what do people here think of Joyce Meyer?

Albion said:

Fair enough, although what he thinks of the Christian teaching on the afterlife has next to nothing to do with the thread. Maybe a new thread in Unorthodox Theology entitled "What is Hell?"

Click to expand...

Wait, they'll probably send me there next,
less out of heresy more out of just plain
dense lol.

Habakk said:

Joyce Meyer’s views are far from orthodox. Yes it is orthodox to believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. It is not orthodox to believe that he lost his divinity on the cross, became a sinner, needed to suffer for three days torment of demons, needed to repent and be born again before he was resurrected. That is not the gospel.

Jesus descended into the earth (hell but not the lake of fire) in victory and took the keys of death and hell and made them an open show.

The victory was won on the cross by the sinless son of God.

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

“For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Psalm 16:10).

Click to expand...

Jesus was not a "sinner", for He Himself was without sin, otherwise He could not have been the spotless Lamb of God to be sacrificed for our sin. He became sin for us. OUR sin was put upon Him.

brinny said:

Jesus was not a "sinner", for He Himself was without sin, otherwise He could not have been the spotless Lamb of God to be sacrificed for our sin. He became sin for us. OUR sin was put upon Him.

Click to expand...

He became sin for us in that he paid our debt as our redeemer.

If he actually took our all sins, then we could sin without further consequence and that’s simply not true. This is the problem with WoF when they have Jesus taking actual sin and becoming a sinner.

Blood covenant was a central theme of OT and under the agreement of the new covenant Jesus paid our debt in full with his own blood. The debt of sin being death and separation.

“For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

To be sin - The words 'to be' are not in the original, literal.

He knew no sin, he was not guilty of sin in any way, and he was innocent of all transgression. Being God he remains always perfectly holy without sin, his own or ours. The scripture means that he became a sin offering.

Sin offering is not sin.

Nowhere does it say the Father turned his back on him because of sin. Jesus took our debt of sin willingly in perfect holy obedience to the Father. As the sin offering he paid the price in full. Including the price of seperation.

God now doesn’t see our sin instead he sees the righteousness of his Son that’s why it was a onetime offering.

Habakk said:

He became sin for us in that he paid our debt as our redeemer.

If he actually took our all sins, then we could sin without further consequence and that’s simply not true. This is the problem with WoF when they have Jesus taking actual sin and becoming a sinner.

Blood covenant was a central theme of OT and under the agreement of the new covenant Jesus paid our debt in full with his own blood. The debt of sin being death and separation.

“For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

To be sin - The words 'to be' are not in the original, literal.

He knew no sin, he was not guilty of sin in any way, and he was innocent of all transgression. Being God he remains always perfectly holy without sin, his own or ours. The scripture means that he became a sin offering.

Sin offering is not sin.

Nowhere does it say the Father turned his back on him because of sin. Jesus took our debt of sin willingly in perfect holy obedience to the Father. As the sin offering he paid the price in full. Including the price of seperation.

God now doesn’t see our sin instead he sees the righteousness of his Son that’s why it was a onetime offering.

Click to expand...

Jesus never sinned. He was never a sinner. That's why it is only HE Who could take our sins upon Himself. WE needed/need a Savior. He doesn't need a SAvior.

I believe the churches as seven.

1. Ephesus - Apostolic
2. Smyrna - Martyrs
3. Pergomos - Orthodox
4. Thyatira - Catholic - Jezebel is to control and dominate.
5. Sardis - Protestant - Thinks they are alive
6. Philadelphia - Methodist revivals
7. Laodicea- Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

All those modern things refered to are things pertaining to the Laodicean church age. Read the prophecy word for word and discern. If the people were truly sanctified the Wesleyan way they would not hoard great abundances of wealth. John Wesley made a good bit of money off his publication but gave the most of it away.


All of this materialistic 'biking' for money started with DL Moody and Ira Sankey. Ira Sankey wrote a hymnal that was very popular. When Moody and Sankey went to England there was a small uproar over the fact that they intended to keep the profits.

So, American ministers in general, are bad about this. I cant tell you the ministers that make money off publications and then live happily ever after in Texas. David Wilkerson was one. Even RW Schambach moved to Texas after he had enough money to do so.

Now I enjoy the ministries of Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyers but hate that he puts so much of his book profits in their back pocket. But American preachers have been doing this for years. Wish it were not so!

brinny said:

Jesus never sinned. He was never a sinner. That's why it is only HE Who could take our sins upon Himself. WE needed/need a Savior, not Him.

Click to expand...

I agree we need a saviour, Christ being sinless did not. Christ saved us from sin and redeemed us from the debt of sin, being our saviour and redeemer. A redeemer pays the price of redemption of another.

The WoF have a subtle slant on Jesus taking our actual sin, becoming a sinner and this leads to the path of the conclusion of their heresies.

Understanding of the biblical blood covenant would have kept them from this error.

Now I enjoy the ministries of Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyers but hate that he puts so much of his book profits in his back pocket. But American preachers have been doing this for years. Wish it were not so!

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't they-these earnings are separate from their pastoral duties and IF they tithe off their earnings (which both of them publicly declare they do) the church gets a good some from both of em. Do you feel the same about others who are NY Times Best Selling Authors? Many Bibical characters were VERY wealthy (Abraham, David, even Paul could be considered wealthy by many) Poor has never been a requirement for christianity-while we are not to LOVE wealth-it is a tool like any other say fire for example-it warms and burns..We should not be jealous or judgemental of people who seem to go about doing good..because they have been blessed with a bit of luxory.

Habakk said:

He became sin for us in that he paid our debt as our redeemer.

If he actually took our all sins, then we could sin without further consequence and that’s simply not true. This is the problem with WoF when they have Jesus taking actual sin and becoming a sinner.

Blood covenant was a central theme of OT and under the agreement of the new covenant Jesus paid our debt in full with his own blood. The debt of sin being death and separation.

“For he has made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

To be sin - The words 'to be' are not in the original, literal.

He knew no sin, he was not guilty of sin in any way, and he was innocent of all transgression. Being God he remains always perfectly holy without sin, his own or ours. The scripture means that he became a sin offering.

Sin offering is not sin.

Nowhere does it say the Father turned his back on him because of sin. Jesus took our debt of sin willingly in perfect holy obedience to the Father. As the sin offering he paid the price in full. Including the price of seperation.

God now doesn’t see our sin instead he sees the righteousness of his Son that’s why it was a onetime offering.

Click to expand...

Jesus was made an offering for sin. HE was sinless. Our sin was not. Perhaps this is why Jesus sweat as it were great drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane as He asked God to take this cup from Him (but nevertheless, was obedient)

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ~Matthew 27:46

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." ~Isaiah 53:10

If Not For Grace said:

Why shouldn't they-these earnings are separate from their pastoral duties and IF they tithe off their earnings (which both of them publicly declare they do) the church gets a good some from both of em. Do you feel the same about others who are NY Times Best Selling Authors? Many Bibical characters were VERY wealthy (Abraham, David, even Paul could be considered wealthy by many) Poor has never been a requirement for christianity-while we are not to LOVE wealth-it is a tool like any other say fire for example-it warms and burns..We should not be jealous or judgemental of people who seem to go about doing good..because they have been blessed with a bit of luxory.

Click to expand...

Well... I intend to watch Joyce Meyers tonight (online) at Joel Osteen's Lakewood church. So I am a supporter of both of them.

On my web site... rockytopva's channel - YouTube... I can post a good fundamentalist sermon and am lucky to get 100 views in a year. I posted a sermon by Joel Osteen and got over 12,000 views the first month.

CityOfGod said:

Still she teaches men and this is expressly forbidden by the letters of St. Paul.

Click to expand...

If there is a fault here it would be on those men being disiples and not on her for speaking.
I mean her ministry is geared toward women. It's not like she is attempting to get men to follow her. There is something missing for her to be usurping authority. She first have to claim that authority of the Church. I don't see her doing such. If a man chooses to be under her authority that's the man's issue not hers. It's not like she's in Mass as the celebrant. More like women's conferences. I'd only have a big issue on this if people were using this as a replacement for Church.
Most gals I know or have met that go to her conferences just get together with a group of gals for a weekend away with the gals and a break from hubby and the kids. Kinda like a nice clean couple nights out with the girls. Not to mention that she's backed up by some great musicians. More like some good entertainment with with some uplift spiritually and mentally. While I don't agree with her financial teachings I think spiritual women have nothing to fear from her. It's just not Church. Of the Church? Well, there are Christians there.

rockytopva said:

On my web site... rockytopva's channel - YouTube... I can post a good fundamentalist sermon and am lucky to get 100 views in a year.
I posted a sermon by Joel Osteen and got over 12,000 views the first month.

Click to expand...

I would guess that number will increase in the future

http://www.christianforums.com/t7722929/
What do people here think of Joel Olsteen?






.

people need to hear that God LOVES them. people are DESPERATE to hear that God LOVES them. we need to TELL people that God LOVES them, and pour out all the grace God has poured through us to others and have a passion to do so. God takes care of the rest, if we speak His LOVE to people. People are desperately wounded. People are gripped and caught up with generational strong holds. THey need to hear there is ONE Who will break those chains. We need to just SPEAK His grace, and His Spirit will do the rest. We may even stumble or stutter as we say it, but we need to say it anyway, and God's grace will supersede all our bumblings and will reach those hungry for His grace. We're ALL hungry for His grace. We're ALL in this together. Our focus should be on HIM and His Word, and not on how our brothers and sisters may possibly be clumsy in speaking it. We are to LOVE and pray for one another.

Hebrews 4:15 IS what people need to hear (i know I do. who ISN'T struggling in some way or other? i NEED to hear that my high priest is in this WITH me.)

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." ~Hebrews 4:15

I have eaten, slept, and lived this verse (still do at times):

"Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me." ~Psalm 139:5

It's right in line with this one:

"Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." Isaiah 48:10

We all NEED to hear this (and "absorb" what it means):

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." ~Romans 8:35-39

This is true, isn't it?:

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." ~I John 4:18

God gives us confirmations of His love for us and how He delights over us with singing, doesn't He? Do we keep a journal of His evidences He places all around us of His love for us?

"Shew me a token for good; that they which hate me may see it, and be ashamed: because thou, LORD, hast holpen me, and comforted me." ~Psalm 86:17

Joyce Meyer - I Belong To God & He Loves Me - YouTube

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7: 21-23).

Note: the Lord did not say that they did not prophesise, cast out demons or do many wonderful works. He did not say that their works were false or that they did not have results.

When the Lord was missing he said to his parents “know ye not that I was about my Father’s business….” He said that “without me you can do nothing. If things are said and done outside the Fathers will, then what will remain in the eternal kingdom of God?

Joyce Mayer has said in her own words that scriptures concerning wealth do not apply to her because she is living out her reward now. Jesus said “….that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.”

Jesus preached the kingdom of God before and after the resurrection, that was his message. We are kingdom people, we are servants of the most high God and we are disciples. One day when we see him we shall become like HIM. Hallelujah! I try to be the person that God wants me to be. I have no desire to fill my mind with the get rich quick and self indulgence that prosperity gospel preaches peddle and the snake oil promises of the movement. It simply doesn’t work and I know of many casualties of the prosperity gospel movement. Fortunately the ones I know are now living close to God and guarded with correct biblical doctrine. Most of them still shudder at the delusion of former years and their experience of such false teaching.

I am sorry if this seem to come across strong, I genuinely don’t want to offend anybody. I just ask those who are spiritual to take care.

Two things that this thread has shown me:

1. No good intention goes unpunished (or condemned). If you work with the poor, someone will complain that you should be preaching the Gospel and bringing the unsaved to Christ. If you preach Christ crucified, someone else will complain that you could better be helping all the poor and distressed in society. If you work with women, someone will say you should be aiming your efforts at some other group.

2. No matter what a preacher or religious speaker says, it will be interpreted a dozen different ways. If you use colloquial language because that's what works best with your audience, it will be even worse for you.

This thread shows (yet again) that people will believe just about anything, even if it's heresy. They will promote and defend heresy.

And a lot of believers will even pay those selling it quite well and think it's great.

go figure

and go OBAMA!

.

Albion said:

We all wish OBAMA would go, Squint.

Click to expand...

Critical skills test

FAIL

I am simply afraid to recommend popular preachers. With popularity and money it becomes easy to become corrupt. I would hate to recommend a TV minister and have them do another Jimmy Swaggert on us.

rockytopva said:

I am simply afraid to recommend popular preachers. With popularity and money it becomes easy to become corrupt. I would hate to recommend a TV minister and have them do another Jimmy Swaggert on us.

Click to expand...

That's quite understandable. But most of these TV ministers are self-made preachers and their objective is to reach those who may not have been reached by local pastors and churches. To do that, they have to be different--more entertaining, more easily understood, more personally appealing, something. We can understand that, and it's not entirely wrong. But in order to address the problem you've outlined, maybe our determiner should be, "Are they actual pastors in well-established denominations?" Charles Stanley would fit that bill, for example. There are exceptions, of course, but it might help the sorting-out process.