Unfortunately she, like all women who exit their role of teaching within the limits allowed by Scripture and embark on a career as a “teacher of the Scriptures” or one that teaches with such authority, Beth Moore has also exited into error. Here is just a sample of her egregious dictum:
http://www.extremetheology.com/2010/03/beth-moores-dangerous-bible-twis…
She states at the 40 minute mark:
If we receive Christ as our Savior, but we never recognize and by faith believe him to also be our healer and our restorer, then we just stay as cracked as we were when he got hereBeth Moore is a “pop psychologist/theologist (the word theologian simply is too unfitting) who is following the line of many before her in turning the Scriptures upside down to provide a remedy for social and psychological inadequacies while now and then throwing in references to recognizable doctrine concepts.
I included John Piper’s name in the title noting his indiscretion (personally I do not view it as an indiscretion with respect to Piper, rather it was typical of a Neo-Evangelical) in the eyes of some regarding his past alliances with theological extremist Doug Wilson (past invitee) and his recent invitation of Rick Warren for his Desiring God Conference because John Piper also offers Beth Moore’s teaching as part of his Women’s Bible Study curriculum, shedding even more light on Piper’s weak theological discrimination.
http://www.hopeingod.org/sites/default/files/documents/Women%27s%20Bibl…
Another article on Beth Moore’s drift into confusion:
http://cicministry.org/commentary/worldview0006.htm
Discussion
Newlooking for more...
“Cracked” isn’t a word that has a traditional theological usage. If “cracked” simply means that one is “not overcoming sin through sanctification by faith,” then I don’t see what is wrong with the statement.
Does she specify what she means by “cracked”?
NewDan Miller wrote: Alex was
But just taking this one segment, either Beth Moore is ignorant of the implications of her statement or she simply has chosen to ignore orthodoxy and supplement it with pop psychology/theology. And I am surprised by what seems to be your languid view of the implications present in the declaration by Moore that if a believer does not, as Moore claims, “recognize and by faith believe him to also be our healer and our restorer” they are just as cracked (meaning in need of being put together) as when Christ arrived to save them (she is using a metaphor so I am sticking with it in describing our salvation as the arrival of Jesus). NO!
When we needed saved we were in shambles, destined to hell, without hope. Beth Moore has denied all that is present in our redemption when she asserts such. When Christ arrives to save us indeed we are so cracked we cannot be put together apart from Divine restoration. Is she really suggesting that before we are saved and after we are saved we are just as cracked if we don’t progress to the point of Beth Moore’s doctrine of seeing Jesus as our “healer and restorer” for our psychological needs? Where in the Bible is this and is she even aware that is exactly what happens when we do get saved?
And Beth Moore wasn’t talking about “overcoming sin through sanctification by faith” (another topic altogether with respect to who the overcomer is and what we should have in view with respect to overcoming), Moore was referring to the state of one’s psyche with respect to past sufferings, injuries maladjustments. BTW this is amplified in her pop psychology/theology book So Long, Insecurity which converts the doctrine of our redemption into a remedy for psychological issues.
But the worst case is really with what she said in its plain fashion. When we receive Christ as our Savior we receive, at that very moment (regardless of this additional healer and restorer idea that Beth Moore now wants to introduce) an astounding number of gifts from God of which and from which have an explicit and implicit impact on any such assertion by anyone that we are still just as cracked as we were when Christ arrived and here are just some of what we receive:Maybe if Beth Moore explored the nature of our salvation from God and its immeasurable grace and the gifts given the moment we are saved and understood just how not cracked any believer is the moment they believe no matter how poorly they may progress afterward, maybe she would not find it necessary to compensate for such a lack of inculcation with the invention and superimposition upon the gospel and the rest of Christian doctrine with such toxic redirections.
But here is another link with some interesting documentation where Beth Moore claims among many things, direct revelation from God!
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2008/05/beth-moore-revisited.html
But in case time does not permit here is a sampling of the author’s documentation:I do hope this “more” helps ;)
My blog: http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/