Posted in homosexuality, jesus, legalism, rapture

Debit v Credit cards; Solar flare, The Rapture is a Necessary Inference, Homosexuality IS different

Here are a few items of interest for you:

In this first one I was drawn in by the illustration. It is the best visual representation of the rapture I’ve seen. Then I read the article and it is excellent too.

The Rapture—A Necessary Inference
By Dr. Steven Hayes

“…This new (or renewed) consistency in the use of a literal hermeneutic naturally led to new insights in many areas of theology. As an example, a literal hermeneutic applied to prophetic passages in the New Testament led students of the Bible to conclude that the Rapture of the Church was a phase of the return of Christ that had to be distinguished from the 2nd Coming. That is, the yet future return of Christ will actually be comprised of two distinct events separated in time: 1) the Rapture of the Church, in which Christ comes in the air to receive His Bride and take her back to heaven with Him (e.g., John 14:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), and 2) the 2nd Coming, in which Christ comes from heaven with all His saints to establish His kingdom on this present earth and personally reign over it for a thousand years (e.g., Matthew 24:30; Revelation 19:11-16; 20:4-6).


FIRST-PERSON: Why homosexuality IS different Mike Goeke
“…Many churches have taken to heart the level nature of sin and clearly acknowledge that sin is sin, be it gossip, envy, lust, gluttony or homosexual behavior. The level nature of sin, however, makes many reticent to discuss or address the issues surrounding homosexuality in more detail or with any special emphasis. “We don’t want to highlight any one sin,” they reason. The truth is that homosexuality IS different. It is not different as a “sin.” God sees the sin of homosexual expression as He sees all sin. It is different, however, in that no other sin (or, better said, an identity based primarily on sinful behavior) has impacted, or is likely to impact, culture in the dramatic way that homosexuality has done and will do.

An interesting secular article on the debate over credit cards vs. debit cards. How we spend is a good topic for the Christian to think about carefully.

Debit Cards vs. Credit Cards: Your Best Arguments
Credit cards and debit cards both have their advantages, but one must emerge victorious in an all-out battle of financial usefulness and security. Which will it be? Here are your best arguments.

Stormy spaceweather, large sunspot and an X-flare. has the story
STORMY SPACE WEATHER: Giant sunspot AR1944 is directly facing Earth and crackling with solar flares. Yesterday, Jan. 7th, an X1-class explosion in the sunspot’s magnetic canopy hurled a CME in our direction.

Here is the quote I read on Twitter that I liked so much. It’s  from pastor JD Hall: JD Hall ‏@PulpitAndPen

“Want to know if someone is an idolater? Speak ill of their idol. You’ll find out really quickly.”

And another quote to get us going today:

From Jimmy Needham ‏@JimmyNeedham

Don’t mistake obedience for legalism. Legalism seeks to justify self. Obedience celebrates the justification of Christ.

Posted in antinomianism, discernment, joel osteen, legalism, truth

Discernment: How two seemingly opposite doctrines can actually be the same

I think it’s interesting that Legalism and Gnosticism are really one and the same. A great lesson for me last year was learning how all the false religions and the false doctrines are drawing closer to one another. Those which seem like polar opposites are really the exact same thing, just a different flavor. Here is another example of how two opposing doctrines are really one and the same: Antinomianism and Legalism.

In the wonderful series, “Drive By Discernment“, short lectures on the topic of discernment edited by Todd Friel, Pastor RW Glenn is speaking of this exact thing. He is talking about how Antinomianism and Legalism are the same, and clearly shows how.

First, defines Antinomianism:
“The word antinomianism comes from the Greek anti, against, and nomos, law. It is the unbiblical practice of living without regard to the righteousness of God, using God’s grace as a license to sin, and trusting grace to cleanse of sin.”

And defines Legalism:
“In Christianity, legalism is the excessive and improper use of the law (10 commandments, holiness laws, etc). This legalism can take different forms. The first is where a person attempts to keep the Law in order to attain salvation. The second is where a person keeps the law in order to maintain his salvation. The third is when a Christian judges other Christians for not keeping certain codes of conduct that he thinks need to be observed.”

So how can living in excessive license and living in excessive restriction…be the same? Here is Pastor RW Glenn: [excerpts]

There are people who embrace Jesus as Lord and Savior and people who avoid Jesus as Lord and Savior. And what’s interesting is that you can avoid Jesus as Lord and Savior either by being bad, OR by being good. Religious moralists avoid Jesus as Lord and Savior by developing a system of moral righteousness to put God in their debt. In other words, my obedience and religious devotion is going to beef up my spiritual resume such that I don’t need Jesus to rescue me anymore. And where there are gaps in my resume I use Jesus to fill them in. By and large I don’t need rescue, all I need is a boost. They avoid Jesus as Lord and Savior by relying on their own righteousness. They avoid him by being “good”. … [Thus] Rule keepers and rule breakers are all identical because they avoid Jesus as Lord and Savior and are on the broad road to destruction.

See, Pastor Glenn explains that there is a demand of the Gospel, and there is a comfort of the Gospel. Legalism over-emphasizes its demand, while Antinomianism over-emphasizes its comfort. Over-emphasizing one or the other dilutes the Gospel. Paul said He had not hesitated to preach the whole counsel of God. (Acts 20:27). Of that important balance in keeping the Gospel whole, Barnes’ Notes says:

“I have not shunned – I have not kept back; I have not been deterred by fear, by the desire of popularity, by the fact that the doctrines of the gospel are unpalatable to people, from declaring them fully. The proper meaning of the word translated here, “I have not shunned”, is “to disguise any important truth; to withdraw it from public view; to decline publishing it from fear, or an apprehension of the consequences.” Paul means that he had not disguised any truth; he had not withdrawn or kept it from open view, by any apprehension of the effect which it might have on their minds. Truth may be disguised or kept back:

(1) By avoiding the subject altogether from timidity, or from an apprehension of giving offence if it is openly proclaimed; or,

(2) By giving it too little prominency, so that it shall be lost in the multitude of other truths; or,

(3) By presenting it amidst a web of metaphysical speculations, and entangling it with other subjects; or,

(4) By making use of other terms than the Bible does, for the purpose of involving it in a mist, so that it cannot be understood.”

How does one keep back one part of the Gospel at the expense of the other? Pastor Glenn finishes:

Legalism over-emphasizes the demand of the Gospel. Matthew 5:48 – Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. That is a gospel demand that legalism overemphasizes. Antinomianism overemphasizes the very real comfort of the Gospel. Matthew 6:26- You are more valuable than many sparrows. The challenge of the Gospel is that there needs to be an equal emphasis on both the demand of the Gospel and the comfort of the Gospel. As Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.” Equal emphasis. I do not condemn you, go and sin no more. If you don’t eventually emphasize both of those you lose the Gospel.

Glenn said that there are three tests to determine if a teacher is false. The character and conduct of the teacher (Colossians 1:28, Titus 2:2, Matthew 5:1-12) the complexion of their followers (Luke 6:40, 2 Timothy 4:3), and the content of their teaching (Matthew 12:33, 2 Timothy 4:2-3).

With this information in mind, now think of pastors who preach one at the expense of another. Or perhaps, do you preach or teach one at the expense of the other?

Remember two things. First, all other doctrines except the Gospel are false, and thus are the same, no matter how different they look on the outside. And second, satan is the most subtle creature in the Garden (Genesis 3:1). It is not hard for him to come up with different flavors of the Gospel and lots of false doctrines. I mean, if Baskin Robbins can come up with 31 flavors of ice cream… the most crafty creature in all the garden can certainly come up with enough false doctrines!

This week the Christian Post (which increasingly should be called the Post-Christian) reported on Joel Osteen’s Night of Hope in Las Vegas. It is reported,

“Lakewood Church pastor Joel Osteen, who along with wife, Victoria Osteen, will be leading “A Night of Hope” in Las Vegas, Friday night, has said that he avoids speaking on controversial issues because he doesn’t want anyone to feel excluded from his messages.”

However, Osteen’s definition of ‘controversial issue’ is really code for “sin.” Sin is always controversial. Preaching the whole counsel includes passages such as 1 Timothy 1:10. Yet Osteen declares that he avoids it. Avoid 1 Corinthians 6:9. Revelation 21:8? Avoid. Titus 1:16, Galatians 6:20, 2 Peter 2:6…the list is endless of ‘things to avoid’ so that ‘all will feel included.’ But we’re all sinners. If Osteen wants to preach so that all will feel comfortable, he either needs to preach to no one, because the flavors of sin are endless and odds are someone will feel ‘excluded’ (i.e. convicted), or Osteen needs to preach only the comfort of the Gospel, which is not the whole counsel. You see how devastating the imbalance is?

Osteen maintains that his style of preaching is consistent with the bible. Christian Post says, “His messages of hope and encouragement, as well as his trademark smile, also draw criticism among Christians who feel he fails to address sin and suffering, but Osteen shakes off such criticism. “I believe there needs to be more joy in the world…” But it is not true that this style is consistent with the bible.

Jesus spoke hard sayings. Not everyone felt included! On the contrary. However, Jesus did not alter the Father’s message in order to make it easier for fleshly ears to hear. In John 6:60-62, 66 we read,

“When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?” … After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”

So we see that false teachers are not true ambassadors (Ephesians 6:20, 2 Corinthians 5:20). In both those verses, the word ambassador means one who is authorized to speak as God’s emissary, representing His kingdom. Osteen takes it upon himself to alter the message of God. He cannot be a true ambassador, because he brings an unauthorized message. This is what all false teachers do. Jesus knew the hearts of men and He still preached a message that fell on hard hearts, in obedience to the Father. Osteen, and all false teachers, dare to disobey delivering the Father’s message and the example of Jesus in preaching it. This ‘daring’ will have terrible consequences:

Tim Challies dealt with this issue in his essay “Smilingly leading you to hell.”

In Drive By Discernment, Pastor Glenn did a good job of explaining how false teachers subvert the Gospel by preaching only half. As always, the most important thing is to check ourselves, first.

Do we preach all demand and no comfort? “Do more, be better, try harder”? Or maybe our Gospel is all comfort and no demand. “My sin isn’t a big deal…I’m forgiven anyway.” Or is your Gospel, “neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more?!” If you want to be an expert on false teachers, you need to be an expert in the Gospel. The more familiarity you have in the Gospel, the more familiarity you will have with the genuine article. When those counterfeits come your way – and they will – you will be able to say, ‘counterfeit!’ Why? because you’re resting in the Christ who says “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.” (John 8:11).

The Lord is Great, isn’t He?!?!

More on Osteen:

A true knowledge of the true God
Apostasy in the church: Angels of light
Can Christians live their best life now?

And here is an essay on the opposite problem,

 Legalism, Cults, and abuse of authority

Posted in beth moore, bible, bible jesus, legalism

Beth Moore: reactions to Living Proof teaching in Charlotte. Part 3a: The Teaching

By Elizabeth Prata

I went to a Beth Moore convention, and below is the series I wrote of my reaction. Be sure also to look to the right-menu for the 7-part series of an explanation of why Beth Moore teachings are in error.

All Beth Moore Critiques in One Place

Beth Moore: reactions to Living Proof teaching in Charlotte. Part 1, The Women

Beth Moore: reactions to Living Proof teaching in Charlotte. Part 2, The Music

Beth Moore: reactions to Living Proof teaching in Charlotte. Part 3a, The Teaching

Beth Moore: reactions to Living Proof teaching in Charlotte. Part 3b: The Teaching

Beth Moore: reactions to Living Proof teaching in Charlotte. Part 4: A final word

Beth Moore’s text for the 6-hour bible study was Deuteronomy 10:11-21. She also used quite a number of other verses, both from the OT and the NT. Here is the main passage:

“And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the LORD and His statutes which I command you today for your good? Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the LORD your God, also the earth with all that is in it. The LORD delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day. Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name. He is your praise, and He is your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen. Your fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons, and now the LORD your God has made you as the stars of heaven in multitude.”

The NKJV titles that passage “The Essence of the Law”. The HCSB titles it “What God Requires”. NIV’s version is “Fear the LORD”. Even the NLT calls it “A Call to Love and Obedience.” It is a beautiful passage in which His majesty and His Holy character is center stage, prompting all true believers to understand our position below Him, and thus, worship Him for who He is.

Beth Moore’s title for the passage is “His affection is set upon us.”

She explained how she arrives at the lessons she teaches on her tour. She said that when she prays the Holy Spirit will deliver a word to her. In the case for the teaching in Charlotte, it had been “Hold Fast.” In the case of her next tour in Columbia, it will be “Prepare.” This is direct revelation and it is NOT how we study the Bible, much less teach it. She then creates an acrostic of teaching points that begin with each letter in the main word. Ours was –

His affection is set upon us
Only He is your praise
Loving Him awakens your true heart
Doing His will does us good
Fleeing to Him means fleeing with Him
Any tighter embrace will also replace
Satan wants what we have
The Lord is your life

Looks kind of OK, doesn’t it? I won’t explain each of the eight mantras point by point, but share with you some of what troubled me most. I think word studies are good, and I like when teachers look into the Greek or the Hebrew meaning. I am not sure if this manner of exegetical study, finding all the words that relate to a subject and building a lesson out of it is outrageous or wonderful, but I do know that such an approach can be fraught with danger. You lose the context of each passage you are extracting the word from. If you cross OT to NT that context gets more complicated because you have to research whether the word used in a context was meant only for the Jews in the Old Covenant or can be extrapolated into the New Covenant for the Gentiles.

This approach also means that you wind up using a LOT of verses in one study and that tends to feel cobbled together and superficial. You can’t really explain to full depth each verse so you simply refer to them, and there winds up being a lot of different points. It gets unfocused, really fast.

She read the passage and then began by saying that this was “the Law of Love.” I cannot tell you any more than that, because she did not explain it. It is one of my concerns with her teaching. She will make a sweeping claim, and not back it up with scripture. If I was to take a guess I’d say she was teaching that the deliverance of the law in this section of Deuteronomy was all about how much He loves us, when it is really about how much we should love Him.

The next point was that the Israelites were being taken out of Egypt as the release from bondage so that they could have victorious lives. She referred to ‘victory’ constantly but never defined it.  And that Jesus brings us out of [metaphorical] Egypt. Then she said, “Anyone ever been stuck in Egypt too long? There is a land of promise for you and for me. Our promised land is characterized by a place where we live in victory. Where we don’t live in a lot of defeat. We’re walking between those ditches of defeat into victory. And secondly, our promised land is characterized by bearing fruit.” Bearing fruit was never defined. “We can be devalued deprived, depraved” and “we may miss our promised land.” The promised land was never defined. But she has now set up this vague sense of unease…I might miss something if I don’t do it right.

A Beth Moore teaching will be filled with legalism. There will be constant references to “if” you don’t do this, you “won’t” get that. Here is one: “If we don’t hold fast to Him we won’t live in earthly security.” That is a verbatim quote. I would venture to say that Apostle Paul held fast to Jesus as much as any Christian alive or dead, and he never had a day of earthly security in his life. What about Job’s earthly security? Satan tells us to value earthly security. Being alive in Jesus does not mean we get earthly security, as a matter of fact,  Jesus said repeatedly that the opposite will be true. In Luke 14:25 we read that the cost of salvation and subsequent discipleship might mean losing all you have and your life as well.

We love Jesus for Who he is, not for what He can do for us. In Beth Moore’s teachings, it is the opposite. I never heard the words holy or glory. In point 4 where we learn “Doing His will does us good” (and it’s true, doing His will is good for us,) I never heard the rest of the principle: “Doing His will gives Him glory.”

Here is another sweeping claim never backed up by scripture, and actually teaches the opposite of scripture: “He holds tight to us, but are we holding tight to Him? We’re called to a life that’s supposed to work.” Mrs Moore never defined a life that works, nor by whose standard- ours, or God’s? By our standards, Jeremiah’s life failed. He never had a single convert. Jeremiah was friendless, reviled, he was gloomy, negative, and no one wanted him around. According to principles Mrs Moore teaches, Jeremiah must not have been holding fast closely enough. Isaiah never had a following. Noah failed to convert anyone outside his family. Did their lives ‘work’? Her vague concept of a life that ‘works’ is according to man’s standards, not God’s.

She continued, saying “When we latch back on [to Jesus] we have life more abundant here on earth. .. Our life has purpose and life is working with a measurable form of victory.” She did not define victory nor by which tool we measure it. All we know is, IF we don’t do what she said, we WON’T get something good. Those are her nebulous threats. She creates a feeling of amorphous uneasiness that pervades her talks.

Here is another, referring to Deuteronomy 10:12- “God wants everything from us but IF I don’t bring my everything, then my life WON’T work.”

In referring to Isaiah 38:17, “Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back” she said “He can love you out of the pit.” But I thought He did that at the cross. I thought all believers, once repenting and forgiven by a Resurrected Jesus who is Lord, are yanked out of the pit. Mrs Moore teaches to believers, yet according to her, we are still in the pit and we have to do certain things so that we can access that love of His which will retrieve us out from it. It is that old legalism again.

In my next essay exploring my reaction to Beth Moore’s teaching in Charlotte, I’ll look at Eastern Mysticism, Fear of the LORD, the reciprocal relationship, and finish with ‘It’s all about me.’

Posted in beth moore, contemplative prayer, legalism

Troubled by Beth Moore’s teaching: Part 4: Legalism

By Elizabeth Prata

I am working on a series of essays looking at the teachings of Beth Moore. She is currently a wildly popular Christian Bible teacher. Her books, DVDs, lessons, devotionals and tours sell like hotcakes. She regularly fills stadiums and arenas to capacity. She is sought after for speaking engagements and has a regular spot on a television show called Life Today. She teaches Sunday School in her home town of Houston when she is in town and has had that position since 1984.

We are in the times of the doctrines of devils, of false teachers and of deception. Beth Moore may be true or she may be false (we’ll explore that this essay and the next) but because the Bible warns of these problems with teachers and teachings at the latter days, it is important for us to take a careful look at any and all teachers who have this much influence. I mentioned in Part One that I am headed to a Beth Moore conference this weekend. I’ll be listening to her for 6 hours and may have more to say afterward. In preparation for these essays I’ve listened to Beth Moore for several hours, prayed, read others’ concerns, and studied.

In exploring whether the content of Mrs. Moore’s lessons contain solid teaching, I’ll be looking at five issues- Contemplative Prayer, Legalism, Personal Revelation, Eisegesis vs. exegesis, and outright error. This part will  look at Mrs Moore’s insidious Legalism.

Troubled by Beth Moore Teaching, Part 1: Introduction and Casualness
In which I declare my biases, give a short lesson on discernment, and begin with a concern about how casually Mrs. Moore delivers her lessons.

Troubled by Beth Moore Teaching, Part 2: Un-dignified teaching
In which I look at one of the things that happens when women teach (tag-end questions and affirmation seeking), the undignified delivery of her lessons, and the problems with a rapid-fire teaching.

Troubled by Beth Moore’s Teaching, Part 3: Contemplative Prayer
In which I explain what Contemplative Prayer is, why it is bad, and Beth Moore’s participation in it.


Legalism is a reference to the Law, the Law of the Old Testament designed to show us in no uncertain terms that there is nothing that we can do in our own strength that will sanctify us and provide the pathway to heaven. If we rely on the Law, we are dead. Satan’s old trick of instilling in us the notion that we have to do things to get into heaven is alive and well, and has been since the earliest New Testament days. Legalism teaches that we do is more important that what we believe. Paul dealt with the first instance of legalism, busting it out of the water: “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:15-16)

Ecclesiastes 7:20 reminds us of legalism’s futility: “There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.”

I’d mentioned in the last segment that Mrs. Moore has a tendency to pry apart the tightly woven tapestry of scripture and insert things you have to do, make conditions for salvation (if you do this, then you’re saved) and to teach of a certain way of doing Christianity. Some people say that it is just her style of casual teaching, friendliness and quick speech but she really means that we’re saved by faith alone. But then again, I spoke to the dangers of quick speech and casual handling of the Word. Bible teachers have to say what they mean in precision and back it up with scripture. Oftentimes, Mrs. Moore makes assertions that have no basis in scripture and adds conditions for our faith walk. Here are three examples:

I used one example of legalism at the end of Part 3. It was from her contemplative prayer quote: “[I]f we are not still before Him, we will never truly know to the depths of the marrow of our bones that He is God. There’s got to be a stillness.” So IF you aren’t still you WON’T know God. At least, not like a real Christian. It’s Pharisaical thinking, ‘I do this practice so I’m really more pious than that tax collector over there.’ (Luke 18:11). And the Pharisees were the ultimate legalists.

Here is another example. In one study, Beth Moore is speaking of ‘confidence and competence’ that Christ gives us. The study is based on Hebrews 10:19-20 but her interpretation of the verse is wrong from the beginning. I’ll address her interpretive error in the exegesis vs. eisegesis segment to come.  But once the basic interpretation is wrong it is no surprise that what follows falls into even worse error. I transcribed this- Watch carefully as she inserts conditions to salvation and even outlines the effect of not believing the extra add-ons she includes. “…but what can happen is this … 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 just as cracked as when we got here.”

That’s a blasphemous, heretical statement. Let the momentousness of that statement sink in for a second.

The Gospel is now Law. We have to believe some things above and beyond what the Bible says we believe to be saved. John 6:29 says, “The work of God is to believe in the One He has sent.” We believe the Lord died to save us from our sins and rose again, and we are saved (Romans 10:9). Even better, there’s nothing anyone can ever do to change that (Romans 8:38-39). The moment you asked for your salvation it was delivered. (Matt. 7:7-8). It’s guaranteed forever (Ephesians 1:13-14, 2 Cor 1:21-22).  I certainly don’t see anything about having to believe that Jesus is our Healer and Our Restorer or else we stay cracked.

To continue:

…it [confidence] just bleeds out everywhere, we can’t keep any confidence in there. Because we have never trusted Him to put three pieces of our lives back together. Is this making any sense to anybody? We have all these cracks and all these pieces. … And we’re supposed to be effective here on earth. … Salt and light and profoundly effective, but we can’t be any of that unless we have our God-confidence.”

What she is saying is that —
1. Unless we accept Jesus as savior AND Healer AND Restorer, His work is not sufficient.
2. Unless we get some God-confidence, we are not effective.

Well…Moses wasn’t confident. “Then Moses said to the LORD, “O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” So the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD? Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say.” (Exodus 4:10-12). By any standard, Moses was effective.

Jeremiah wasn’t confident. His first worry was that he was too young for the job. ” Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth.” But the LORD said to me: Do not say, ‘I am a youth,’For you shall go to all to whom I send you, And whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of their faces, For I am with you to deliver you,” says the LORD.” (Jer 1:6-8). By any standard, Jeremiah was an effective man of God.

Now as for this cracked business, the Bible does speak of being cracked: “For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, The fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:13). The ones who forsook God were cracked- the evil ones were the cracked ones and were bleeding water out everywhere. But when Jesus saves us, we are sealed! “Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” (2 Cor 1:21-22) There is no in-between, being saved but leaking. That is disrespectful to Him and it’s just not biblical. But it is legalism.

I’ve given two examples of Beth Moore legalism. One was from her stance on the DVD “Be Still,” about Contemplative Prayer. One was from an audio teaching about Hebrews 10:19-20. This next example is from her book, “Breaking Free: Making Liberty in Christ a Reality in Life”. It is a review of that book by Paige Britton.

Britton says, “One rather ironic element of Moore’s teaching is her definition of “legalism,” one of the roadblocks we must remove if we want to journey on to authentic freedom. According to Moore, legalism occurs whenever one studies the Word but fails to enjoy God; it is the absence of relationship, passion, engagement of the heart (pp.75, 77). This definition is fine as far as it goes, but it effectively obscures the fact that Breaking Free is all about applying new rules in order to gain what God meant for us as a gift in Christ. Since Breaking Free is also all about experiential things like peace, satisfaction, and the enjoyment of a passionate personal relationship with God, it couldn’t possibly be an example of human-centered, legalistic religion, could it?”

Of course, the answer is yes.

Sister, watch or listen or read her works carefully, carefully, with this in mind: Beth Moore tends to apply conditions for faith that are not in the Bible. She also makes sweeping claims that she does not back up with scripture. It’s worse than Joel Osteen, because there is barely any Gospel if any at all in Osteen’s speeches. In Moore’s there is a lot of Gospelese mixed in with falsity, twisted interpretations, and legalism. Study, pray, and search these things out for yourself!