moore study:

 

1 - They are very emotionally driven. If you have ever attended one of her live events, you have surely experienced this. For the person that is clearly grounded in the truth (and beautiful logic!) of Scripture, this can be... refreshing? However, I have witnessed such a group, get-on-the-bandwagon emotional response from so many women, dwelling on how she makes them "feel" rather than the application of what she taught, that it just makes me want to watch her teaching very closely. Some of the studies I've most benefited from have been in very small group settings where there is time to take what is presented by the author of a study and hold it up to the full context of God's Word. This is, I believe, the best way to study *any* extra-Biblical study source, not just Beth's.

 

2 - Akin to the above, she may make many uncomfortable due to her freedom in discussing spiritual warfare. *Personally* I believe that many of us in the Western church have forgotten that this is a very real thing. However, I can understand how many would interpret her frank conversation on this to be bordering on the beliefs of a denomination they cannot endorse.

 

3 - Along these lines, one of the greatest errors creeping into the church today is a revival of mysticism. Some of the prayer practices Moore has been affiliated with may be seen, by some, to fall into that category. Her move into this arena may be one of the "changes" folks have seen over the years.

 

4 - She has grown very ecumenical over the years. That gives me pause. If she widens her circle to give the TRUTH a broader hearing, wonderful. If she compromises certain teachings merely to gain a wider circle, well, that's compromise. Your (or anyone else's) interpretation of whether or not she is in "error" on this front will certainly be affected by the theology to which you subscribe. For me, personally, it is an issue of concern.

 

5 - No specific example comes to mind (though I've heard her do it), but she does at times hone in on a specific verse without first providing a good examination of the context for that verse. In my experience, there have been times when I felt the verse was being used/taught/claimed in a sense different that what was implied from the context.

 

 

Are these things enough for me to toss all of her teaching? No! I eat a lot of fish, I have learned how to spit out a few bones. (If there were mostly bones and little meat... that's a fish I don't mess with.)

 

However, when you are asking about "churches" that don't like Beth Moore studies, the stakes are different. A pastoral staff is solemnly charged with not letting error leech into the church. They are commanded by God (in Revelation, Timothy, many other books) to not let false teachers into the body. I would much prefer church leadership saying "no" to something in order to protect the body than to say "yes" to something marginal just for the sake of "tickling ears" to keep the congregation happy.

 

Hope I've made my opinions clearer now! I apologize for my previous generalized statements.

[6packofun]

Now I'm curious what the "Baptist views on baptism and end times" are! LOL We attend a Baptist church and have never heard a sermon or noticed anything in a statement of faith on these topics. Hmm. We don't consider ourselves "Baptists", though, just Christians who attend a Baptist church. :D

 

What *I* didn't enjoy about the 2 Beth Moore studies I did was that she's too emotional, I don't like how she speaks (just a preference thing) and I don't commit to a Bible study so that I can hear the teacher share a poem she wrote or other extraneous stuff like that. I think the studies are fairly meaty, but they just don't quite do it for me for some reason. That said, I'd actually join one again because I think the discussion and study that it can lead to is worthwhile.

[VBoulden]

I hate to think of some of the views/positions I held 10 years ago. Things I was adamant about. Shoot - even 10 days ago sometimes.

 

:iagree:

[AuntieM]

... (like the one on the tabernacle, bikebookbread's favorite)...

 

Sorry, bbb, I got it mixed up, you were referring to the David study, not the Tabernacle. A Woman's Heart: God's Dwelling Place, that was a very good study.

[gpsings]

I asked this question recently at a women's group, and I was told that we (our church which is Presbyterian) is Calvinist...she (being Baptist) is more Arminianist?

Meaning, we believe that God romances His chosen people until we turn to Him, but Arminianism teaches that everyone has a choice.

Whatever that's worth. :001_unsure:

Edited September 21, 2010 by gpsings

[vonfirmath]

Now I'm curious what the "Baptist views on baptism and end times" are! LOL We attend a Baptist church and have never heard a sermon or noticed anything in a statement of faith on these topics. Hmm. We don't consider ourselves "Baptists", though, just Christians who attend a Baptist church. :D

 

Baptism -- full immersion after personal acceptance of salvation (ie not as a baby)

 

End Times -- this probably varies more between churches (ie it's not a Baptist tenant). Every baptist church I have been a member of though have been pre-tribulation premillennial or "the personal imminent, pre-tribulation and pre-millennial coming of the Lord Jesus Christ for His redeemed ones; and in His subsequent return to earth, with his saints, to establish His millennial Kingdom"

[6packofun]

I had thought the *same* thing, but recently during Sunday school class we went over some Scripture and the discussion had a very Calvinist, "pre-ordained/elect" flavor that surprised me. Our pastor is in our class, too, and it made me go huh. LOL!!

 

Honestly, I feel secure enough in my own beliefs that certain differences really don't bother me all that much and I've found that the whole Arminian/Calvinist thing is present in many, many churches--everyone seems to fall in a slightly different place on the spectrum. If it starts to affect how a church/teacher/study materials teaches on salvation, then I'll take issue. The Word is the final authority for me, though, and I'm not afraid to make waves if I think something isn't lining up. :tongue_smilie:

[amyrjoy]

This is very interesting. I've participated only in one study of her's, the Esther one. I never knew about all this debate.

[hsbeth]

While I do not personally take issue with this I have heard it said by some that they are uncomfortable with her teaching a mixed SS class at her church. They cite that women are not to be teaching and/or in positions of authority over men.

 

I do agree with others who've mentioned that she has become markedly more ecumenical lately. Her most recent bestseller, "So Long Insecurity", while not a Bible study, at times seemed very self-helpish. Yes, she mentioned the significance of her personal relationship with Christ, but didn't seem to insist that only way to experience complete security involves complete surrender to an almighty God. That is problematic for me.

[Ellie]

I asked this question recently at a women's group, and I was told that we (our church which is Presbyterian) is Calvinist...she (being Baptist) is more Arminianist?

Meaning, we believe that God romances His chosen people until we turn to Him, but Arminianism teaches that everyone has a choice.

Whatever that's worth. :001_unsure:

Southern Baptist (and you understand that there is more than one group which includes "Baptist" in its name) is Calvinist. If Beth Moore is Southern Baptist, then she's Calvinist.

[6packofun]

Thank you for clarifying!

[Ellie]

I'm not fond of Beth Moore's studies for exactly this reason. I've found Precepts is more my style.

:iagree:

 

I *much* prefer Precept studies over any other.

[Daisy]

Southern Baptist (and you understand that there is more than one group which includes "Baptist" in its name) is Calvinist. If Beth Moore is Southern Baptist, then she's Calvinist.

 

Uh, this isn't accurate. There are many who don't hold to Calvinism within the Southern Baptist. Thought Calvinism is becoming more common. Voddie Baucham still receives flack for his Calvinistic stance within the Southern Baptist Convention. :D

 

You would have just sent my Southern Baptist friend off the deep end with your comment. LOL.

[Ellie]

For those looking for a great study - Kay Arthur rocks. LOTS of meat, not a lot of interpretation. I don't care for Beth Moore, not on great theological grounds, but I want to study scripture, not someone else's interpretation.

Precept Ministries' Bible studies are my favorites. I'm especially pleased that for groups using the DVD (and it isn't necessary to have those for the Precept Upon Precept studies) there are men who are leading as well as Kay, so groups can choose between a man and a woman, KWIM? When I lead studies, I alternate between Kay and one of the men, because I don't want us to become Kay Arthur groupies.:lol:

[AuntieM]

Southern Baptist (and you understand that there is more than one group which includes "Baptist" in its name) is Calvinist. If Beth Moore is Southern Baptist, then she's Calvinist.

 

I would respectfully disagree. Full ("5-point") Calvinism negates free will, which is taught in the SBC. Gotta run, but if I am wrong on this then I would (sincerely, not snarkily!) appreciate some reference.

 

REFORMED Baptist is more Calvinistic.

[FriedClams]

Southern Baptist (and you understand that there is more than one group which includes "Baptist" in its name) is Calvinist. If Beth Moore is Southern Baptist, then she's Calvinist.

 

I would disagree that Baptists are Calvinists. It's not germane to the discussion here, but I feel the need to make a comment.

[fairfarmhand]

I would disagree that Baptists are Calvinists. It's not germane to the discussion here, but I feel the need to make a comment.

Jumping on this bandwagon....been a Baptist all my life and nope. Not accurate.

 

(as a side note, isn't it funny the impressions we get of other denominations? My dh and I switched from a Southern Baptist to Freewill Baptist several years ago and were totally blown away by our inaccurate preconceptions of their beliefs. We'd been taught one thing about their views where in reality they were really not THAT different from our churches of origin.)

[1bassoon]

While I do not personally take issue with this I have heard it said by some that they are uncomfortable with her teaching a mixed SS class at her church. They cite that women are not to be teaching and/or in positions of authority over men.

 

This is the reason the pastor at the church where we used to live said we shouldn't sit under her teaching. Fwiw.

[LuvToRead]

Southern Baptist (and you understand that there is more than one group which includes "Baptist" in its name) is Calvinist. If Beth Moore is Southern Baptist, then she's Calvinist.

 

I wanted to clarify not all Southern Baptists are Calvinists. I belong to a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist church. We disagree with "Unconditional Election". This is very common in my area.

 

From the SBC website, "Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."

 

I also wanted to add that Southern Baptists (I can't speak for any other Baptists) do not have a definite opinion on the end times. Here is a quote from the SBC website, which comes from the "Baptist Faith and Message" --

 

"God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord."

 

Of course, individual Baptists have their own opinions on the ends times.

[Lostinabook]

Here are reviews of Get Out of That Pit & The Patriarchs that explain why some are not fond of her studies.

 

I've never used any due to comments people I know irl have made after doing her studies.

[TechWife]

I'm not fond of Beth Moore's studies for exactly this reason. I've found Precepts is more my style.

:iagree:

[forty-two]

Honestly, I feel secure enough in my own beliefs that certain differences really don't bother me all that much and I've found that the whole Arminian/Calvinist thing is present in many, many churches--everyone seems to fall in a slightly different place on the spectrum. If it starts to affect how a church/teacher/study materials teaches on salvation, then I'll take issue. The Word is the final authority for me, though, and I'm not afraid to make waves if I think something isn't lining up. :tongue_smilie:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't one's position on the Calvinist/Arminian spectrum affect one's teaching on salvation almost by definition? :confused: I mean, as soon as you progress beyond the bare statement "We are saved by grace, through faith in Christ alone," you immediately run into some serious differences, differences that affect one's doctrinal position on just about *anything*.

[Ellie]

I would respectfully disagree. Full ("5-point") Calvinism negates free will, which is taught in the SBC. Gotta run, but if I am wrong on this then I would (sincerely, not snarkily!) appreciate some reference.

 

REFORMED Baptist is more Calvinistic.

This is what the Southern Baptist Convention says about "God's Purpose of Grace":

 

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

That sounds pretty Calvinistic to me.

 

Reformed Baptist and Southern Baptist are not the same. It is why I mentioned that there many different groups that have "Baptist" in their names.

[Melissa in CA]

From the SBC website, "Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."

 

 

 

I am a Calvinist...a 5-pointer...and I would not disagree with the above statment. The question is not that those who believe receive salvation, the question comes down to HOW someone comes to believe. ;) That question is answered within the scope of our regeneration. A Calvinist would hold that one comes to believe due to a softening, a regenerating, of ones heart that God alone does within that person...His elect, His chosen, those persons given to Jesus by the Father, those He died for. That Christ in essence died for the Believer alone, not for the entire human race. For if He died for the entire human race, and paid the penalty for every single persons sins, then why do they have to pay for their sins again in Hell if they do not come to believe in Him? That would be a form of double jeopardy. Jesus dying for your sins, being fully punished for them, and then you being punished for them in Hell because you don't believe in Him. IDK. Something to think about.

 

As for Beth. I used to really enjoy her studies...her older studies. My all time favorite is her study on David. I don't care for her newer ones. She has changed, and it sends up red flags when I hear her talk. I really have to be discerning with her. Now, I wouldn't refuse to use one of her studies, but if I am offered an alternative, I take the alternative. I personally miss the old Beth.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Melissa in CA

[AuntieM]

The question is not that those who believe receive salvation, the question comes down to HOW someone comes to believe. ;) That question is answered within the scope of our regeneration. A Calvinist would hold that one comes to believe due to a softening, a regenerating, of ones heart that God alone does within that person...His elect, His chosen, those persons given to Him by the Father, those He died for. That Christ in essence died for the Believer alone, not for the entire human race. For if He died for the entire human race, and paid the penalty for every single persons sins, then why do they have to pay for their sins again in Hell if they do not come to believe in Him? That would be a form of double jeopardy. Jesus dying for your sins, being fully punished for them, and then you being punished for them in Hell because you don't believe in Him. IDK. Something to think about.

 

Well stated, melissa, thanks for doing it better than I could!

 

Ellie, the passage you linked can be described as Calvinistic, yet would apply more to the perseverance of the saints than to salvation itself, at least as I read it. What beautiful assurance!

 

PamL, OP, I apologize for sidetracking your thread.

[LuvToRead]

I'll be the first to admit that terminology does sometimes confuse me. I go to a country church that is about 200 years old. We don't use terms like Calvanism and Arminianism. So, my understanding of Calvanism is that it is God's sovereign choice, not a person's faith, that determines who the elect are. Arminianism, therefore, is that God has a foreknowledge of those who will freely accept salvation, and those are the elect.

 

If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

So, if those statements are correct, we are Arminian. We believe that God does seek us out for salvation, and convicts us, but the ultimate choice is ours. I also fully believe that God does harden the hearts of some. He knows that they will never accept Him, so they do miss their opportunity, but they were given the chance. There are many God seeks out who are not saved. God's desire is for everyone to be saved. The only sins the blood of Jesus will cover are those of the saved, but I do believe He would have died if only to save 1 person.

 

Of course, there are those who never have a chance to hear the gospel at all. I also believe the quote Ellie used is about those who are already saved.

 

Anyway, I'm not really trying to debate, but I did feel I wanted to clarify what I believe. Again, if I am wrong, please let me know.

[bookfiend]

For those looking for a great study - Kay Arthur rocks. LOTS of meat, not a lot of interpretation. I don't care for Beth Moore, not on great theological grounds, but I want to study scripture, not someone else's interpretation.

 

Yep, yep, and double YEP!

[LuvToRead]

I just started Kay Arthur's "Overcoming Fear and Discouragement". I can't wait to really dig in. It is my first Bible study by her, so I'm glad to hear all the encouraging words about her studies.

[simka2]

I am a Calvinist...a 5-pointer...and I would not disagree with the above statment. The question is not that those who believe receive salvation, the question comes down to HOW someone comes to believe. ;) That question is answered within the scope of our regeneration. A Calvinist would hold that one comes to believe due to a softening, a regenerating, of ones heart that God alone does within that person...His elect, His chosen, those persons given to Jesus by the Father, those He died for. That Christ in essence died for the Believer alone, not for the entire human race. For if He died for the entire human race, and paid the penalty for every single persons sins, then why do they have to pay for their sins again in Hell if they do not come to believe in Him? That would be a form of double jeopardy. Jesus dying for your sins, being fully punished for them, and then you being punished for them in Hell because you don't believe in Him. IDK. Something to think about.

 

As for Beth. I used to really enjoy her studies...her older studies. My all time favorite is her study on David. I don't care for her newer ones. She has changed, and it sends up red flags when I hear her talk. I really have to be discerning with her. Now, I wouldn't refuse to use one of her studies, but if I am offered an alternative, I take the alternative. I personally miss the old Beth.

 

Fully admit that I am not a Calvinist. I do not see that as double jepordy at all. Let me explain...If I know that my kids have a $10,000. credit card debt, and I decide to pay it...I go to the bank and withdraw $10,000, put it in an envelope and tell them they can pick it up. My kids then decide not to bother picking it up, so their debt still exists. The payment is sitting right where they can reach out and grab it, but for their own reasons the CHOOSE not to. That is how I see Christ's GIFT.

 

Hijack done.

[Melissa in CA]

 

Hijack done.

 

:lol::lol: Oh the responses I could type in reply to your money scenario (heehee), but this type of conversation really does have a way of taking on a life of it's own, so I'm with you simka; Hijack done. ;)

[mom2abcd]

I haven't read all of the responses so please forgive me if this has been said....

 

I recently watched a video of Beth Moore (part of a video) and she was plainly taking scripture and using it out context for her topic which was a self help issue. I have no problem with Christian self help but I do have a problem when someone takes a scripture and uses it out of context and I mean way of out of context. I do understand that she was abused and has issues and I like that she tries to help women but don't twist scripture. That to me was a deal breaker and I will not user her resources.

 

I could have written this post! My sister loves Beth Moore and has led several of her series. When I went to check it out, I was appalled. It sounds like maybe some of her earlier work was better. Unfortunately, she seems to be veering from biblical teaching these days.

 

Here is a website that has a lot of links to places that have examples of her teaching. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/1293-beth-moore It's worth taking some time to explore.

 

This one is quite informative: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/08/16/the-enigma-of-beth-moore/

 

This site has more: http://www.pfo.org/Beth_Moore.htm

 

I saw for myself how she took Gospel (Good News about what God has done for us) and turned it into Law. She seemed to look for verses that supported her theory and twist them to make them fit what she wanted to say. She takes them out of context, etc. I have a real problem with that. Time after time she says things like "what this could mean." It is very subtle but she says it with such authority that the women seem to eat up her every word, jotting down what she says as gospel truth.

 

She really is reaching a lot of women. I just pray that she is careful about what she says and how she interprets Scripture. She is self-taught and I think she would do well to spend some of her millions in learning from great people of the past some of the basic hermeneutical principles.

 

I do think she loves the Lord and has good intentions.

 

And as far as OP's original question as to why many churches don't approve of them... I hope most churches feel a great responsibility to present God's Word in its truth and purity. They don't want to be involved with false teaching, even though it may be well-intentioned.

[Ellie]

I just started Kay Arthur's "Overcoming Fear and Discouragement". I can't wait to really dig in. It is my first Bible study by her, so I'm glad to hear all the encouraging words about her studies.

I have only done Precept Upon Precept Bible studies, not the smaller devotional studies, but I'm sure those are good, too.:)

[FO4UR]

Southern Baptist (and you understand that there is more than one group which includes "Baptist" in its name) is Calvinist. If Beth Moore is Southern Baptist, then she's Calvinist.

 

This is what the Southern Baptist Convention says about "God's Purpose of Grace":

 

 

That sounds pretty Calvinistic to me.

 

Reformed Baptist and Southern Baptist are not the same. It is why I mentioned that there many different groups that have "Baptist" in their names.

 

I'm Southern Baptist...I've been in an SBC most of my life....went to an SBC college, then Seminary and am married to an SBC minister. (So that qualifies me as knowing what SBCers believe. LOL)

 

Not all Southern Baptists are Calvinists. Some are. It's one of the top questions asked when looking to go into an SBC pastorate fwiw. I think that's a testament to the fact that many are and many are not.

[silliness7]

Southern Baptist (and you understand that there is more than one group which includes "Baptist" in its name) is Calvinist. If Beth Moore is Southern Baptist, then she's Calvinist.

 

Several years ago we defected from the Southern Baptist denomination in order to align with Calvinists. SBC is not Calvinist although I have heard there is a Calvinist movement within the SBC in recent years. They are not nearly in the majority though.