Peeps around the World

Blog Stats

wordpress stat

20 Most Recent Comments Scrolling

Christian Top 1000
SA Topsites ::

Joyce Meyer – Shocking False Teachings and Quotes

7DTW AuthorIcon75 Joyce Meyer   Shocking False Teachings and Quotes

JoyceMeyer Joyce Meyer   Shocking False Teachings and Quotes

Joyce Meyer is a Word of Faith Charismatic / New Age teacher who preaches along the lines of Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Fred Price, Charles Capp, Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan Crouch, and those who appear on Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), etc.

Listen to the audio below for a full a list of all her most serious heresies:   (Jesus tortured in hell, Jesus first born again man, Jesus became sin on the cross and stopped being the son of God, our sins atoned in hell and not on the cross, etc., and Joyce Meyer teaches that she is sinless.]

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Note:  Audio above posted by DTW is not an endorsement of the author, their website, ministry or any links therein. Readers are cautioned to use discernment at all times and test everything by the Word of God.

AllSeeingEye Joyce Meyer   Shocking False Teachings and Quotes

Joyce Meyer also teaches that we are little gods, see this article:  Joyce Meyer is a Little God With a Big Christ Consciousness.

But this is one of the latest quotes (2010) from Joyce Meyer and quite an incredible statement:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Transcript:  

Time:  00:14:19     We’re never going to mature and develop godly character until we learn to live….. with the All-Seeing eye on us all the time.”    — [Joyce Meyer - Transcript - Enjoying Everyday Life - Be Imitators of God - 7/10/2010]

***************

This symbol of theAll-Seeing eye  is the single most important symbol of the Illuminati, for it exemplifies the supernatural power they wield from Satan himself. The All-Seeing eye  CANNOT be interpreted as being that of the Christian God.  No where in the bible do we read about the All-Seeing eye , but we do know about the All-Seeing eye  in the occult….


“The All-Seeing eye represents the Egyptian Osirus, let’s look at who Osiris is. He committed incest with his sister, Isis, which resulted in the birth of Horus … the Egyptian god of the dead as well as a Sun God .. Osiris is known by many other names in other countries … In Thrace and Greece, he is known as Dionysus, the god of pleasures and of partying and wine … Festivals held in Dionysus’ honor often resulted in human sacrifices and orgiastic sexual rites. The Phrygians know Osiris as Sabasius where he is honored as the solar deity (a sun god) who was represented by horns and his emblem was a serpent. In other places, he is know by other names: Deouis, The Boy Jupiter, The Centaur, Orion, Saturn, The Boy Plutus, Iswara, The Winged One, Nimrod, Adoni, Hermes, Prometheus, Poseidon, Butes, Dardanus, Himeros, Imbors, Iasius, Zeus, Iacchus, Hu, Thor, Serapis, Ormuzd, Apollo, Thammuz, Atus, Hercules, Shiva, Moloch, and believe it or not, BAAL!”       –-Burns, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, pg. 359 [Emphasis in the original]

God condemns Baal worship in no uncertain terms, a worship associated with the All-Seeing Eye.

Jer 32:35;   “And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”   [KJV 1611]

—————-


pixel Joyce Meyer   Shocking False Teachings and Quotes

127 comments to Joyce Meyer – Shocking False Teachings and Quotes

  • Marion

    The sound of her voice as she says “all-seeing” eye is MOST creepy!

  • Kay

    I have read numerous articles that she is loved by lesbians. http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/2461/joyce_meyer_joins_condemnation_of_uganda_anti-gay_bill
    Texe Marrs has wondered if she is one herself but so far no one has proved it beyond a doubt that she is.

    I know she is very popular in South India, maintaining an office in Hydrabad, and comes to South India for huge seminars. I find this odd as crusades are against the law here in India. This means she would have to bribe some government official in order to to do this. The government would not allow her to share her faith nor say anything against the Indian government.

    So, why bother speaking in India? She will take the programs back to the States, slice them and dice them, claiming she is bringing Jesus to the poor people of India… so send the money in!!! Of course almost none of the money goes back to helping the Indian people. She will send some to an orphanage that she occasionally supports near her office.

    Benny Hinn also does this. This just causes real problems for the rest of us that sincerely want to get God’s Word to the lost in this area. Most of the lost here will assume all Christians are just out to make a buck off of them.

  • Burning Lamp

    Kay you are so right that these type of ministries, including James Robison use humanitarian projects as a “hook” to lure in well-meaning Christians to bring bucks into their coffers. There is no assurance that these funds will go to any particular project. And you can bet dollars to donuts that they have the best people to cook up these promos that show them in the best light. There are nondescript ministries that operate on a shoestring and spend every penny doing what they say they do and it is not eaten up in administrative costs and salaries and TV production costs. But since they don’t get the publicity, they are overlooked and people thrown their money down a rat hole.

    I must exhort you to beware of Texe Marrs. I used to get his newsletter until I started noticing things that didn’t seem right and after looking into it crossed him off my list as a sensationalist who plays fast and loose with the facts.

  • Myfanwy Brown

    BL who is Texe Marrs?? His name is vaguely familiar.

    When I was involved with WOF, I was introduced to Joyce Meyers, but something about her did not sit well with me. Her voice seems very deep, and what she said about the ‘all seeing eye’ also made me shiver!

  • Hanelie

    I came across this “all seeing eye” reference and other questions about Joyce Meyer’s ministry before I had really listened to her, but since I knew many people who followed her, I paid attention. I have heard claims that the audio on this one could have been edited. Be that the case or not, when I tried to listen to her, I found her message to much in the common humanitarian “self-help” genre.

    Burning Lamp wrote:

    … and after looking into it crossed him off my list as a sensationalist who plays fast and loose with the facts.

    I’ve found myself becoming extra, extra careful with all the big name, in your face, big-money ministries … and the conspiracy theorists. It is at times like these, when I get so down-hearted with all of this, with not knowing who to trust, that I’m constantly reminded of God’s amazing plan – providing us with the Holy Spirit inside us to guide us in these things? It really is more than my mind can make sense of. :)

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Hanelie

    >> I have heard claims that the audio on this one could have been edited.

    I checked for this and I could not find anything of the sort.

    I did however find the trascript!!

    http://www.livedash.com/transcript/kron_4_news_at_11/4/KRON/Thursday_October_7_2010/315917/
    00:14:12 Character is what you do when nobody’s watching but god.
    00:14:19 We’re never going to mature and develop godly character until we learn to live with the all-seeing eye on us all the time.
    00:14:30 I mean, come on, we don’t do anything that god doesn’t see it.
    00:14:33 There’s nowhere we can go that he’s not.

  • Aren

    Thank you for providing the link to the transcript. Aforesaid gave me the opportunity to read it and make the correct assumption for myself. Now let me state outright that have never listened to any of Joyce Meyer’s sermons, lectures, or whatever you may call them, neither have I read any of her books, nor am I a follower, but I do have friends whose wife’s adore her, but that is their prerogative. The reason why I’m stating aforesaid is so that no one can claim that I am not objective. The Lord however gave me enough common sense (and brains) to at least be able to distinguish between the truth and blatant nonsense. And in this case, I’m afraid that the criticism directed at her regarding the all seeing eye is unfounded and nonsense. If you read it in context, she is simply referring to God that sees everything that we do. We may think that we do things unnoticed by others (in the dark), but God sees everything, and there is enough scripture to support this view. So please, do not make the mistake like so many other, e.g. the Jehovah’s, that takes one verse (or several) out of context and then base their believes on that particular verse. The Bible must be read in context, not just one verse here and there. And the comment that lesbians likes her, really, coming from a Christian. And you have proof of this? This is nothing other than gossip and unbecoming of a Christian.

    Having said the above, please keep up the good work as I enjoy the articles tremendously. And accept the criticism in good spirit as it is not meant to offend in any way.

    In Jesus,

    Aren

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Aren

    >> And in this case, I’m afraid that the criticism directed at her regarding the all seeing eye is unfounded and nonsense. If you read it in context, she is simply referring to God that sees everything that we do…….The Bible must be read in context, not just one verse here and there.

    Please state from scripture where in the bible God is ever referred to as the All-Seeing eye. Or God watching over us is referred to as the All-Seeing Eye?

    >> Now let me state outright that have never listened to any of Joyce Meyer’s sermons, lectures,

    You’ve never listened to her so you can’t even make an informed decision. Let alone use your discernment.

    Are you sure you are not a Joyce Meyer fan?

    >> So please, do not make the mistake like so many other, e.g. the Jehovah’s, that takes one verse (or several) out of context and then base their believes on that particular verse.

    Oh you kidding me. You are the one that has not checked your bible!

    Me thinks you have been fooled, God is NOT the All-Seeing Eye, neither is His seeing everything we do referred to as the All-Seeing eye. No where is this found in the bible Aren, no where. But I beg you to go look.

  • Kate Akele

    Never liked Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar and their ilk especially her anyway!

  • Renita

    I find Joyce Meyer to be arogant and egotistic. I remember coming across a programme where she was raving about Madame Guyon; nuff said!!

  • Allan

    RE CHECKING OUT THE BIBLE AND THE ALL-SEEING GOD, ALLOW THE WORD ITSELF TO CORRECT THE CRITICISMS ABOVE.

    Also bear in mind that the scriptures were not originally written in English, so you can’t critique Joyce Meyer for saying He is the “All Seeing God”. It is the followers of Osirus that gave their god this name that was a deception and a lie. If Joyce had shown the Osirus eye symbol while she was talking about the All-Seeing God, then critics might have grounds for comment. As it is, the criticisms are unfounded. God clearly IS all-seeing as shown below….

    GOD SEES ALL
    Proverbs 15v3: “The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.”

    GOD SEES EVERYTHING
    Job 34v21-22: “His eyes are on the ways of mortals; he sees their every step. There is no deep shadow, no utter darkness, where evildoers can hide.

    GOD SEES US ALL
    Psalm 33v13: “From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind.”

    If this doesn’t describe ‘all-seeing’ what does!!! Don’t get bogged down in semantics guys!

    And if your God can’t see everything, then He is not the true God at all!

  • Kate Salem

    3. Joyce Meyer-“There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth I am presenting. YOU CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN unless you BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART that Jesus took your place in hell (p. 37).. [Joyce Meyer, The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make Booklet, Fenton, Mo.: Life In The Word, Inc./Joyce Meyer Ministries, August 1991 edition, pg. 36; (pg. 42 of the current edition). Where is that in the Bible?

    Additionally Joyce Meyer teaches that Jesus suffering in hell three days, not the cross nor His shed blood, is where salvation was purchased. (Ibid., pp. 35-38, 41, 43; (pp. 41-44, 47, 49 of the current edition).

    http://www.combineharvesting.com/part_iii.html

  • Kelli

    Careful!!! NOT TO JUDGE GOD HAS ANNOINTED!!!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Kelli

    Ahhh *pats you on the head* now now… go listen to the audio and then make your final choice, Jesus Christ or Joyce Meyer.

  • Michael

    This clique “God’s Annointed” propagated by false indocrinated teachings prevalent in Word of Faith teachings is mis-enterpreted.It’s totally unbiblical…there was only one that in this CONTEXT was annointed and ABOVE APPROACH and that was the Annointed Messiah…the Lord Jesus Christ.
    The scriptures were written by annointed persons but that does mean that they (the individuals) were above approach…David is a classic example…some of his actions,thoughts and words were of the worse sins…he had to repent and get himself right with God otherwise his soul was in danger of Sheol and he knew that.
    These false teachers and prophets that bedevil and infiltrate the church in the last days love to make their followers believe this heresy…that they are annointed but obviously when they spout there own docrine that contradicts what is written, only shows that they are self-appointed…NOT ANNOINTED.
    I left a church which castigated me because I referred to Benny Hinn as a self-appointed charlatan and liar…which is cold fact and the truth…people are blinded by darkness and we are called to speak out against liars and false unbiblical teachings.
    Joyce Meyer has turned away from the true gospel and teaches obvious wrong concepts and doctrine. It is obviously very clear that there is absolutely no annointing of God here. We should pray for her rather…that God have mercy on her and lead back to the truth and that she repent but we need to reject that which clearly is false in what she preaches and writes.
    These people have installed a convenient mentality of “untouchables” amongst their blind followers…this “bleat” sets them up to spout out unscriptural garbage that is swallowed up by those you need their ears tickled…a doctrine that incidentally that is very little different to “the power of positive thinking” made popular way back by the Dale Carnegies,Napoleon Hills,Norman Vincent Peale and more recently the Tony Robbins and a host of others…too many to mention. This concept has CREPT into the church and has found itself rooted there. It is Satanic and has absolutely no place in a true believers heart.

  • jamadan

    This is my first exposure to your website. I must say that criticizing Joyce as being new age for using a phrase like “All Seeing Eye” as she did does nothing for your credibility. If you can’t see how she was deliberately using that phrase in a cultural and literary manner to illustrate God’s OmniPresence, as well and to interject some humor, then I don’t need to read anything more from here.

  • John Chingford

    Kelli

    Is it really true that the Bible teaches that we cannot “touch the anointed” preacher. Please read this article which shows what the bible teaches on this subject:

    [removed]

  • Masha

    I think that J. Meyer always directs people to God almighty. Take any line out of context of any speech and you can get the wrong idea. Many a media outlet could tell you that. Political Campaigns do this.

    Her works, her website, her speeches, all promote the idea that we should serve God alone. Joyce is not perfect and if we were recorded for every word we ever said, I wonder if we would be criticized as heavily. The proof is not a line out of context and who likes or dislikes her, or “feelings” about her, the fact that she is a woman, etc., the question is what does her ministry promote, say, and what is the foundational understanding of that ministry — and does it point to Jesus Christ and his way of salvation.

    It is a “get real” ministry. Don’t pretend a faith. Ask God to revolutionize your faith so that you actually are walking and talking it. This my friends is true religion, when it is based on the relationship between us and Jesus. That is the core of what she preaches.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Masha

    Which Jesus Christ does she direct you too when the Jesus she says died in hell and not on the cross? Joyce is directing you to ANOTHER Jesus.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Allan

    No that does not describe the “ALL SEEING EYE”

    According to those scriptures God has 2 eyes and He sees everything. That is pretty obvious.

    No where in the bible will you find the worlds “All Seeing Eye” which is occult.

    Joyce Meyer DENIES JESUS CHRIST – if you listen to the audio you will hear her words blaspheme Jesus over and over again. So for her throw out words like ALL SEEING EYE is common place for this New Age Luciferian woman acting like a minister.

    You can try as hard as your can to defend Joyce Meyer on this but she is busted and you are looking like a fool.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    jamadan

    >> If you can’t see how she was deliberately using that phrase in a cultural and literary manner to illustrate God’s OmniPresence, God’s OmniPresence, as well and to interject some humor, then I don’t need to read anything more from here.

    If you can’t see how she was deliberately fooling all of you and laughing at the same time, wondering how many would catch on, then please don’t read anything more from here.

  • Wally

    [deleted - really? This is an Islamic website?? What are you smoking!]

  • Jim Varnon

    Please ….KELLI…. First… Correction of God’s annointed is perfectly in order..

    second….. JOYCE MEYER IS …NOT…ANNOINTED !

  • iowagrandpa

    [deleted - if you feel you have wasted valuable time, then I will just delete your invaluable comment]

  • Carm

    A quote from ‘Masonry: Beyond the Light’ by William Schnoebelen (a former witch and Mason), p197 – referenced via Dr Cathy Burns ‘Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated’:

    “To ‘open’ the eye a little bit is to experience psychic powers. To open the eye completely is to have your brain flooded with the pure consciousness of Lucifer himself. This is why one of the Masonic symbols is the ‘All-Seeing Eye’. It is a symbol of Illumination.
    This is Satan’s counterfeit for being Born Again. In it, you acquire a ‘personal relationship’ with Lucifer. You begin to think his thoughts and see with his eyes. You begin to look at humans the way he does. It is not a pretty experience.”

    Aunty Joyce wants us to do what?!!!

  • Hanelie

    Carm, the word “illumination” now caught my eye. I’ve heard that the motto “Sol Iustitiae Illustra Nos” used by one of the Theology Faculties in SA. I’ve heard that it translates to “the sun of righteousness illuminate you”, but don’t whether this is so. According to the faculty it is a literal translation of Mal 4:2 (“… the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings …”). Interestingly, on their web site there is a difference between the Afr and Eng translations given – with (verlig – enlighten/illuminate) used in Afr and shine (closer to Mal 4:2) used in Eng.

    This has bothered me, because it seems ever so slightly deceiving, the way it is translated, especially if one considers the occultic meaning of “illumination”.

  • KELLI you are lost and deceived … there is no anointing in that women get away from her and seek God seek the true uncompromising gospel of Jesus

  • Gail Gird

    Can anyone explain to me the J in the Joyce Meyer emblem, three hidden sixes and we all know the meaning of that.
    Why would she want to have not one but three of them facing in different directions.
    Food for thought.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Gail

    I’ve look at that, and hmmmmm…. it could be and it couldn’t be. We don’t want to accuse the woman of something that isn’t there. But I would not be surprised.

  • Ken

    [deleted - you are right, I am deleting your comment]

  • Piglet

    Deborah is right, no where in the bible does it say, “ALL SEEING EYE”. This is an occult term.
    For Joyce Meyer to say something like this it would mean she is part and parcel of the move to the New World Order and One World Religion where the “G” Almighty God, All SEEING EYE will be watching over everyone.

  • christine

    I just want to ask you one question have you got your own church.

  • Robbie

    Good question Christine.

    Act 7:48,49 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord:

    Yes Christine. But it has no walls nor Pastors…

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Christine

    Yip, it’s called the Body of Christ :) Sparsely separated individuals all around the world belong to God’s church, (Matthew 7:14) “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

  • Spencer

    Deborah,

    You sound somewhat educated on this. What is your background and/or training in religious matters?

    Thanks,
    Spencer

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Spencer

    I am born again, guided by the Holy Spirit who leads me into ALL truth, what’s your deal?

  • Spencer

    Deborah,

    Not sure what you mean by “what’s my deal” except that came across a bit critical. You sound knowledgable and educated in the scriptures past common knowledge of being self taught and was wondering what background and formal training, if any, you have had. I’m always interested in those who have strong understanding of the scriptures and how they got there. That’s all

    But your comment/reply (what’s my deal) appears to be critical of my simple question as if I have some alterior motive or agenda. I am a born-again Christian of faith, servant of our Father but I usually don’t respond with ‘what’s your deal’ when someone asks me about my faith.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Spencer

    It was not critical. If you want to read into it that way then that is what you are reading into it. Almost everyone who comes onto this website and questions me seems to have an ulterior motive, but me saying, ‘what’s your deal’ I simply mean, ‘why do you ask, what’s up with the question?’. I am sorry I used those words, I retract them if they offend you.

  • Spencer

    No problem but I do appreciate your response. I realize there is a need to point out when there is/are false teaching(s). I also certainly understand when someone might take you the wrong way along with scriptural foundation for what you are doing in pointing out false teachings.

    Please note that perhaps a little bit of that (responding with “what’s your deal”) has come from your own perspective, that everyone who posts without agreement or praise has an alterior motive and therefore must be questioned. I looked around your website and while I see a lot of fault and attention to false teachings, I really don’t see much, if any, praise or recognitions for those who offer sound and/or correct teachings. And Jesus, while he did find fault when necessary and then rebuked those (even his own disciples on one or more occasions), more often than not found forgiveness & mercy and used his (and God’s) saving Grace to change sinners. Not once did he start off a conversation with “what’s your deal”, even when those of the religious leadership questioned his own authority.

    I do think and believe based on my own Christian walk, we need balance – discernment with love, compassion and mercy, lest we become too cynical and/or one sided in our views.

    And perhaps I have missed that on your website – have you ever found anyone to praise or offer forgiveness or mercy for their actions or statements? I would welcome the opportunity to view that area of this site as well.

    God Bless You…

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Spencer

    >> I looked around your website and while I see a lot of fault and attention to false teachings, I really don’t see much, if any, praise or recognitions for those who offer sound and/or correct teachings

    All recognition goes to the Bible, the Word of God – you don’t get any better teaching than that!

    >> I do think and believe based on my own Christian walk, we need balance – discernment with love, compassion and mercy, lest we become too cynical and/or one sided in our views.

    You accusing me of not discerning with love? You know it’s very annoying when I get these comments like yours for instance where you insinate that I am unloving or uncompassionate.

    >> And perhaps I have missed that on your website

    You have missed it because you want to miss it, because possibly there is something in your doctrine that is not correct and I have pointed it out on my website and this is why you are reacting this way.

    >> have you ever found anyone to praise or offer forgiveness or mercy for their actions or statements?

    Yes of course. If people repent and change their ways and change their DOCTRINE. I just mention only a few people among the gazillion preachers out there – I don’t have TIME to mention everyone. Your ‘accusations’ are crazy.

    Why are you here? Why are you commenting on this Joyce Meyer article? Come clean and tell me what it is you really disagree with. Lets speak about doctrine shall we, tell me where you think in your opinion I have faulted.

  • Spencer

    Deborah,

    You really don’t have an area to post a new question, so I simply picked the most recent post at that time, which was one about Joyce Meyer that I had reviewed, to post my question and follow up request.

    All I asked is since you have many blog/webpages about the false teachers, was to please point where you found someone with correct teachings and/or praise, so I can read that.

    I wasn’t finding fault with your doctrine. I’m just trying to have a conversation with you and see if what you have to say about those that you feel have correct or sound doctrine.

  • Redeemed

    Spencer, I think you miss the purpose of this website. The purpose is to point out false teachers and teachings for the protection of the flock. It is a calling that is much needed in the Church, exposing the deeds of darkness. Many people have been seriously harmed by false teaching.

    I don’t know of one single case of a false teacher that has humbled themselves and repented of their error and instead their followers come to their defense and the watchpeople are villianized and accused of slander.

    Exposing error requires a tough skin and a tender heart. I have seen that displayed in Deborah. If you walked a mile in her shoes I think you would understand. It is thankless work except for knowing that the Lord is being served and people are being snatched from the fire.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Spencer

    Ok, cool. Anyhow, here is the General Comments Section:

  • Osito

    Hi Spencer,

    I dont think this site is here to find out who loves who and who hates who, this site is for a open debate on what you believe the Bible say. If you think Deborah made any mistakes in her teachings i am sure you are more than welcome to open it up and that she will gladly discuss any of that with you.

    I’m starting to realise it now that the people on these false teachers side are always attacking the person and doesn’t go to the Bible, and every time they get scripture from Deborah or someone they dissappear.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Osito

    Right on :)

  • Andy

    Osito made a good point. Those that defend false teachers, NEVER defend them on the basis of Biblical doctrine. They can’t do that, since false teachers are outside of Biblical doctrine.

  • mary

    Gods people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, If you don’t believe Joyce Meyers READ YOUR BIBLE..

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    mary

    >> Gods people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, If you don’t believe Joyce Meyers READ YOUR BIBLE..

    That is the most confusing statement ever..

    Yes God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, hence they follow people like JOYCE MEYER

    >> If you don’t believe Joyce Meyers READ YOUR BIBLE…

    ?? *scratches head*

  • JC - Lover of my Soul

    [delete - insults not welcome]

  • Robbie

    Mary
    That is exactly why we don’t believe Joyce, because we read our Bibles. We ARE sinners, We are NOT gods, not even little ones like Joyce proclaims… and you obviously agree (talking about lack of knowledge)

  • Michael

    That’s it…false christians will always defending people,Joyce Meyer,Cindy Jacobs,Angus Buchan and many others and what they say and write but NEVER the bible’s truth…most of them too are lazy and do not study it…want quick fixes and want to fit into the trends of the world. Man worships man, his flesh and kudos and is self-centred, proud and egotistical.

    Been around some time and I’ve always noticed WOF churches and its associated HATE CRITICISM and CORRECTION and defend it vehemently, instead of accepting it and checking the scriptures and seeking God with a sincere and repentant attitude…they love self improvement, kudos and accolades and are strivers of these which they call fruit.

    This is NOT the fruit of the bible but the WORLD and Satan…read the sermon on the mount.

    And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

    2 and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

    Lk. 6.20-23
    3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2

    5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11

    6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Is. 55.1, 2

    7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

    8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5

    9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

    10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: 1 Pet. 3.14 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 1 Pet. 4.14

    12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets 2 Chr. 36.16 · Acts 7.52 which were before you.

    13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Mk. 9.50 · Lk. 14.34, 35

    The Light of the World
    14 Ye are the light of the world. Joh. 8.12 ; 9.5 A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.

    15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; Mk. 4.21 · Lk. 8.16 ; 11.33 and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

    16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. 1 Pet. 2.12

    Jesus’ Attitude toward the Law
    17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Lk. 16.17

    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven

  • Michael

    PS A lot has been written about the sermon on the mount by the Lord Jesus Christ…He did this to set a question…how can it be possible… He continued to preach in parables…the reason was because of the intellect reasoning of the pharisees unleavened bread…man loved darkness more than light…nothing has changed since then and that is why God went to the extreme of taking over our sinful bodies. When I was converted I was just still trying to overcome for many years but was hopelessly entangled in man achievement, church control and alcoholism. Wanted to get out but could not because of man’s intervention and it was only in complete surrender and honesty that I was set free.

  • Carolyn

    Debs. Re your comment 48

    >> If you don’t believe Joyce Meyers READ YOUR BIBLE…

    ?? *scratches head*

    LOL…ya. read your Bible after you have had your brain washed by Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland and their counterpart Joyce Meyers!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Carolyn

    I said that? HAHA I must have been having a BAD day… sorry… I am now sure what I meant to say there.

  • Marlene

    As they say: “Birds of a feather, flock together”! When you listen to Joyce Mayer, you can hear Kenneth Copeland and Co.

  • Carolyn

    Debs…you were quoting Mary who told you, you would understand what Joyce was saying if you would read the Bible.

    And to clarify my comment, I was just saying that after you wash your brain clear of sound teaching by saturating yourself in the teachings of the two Kenneths, then you can start building the walls and forming the structure of WOF teaching that opposes and exalts itself against the knowledge of God. THEN you will read the Bible and believe what Joyce Meyers is saying.

  • You know, I have been watching Joyce Meyer’s Enjoying Everyday Life for a very long time. I find her teachings, her humour and even her real “Wrath of God” stuff to be very uplifting for me as are her books, of which I have several. This All Seeing Eye you are always referring to really makes me laugh – Joyce was just saying that God sees us all the time – He is the All Seeing Eye – just like my parents used to be able to “see” me when I thought they weren’t watching – and catch me out when I was doing something wrong. I think you guys have nothing better to do than to critisize a WOMEN preacher who actually makes sense in this senseless world we live in today. I have been a born again christian for a long long time, and I like Joyce Meyer’s practical approach and also her honesty regarding things that have happened in her past. Remember, let those among you who are without sin cast the first stone. And for goodness sake GROW UP!! God Bless from Lotus.

  • Wayne

    Marion wrote:

    The sound of her voice as she says “all-seeing” eye is MOST creepy!

    Absolutely!

  • John Chingford

    Hi Lotus Yamba

    You state that God IS the “all seeing eye“. Can you please show me in SCRIPTURE where it says that. As far as I understand it, God has NEVER been referred to as “the all seeing eye”. It may have referred to the all seeing eyeS of God. The clear difference is the SINGULAR eye which is used by the illuminati, masons etc.

    Again, does the Bible EVER mention even the all seeing eyeS of God? Of course God SEES EVERYTHING, but it NEVER describes Him as the “all seeing eye”. That is TOTALLY occultic. Why would Joyce Meyer use such a term? It cannot be found in the Bible! Where did she learn that term and why didn’t she (in the least) say “all seeing EYES of God?

    Well not surprising that she would use a non biblical quote because she does it ALL THE TIME

  • John Chingford

    To continue with my last comment:

    I have done a Bible study search on “God’s eyes” There are references to God’s eyes (plural) but NOTHING for God’s eye (singular).

    Here are some scripture verses backing this up:

    Proverbs 15:3 “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.”

    2 Chronicles 16:9 “For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth”

    Amos 9:8 “Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom”

    So when someone says “the ‘all seeing’ eye” it is DEFINITELY a reference to occultists description of Lucifer or said in ignorance – because they have heard it said by masons before. Why would they have heard it from masons? Is it because they have links? Why would a true born again believer (especially an minister of the gospel) have links with freemasonry?

    Well actually, if you look into the background history of “Word of Faith” heresy, you will find that its origins WERE in the occult. For more info and evidence on this please take a look at these articles:

    [removed]l

  • Rose

    I am a person who was born a chritian but did not know much about Jesus. It was during a very depressing moment of my life, I woke up early morning unable to sleep, switched on the TV and happened to hear this woman with a quirky voice preaching and praying. I had a sudden urge to pray with her and soon the TV program was over. I woke up the next day and listened to her teachings, now I have been doing this for the past 4 years. The Jesus she is proclaiming in her message is now my true friend and I have a personal relationship with Jesus. I wake up every morning wanting to pray, praise and thank him. I has changed my life & I cannot explain the joy it has brought into my life, I have been able to sort the troubles in my life by trusting in his love for me and this would never have been possible without preachers like Joyce Meyer, opening up their lives in front of millions, because that is the will of God for them. I have been able to sort my relationship issues, my personality problems everything with the help of my Lord. But he used Joyce to work this miracle in my life. Thank you Lord. May I request people never to judge others, so that you may not be judged too. We all have to stand before the Almighty Judge one day (as true as your breath), and we never know which side of God we are going to be, left-side or right-side. It would be too late, if it happens that the people we judged as ‘wolves’ are standing on the right-side of father, and we the self-righteous on the left-side. For Mathew 16:26 says, what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

  • Leon Petersen

    Hi Lotus Yamba,

    Perhaps you are referring to the “living Everyday Life” series, which is largely anecdotal and general advice-giving stuff. Some of it is good advice, obedience to God, and so on. But there is no question that some of her teaching has no Biblical ground, especially the teaching on “Jesus’ suffering in Hell and being tortured by demons” for us. Also, how can she say that belief in this ‘fact” is essential for salvation? She is in error. Also, she has refused to “unteach” or retract what she has said in the past, when corrected on doctrinal issues.
    As for the “all-seeing-eye” comment….yes, taken on it’s own is open to interpretation, but in conjunction with heretical teaching, has to be at the very least, slight;y suspicious.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Rose

    >> I am a person who was born a chritian but did not know much about Jesus.

    This is impossible. You can’t be born a Christian. Born again, yes.

    With all due repesct Rose, Joyce Meyer does not teach the truth, yes she teaches some truth but most of it is lies. You might be very sincere and I pray you are, so much so that you seek alternate study material that is NOT Joyce Meyer.

  • Redeemed

    Rose, it is apparent that you do not understand the Gospel. The reason for saying that is that you say you were “born a Christian”. One has to be “born again” to be a Christian. If you are referring to a christening when you were a baby, this does not have any biblical basis. Babies cannot make a conscious decision and parents cannot do that for children.

    Certainly God may have used Joyce Meyer to help you, but instead of giving the teacher the credit, it is because of the Word of God. But you have also taken in lies as she mixes truth and error. You should be thankful for those who have taken the time to sort out the lies and given the alert. You make a big mistake to rely upon Joyce Meyer’s programs and her materials.

  • Truthful Conversation

    This is the sad thing about false teachers, they are so beguiling. They often teach alot of truth. I used to listen to Joyce Meyer when I was caught up with WOF thinking. I even bought a few of her books, but I must say that I found something about her ‘off’, even then when I knew no better. She seemed quite abrasive too. These people (like Joyce Meyer) set themselves up as ‘gurus’, and people swallow their every word, taking it for ‘gospel’ over the TRUE Word of God. Many people are deceived into buying all their books/DVD’s/CD’s etc, and this in itself distracts people from reading the Bible, which is what they want to happen. Eventually, people are brainwashed into loyalty towards that ‘teacher’ instead of loyalty to God. ANYONE who is proud enough to think they cannot be tricked by satan, should think again. In these end of church days, satan is pulling out all the stops to deceive believers. To not be deceived you have to know what the Bible says and you need to be close to the Lord, walking with a humble heart. Forget your own opinions. Ask the Lord DAILY to show you truth and keep you on the straight and narrow. It is a hard road, but a worthwhile one.

  • Irma

    I am quite new to this site, having commented a little before. I have read a few of the comments. Spencer and Debs [ if I may call you so], very often we cannot transfer our sound and attitude on paper, and others who read it, might hear it quite differently to what we intended. Spencer, one can give facts in a very honest and direct way, yet meaning it soft and earnestly, but on paper it can sound critical and abrupt – when I read your conversation – that is what I see happening.

  • Irma

    Rose, there are two sources of supernatural power: God [and the angels to the extent that God created abilities in them and allows them], and Satan and his demons. Satan comes as an angel of light and he is quite capable of giving you much joy. False teaching very often comes disguised with very good teaching, very necessary life principles and often with power, supernatural confirmations, ‘guidance’ from ‘God’. I prayed for many years almost every day asking God for discernment, and He had shown me so much, and constantly leads me to people who could add to it. If you are really serious about God, seeking Him more than the leaders that you love, ask Him earnestly to show you and teach you the truth. Just about all of these superstars WoF-leaders are wolves in sheep clothing. But many other leaders [such as Angus] are misled and truly believe what they have been taught, so are most of the charismatics – they are good people, believing they are in the truth and often really wants to help us. I believe you are also very sincere, but I think God is raching out to you by exposing you to the facts.

  • Laura Reid

    Aren wrote:

    Thank you for providing the link to the transcript. Aforesaid gave me the opportunity to read it and make the correct assumption for myself. Now let me state outright that have never listened to any of Joyce Meyer’s sermons, lectures, or whatever you may call them, neither have I read any of her books, nor am I a follower, but I do have friends whose wife’s adore her, but that is their prerogative. The reason why I’m stating aforesaid is so that no one can claim that I am not objective. The Lord however gave me enough common sense (and brains) to at least be able to distinguish between the truth and blatant nonsense. And in this case, I’m afraid that the criticism directed at her regarding the all seeing eye is unfounded and nonsense. If you read it in context, she is simply referring to God that sees everything that we do. We may think that we do things unnoticed by others (in the dark), but God sees everything, and there is enough scripture to support this view. So please, do not make the mistake like so many other, e.g. the Jehovah’s, that takes one verse (or several) out of context and then base their believes on that particular verse. The Bible must be read in context, not just one verse here and there. And the comment that lesbians likes her, really, coming from a Christian. And you have proof of this? This is nothing other than gossip and unbecoming of a Christian.

    Having said the above, please keep up the good work as I enjoy the articles tremendously. And accept the criticism in good spirit as it is not meant to offend in any way.

    In Jesus,

    Aren

    I agree with Aren. I left off years ago following these pied pipers and I stick to my Bible and the Holy Spirits guidance and to tried and true Christian men and women, most who have gone on to their eternal reward . . . Amen. In Jesus! To Whom I am forever grateful. Laura

  • simon

    Allan wrote:

    RE CHECKING OUT THE BIBLE AND THE ALL-SEEING GOD, ALLOW THE WORD ITSELF TO CORRECT THE CRITICISMS ABOVE.

    Also bear in mind that the scriptures were not originally written in English, so you can’t critique Joyce Meyer for saying He is the “All Seeing God”. It is the followers of Osirus that gave their god this name that was a deception and a lie. If Joyce had shown the Osirus eye symbol while she was talking about the All-Seeing God, then critics might have grounds for comment. As it is, the criticisms are unfounded. God clearly IS all-seeing as shown below….

    GOD SEES ALL
    Proverbs 15v3: “The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.”

    GOD SEES EVERYTHING
    Job 34v21-22: “His eyes are on the ways of mortals; he sees their every step. There is no deep shadow, no utter darkness, where evildoers can hide.

    GOD SEES US ALL
    Psalm 33v13: “From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind.”

    If this doesn’t describe ‘all-seeing’ what does!!! Don’t get bogged down in semantics guys!

    And if your God can’t see everything, then He is not the true God at all!

    maybe Chronology would be a good place to start. The OT start with the Books of Moses, who lead Israel out of Egypt and was trained for the first part of his life in the Occult religions of Egypt. so in that purpose the verses you reference would be written after the establishment of the all seeing eye and that is only if you follow the it back to Egypt, when in fact it started before Noah and with the Sumarian Empire.

    2 Corinthians 11:14

    14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

    Matthew 6:22-23
    22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

    23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

    24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

    Satan is the ruler of this world, the all seeing eye of knowledge. He is the angel of light and if your eye be single you will be full of that light, and that light is the evil of the devil so you are full of his darkness.

    When Christ speaks of the antichrist he references that his right eye is darkened out, another reason the all seeing eye represents satan. remember deception is a virtue in the occult, like truth is a virtue to christians and they like to slip in and show their allegiance to other luciferians, while deceiving the uniformed christians.

  • simon

    Leon Petersen wrote:

    Hi Lotus Yamba,

    As for the “all-seeing-eye” comment….yes, taken on it’s own is open to interpretation, but in conjunction with heretical teaching, has to be at the very least, slight;y suspicious.

    And if taken in context with two videos my wife showed me she was making occultist hand gestures representing here alignment with lucifer just prior to saying it twice. My wife liked her, thought she was a great motivational speaker, when I first heard her my wife was very upset because I said she acted demon possessed or influenced, her voice eyes an mannerisms. But then my wife started bringing to my attention much of her occultist and non biblical views.

  • Sarah

    I am SO glad that I am an EX christian. Just reading these comments, with people arguing over who is or isn’t “annointed,” each person thinking that THEY are the right ones, reminds me how ridiculous and unbelievable the entire bible and christian religion really are. So much delusion!!

  • Hi Sarah,

    What would you do if I offered you two dollar bills of which one was false and I told you so; which one are you going to take? Or if I gave you two bottles of medicine, one genuine and the other filled with 0,5% strychnine and I warned you about the poisoned one. Which one are you going to take?

  • John Chingford

    Sarah

    You say you are an ex Christian. Let me ask you; did you EVER have a close personal intimate relationship with Jesus as your personal Saviour? Did you ever acknowledge that you had a sinful nature that needed salvation and put your trust in Him for eternal forgiveness as the Son of God? Or were you simply brought up as a Christian with just some kind of head belief in God? Do you experientially know the difference between natural birth and the supernatural rebirth by the Holy Spirit living within you?

    If you are NOW so opposed to Christianity, why are you even reading this blog? What set of circumstances caused you to read this article? It appears that you have some type of resentment against Christianity. What happened to cause such resentment? Maybe we can help?

  • John Chingford

    Sarah, just following on from my last comment. If you state that you HAVE experienced those things, then the next logical question is “how can you say it is ridiculous and unbelievable”?

    However, if you have NOT experienced those things, how can you say “it is ridiculous and unbelievable”?

    The question is the same either way. On the one hand, you DO know it is true because of your experience – so your statement is invalid; on the other hand you are not an authority to make those claims because you have NOT “tasted and seen that the Lord is good” and IS REAL.

  • Sharon

    Joyce Myers is a “Silly Woman” and a heretic. Those women who follow her and all WOF false teachers are like the following (KJV) scriptures:

    2nd Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    2nd Timothy 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    2nd Timothy 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    2nd Timothy 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    2nd Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
    2nd Timothy 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
    2nd Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

    While I am a woman, I am not a “silly woman.” I’ve never watched to completion Joyce Myers on TV here in America. She throws in a little bit of scripture to catch the attention of the “silly women and men”. She and her kids are worth millions of dollars. Those dollars came from the millions of “silly women and men” who listen to her and send in money & buy her heresy filled books.

    What part of “she’s a blaspheming heretic do these people not see?” They only see what they have been mesmerized into seeing. “Enjoying Everyday Life.” Isn’t that a pleasant sounding title? Silly Women feel tired, used and abused and plain worn out. So they flock to Joyce Myers conferences to get pumped up. But how long does it last? Once they’re read her heretical books, tried to put into practice her heretical suggestions then what? The “silly woman” ends up worse than before she went to the “conference.”

    Silly women do not have a faith that is grounded in the glorious truth of scripture. Silly women, like the prodical son, want to be entertained. What happens when the party is over? Silly women read her books, read watered down, filthy catholic versions of scripture so they believe Jesus went to hell. But not to worry, the “silly woman” actually believes she is a little god. There are going to be a lot of “Silly Women” in hell because they want to feel good all of the time. The true Christian life is not about feeling good. It is about an uncompromising faith. The true Christian life is not about always being happy. It is about a deeply grounded and rooted faith that is found in the Word of God.

    Hey “Deb-Ster” I have a great idea for you and I. We will start our own conferences. I’ll do one here in the USA and title it, “Follow the Savior I Know and You May Have to Die for Him”. You pick a title for your conferences in South Africa. I wonder how many women will show up and listen about what they may have to suffer to follow the King? Will it be Millions of People? Thousands? Hundreds? Tens? Maybe just you and I? Will these people who don’t come to our conference want our book? If they want mine, it will be a KJV.

    Joyce is a wolf in sheep’s designer, custom made clothing. All of her clothing is custom made for her. Her shoes even match the leather covering of her Bible quite often. The laborer is worthy of their hire is true. But heretics like her and all of the other WOF wolves have a reward coming that they will not forget for all of eternity. The really sad part is those “silly women and men” that followed her will be there next to her and it will be quite warm.

    I think I will write a book and call it, “Silly Women and the Blasphemy They Listen To” with a subtitle, How I wound Up in Hell. (sad, very sad)

  • Sharon

    http://www.texemarrs.com He is part preacher, part conspiracy nut, He is sort of like Alex Jones in “Christian Form.” That’s all I know and care to know about Texe

    [Edited: Texemarrs is far from Christian, I do not quite know what he is quite frankly. The things he believes in are way dodgy. I don't like to promote him.]

  • Sharon

    Sarah, who are you trying to convince that the Bible and the “Christian religion” aren’t true? If your statement is trying to convince us then you’re wasting your time. If you’re trying to convince yourself well then go right ahead.

    You say you are an “ex” Christian. I say you were never a Christian at all. You may have read a verse of scripture here and there. You may have even gone to church. Neither of those things will make you a Christian. I could sit in a garage all day for the next 100 years but I won’t become a car.

    The word Christian has many different meanings. While I was born into a Family of Christians that still did not make me a Christian. I had to realize that I was a sinner. I realized that my sin caused a separation between God and myself. I repented of my sin and received Jesus Christ by faith in His finished work on the cross. It was then I became a Christian.

    You have every right to believe or not believe. God will let you make that choice. God will say to Sarah, depart from me, you will spend an eternity in Hell because of YOUR decision. That is a very high price to pay for your misguided smugness.

    I pray that you will see how desperately you need Jesus Christ. Knowing Him is not about religion. It is about a personal relationship with the One that loves you in spite of your being an “ex.”

    Sarah wrote:

    I am SO glad that I am an EX christian. Just reading these comments, with people arguing over who is or isn’t “annointed,” each person thinking that THEY are the right ones, reminds me how ridiculous and unbelievable the entire bible and christian religion really are. So much delusion!!

  • Sharon

    As an American I know her statement about the “all seeing eye” is about the same on the back of our one dollar bill. That is NOT the eye of the God of the Bible. It is the false “god” of the Illumined Ones and the Freemasons. As far as Joyce’s “past.” We ALL have a past and if God has equipped us with the ability to be transparent and talk about our past to others to give them hope then fine.

    I find many times though it is as though they sensationalize their past and sound as though they miss it. Joyce’s practicality is heresy. Everything she say is contained mostly in the words, I, I, I, me, me, me. That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    She makes sense? Which part makes sense? Her humor? Her “Wrath of God stuff?” If she truly preached/taught on the Wrath of God stuff, she would either repent of her heresy or she would pop off another joke. The Wrath of God is nothing to toy with. These WOF false teachers are dangerous. Dangers because they are preaching a false gospel. A false gospel is easily accepted because it appeals to our flesh. You tell us here to “Grow Up” the thing is, we are grown up. This site is not about “throwing the first stone.” It is about exposing satan and his deceptive ways. You are not understanding this because while you mention that you own many of Joyce Meyers books you do not mention God’s Word. You have saturated your mind, your spirit and soul with the heresy she teaches. You mind is so saturated with this stuff that you do not understand that Deborah and others are exposing the soul damning false teachers. You bought into Joyces lies. Here is what you let her do to you:You let her creep into your life without testing her words with the scripture: 2Timothy 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
    2Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
    You have bought many of her books, ever learning her heresy which is not truth.

    2nd Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
    2nd Peter 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
    2Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
    False Prophets/preachers/teachers have made merchandise of the weak, they hawk their books, CD’s etc. You fell for it. She, according to the scriptures above is bringing “swift destruction” to herself. WOF folks covet one thing. The don’t covet truth. They don’t covet wholesome things. They don’t covet a closer, intimate life with Jesus Christ. They covet and get YOUR money and your mind.

    It would do you well to burn her books, CD’s, DVD’s of anything Joyce Meyers. Then get into the Word of God. If you would devote even just half the time to the Word that you did listening and reading the garbage of Joyce Myers, you too just might see that she is a Wolf in Designer Sheep’s clothing.

    May you find peace and truth.

    Lotus Yamba wrote:

    You know, I have been watching Joyce Meyer’s Enjoying Everyday Life for a very long time. I find her teachings, her humour and even her real “Wrath of God” stuff to be very uplifting for me as are her books, of which I have several. This All Seeing Eye you are always referring to really makes me laugh – Joyce was just saying that God sees us all the time – He is the All Seeing Eye – just like my parents used to be able to “see” me when I thought they weren’t watching – and catch me out when I was doing something wrong. I think you guys have nothing better to do than to critisize a WOMEN preacher who actually makes sense in this senseless world we live in today. I have been a born again christian for a long long time, and I like Joyce Meyer’s practical approach and also her honesty regarding things that have happened in her past. Remember, let those among you who are without sin cast the first stone. And for goodness sake GROW UP!! God Bless from Lotus.

  • Mercy Vasquez

    I personally liked Joyce Meyer very much I found her very inspirational but I cant go along with her beliefs as her take on the atonement. As much as I have enjoyed her at many times I wont be listening to her as Benny Hinn and the like. I won’t budge on core bible statues of scripture. I know that the faith movement have tremendous erroneous beliefs as the we are all little g Gods teaching. This belief I have been hearing with my own ears not something that may or may not be edited. I even hear Benny Hinn say that he wished he had a Holy Spirit machine gun in order to gun down all his critics. Enough said no matter how endeared we may have become with such teachers we need to be on the watch for heretical teachings and not blind ourselves based solely on the feel good moments we may have received from these individuals it’s not to others be true but to God and his holy word be true and know what your believing.

  • Aaron

    Sarah, there is no such thing as an “ex-Christian”. You were never a Christian. A Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ as God and Savior, that Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins, and then Jesus rose from the dead, and that Jesus is the only way to heaven (meaning that the Christian knows going away from Jesus is pointless and stupid).

    You cannot be saved by works (works would be church attendance, praying x number of times a day/week/month, etc)

  • Dan

    Sarah wrote:

    I am SO glad that I am an EX christian. Just reading these comments, with people arguing over who is or isn’t “annointed,” each person thinking that THEY are the right ones, reminds me how ridiculous and unbelievable the entire bible and christian religion really are. So much delusion!!

    Sarah, what you’ve experienced was Christendom. The very same religion that is working hard to build God’s kingdom on earth by uniting with Rome. Jesus stands separate from all of that. When He said: “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life….” He meant Him and NOT the so called Christian religion. And that is what this website and the people here, are all about. Just because you couldn’t find Jesus at the church, doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist. You should never have given up your search because remember, He wasn’t crucified by unbelievers, He was crucified by the religious leaders of His time. He didn’t come to condemn us to hell, He came to save us from it. If you’re having a hard believing this, feel free to ask your questions here. There’s a lot of loving, caring people here that will take the time to answer your questions and point you to the true Jesus Christ. I was once in your shoes, this has been my experience.

  • Anthony Simon

    Aren wrote:

    Thank you for providing the link to the transcript. Aforesaid gave me the opportunity to read it and make the correct assumption for myself. Now let me state outright that have never listened to any of Joyce Meyer’s sermons, lectures, or whatever you may call them, neither have I read any of her books, nor am I a follower, but I do have friends whose wife’s adore her, but that is their prerogative. The reason why I’m stating aforesaid is so that no one can claim that I am not objective. The Lord however gave me enough common sense (and brains) to at least be able to distinguish between the truth and blatant nonsense. And in this case, I’m afraid that the criticism directed at her regarding the all seeing eye is unfounded and nonsense. If you read it in context, she is simply referring to God that sees everything that we do. We may think that we do things unnoticed by others (in the dark), but God sees everything, and there is enough scripture to support this view. So please, do not make the mistake like so many other, e.g. the Jehovah’s, that takes one verse (or several) out of context and then base their believes on that particular verse. The Bible must be read in context, not just one verse here and there. And the comment that lesbians likes her, really, coming from a Christian. And you have proof of this? This is nothing other than gossip and unbecoming of a Christian.

    Having said the above, please keep up the good work as I enjoy the articles tremendously. And accept the criticism in good spirit as it is not meant to offend in any way.

    In Jesus,

    Aren

    Hi Aren,

    I read your comment and see your point. My question is what god is she referring to?? My wife and I have watched and recorded many of her programs back in 2008-2009 until she stated during one of crusades that if she didn’t come on stage or T.V. and (tell you people what to do Having said the above, please keep up the good work as I enjoy the articles tremendously. And accept the criticism in good spirit as it is not meant to offend in any way.

    Keep Looking Up! Jesus Is Coming Soon!

    Anthony

  • Anthony Simon

    Sorry for the repost my first post got cut off accidently I wanted to finish what I was getting at and shorten it too.

    Anthony

    [Edited: No problem, I fixed your comment as well]

  • Julie

    God sees everything. God sees all. C’mon now. Let’s pick on Joyce because we are jealous of her, her success and maybe, just maybe a little bit cause she is a WOMAN. Shame on you all for bad mouthing her. Joyce, keep it up girl! Our Almighty knows who the wolves in sheep clothing really are!!!!

  • Julianna

    Shame on you all!! Joyce I am behind you 100%. There are wolves wearing sheeps clothing here on this website.

  • Julianna

    You are welcome to follow Joyce Meyer instead of Jesus Christ. Are you prepared to bear the consequences? You seem to love it when she says that Jesus was tortured in hell and that he was the first born-again Man, that He became sin on the cross and stopped being the son of God, and that our sins are atoned for in hell and not on the cross.

    Are you saved?

  • Julie,

    What kind of success are you talking about – financial success? Like Juliana, you seem to love it and it tickles your ears when you hear Joyce Meyer saying that Jesus was tortured in hell and that he was the first born-again Man, that He became sin on the cross and stopped being the son of God, and that our sins are atoned for in hell and not on the cross. That’s not the Gospel. If you believe her lies you are probably not saved. Repent of your evil and be saved before it’s too late.

  • Gideon

    @Julianna
    “Shame on you all!! Joyce I am behind you 100%. There are wolves wearing sheeps clothing here on this website”.

    Behind Joice 100% for what? Did you read the article and all the comments properly?

    Lurking in the back round on this site, it is clear that a lot of people comment before they have read or put any thought into their comment.

    To Deborah, Thomas and all the others who help to contribute: You guys are special indeed. I would have given up long ago.

    How do you all manage to have to say the same thing over and over, like hitting your head against a brick wall. Then to have to start all over again because someone hits with a stupid one liner like the example above, all because they are too lazy to read all the arguments or refuse to see the woods for the trees?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Gideon

    >> How do you all manage to have to say the same thing over and over, like hitting your head against a brick wall.

    It’s a gift of patience :)

  • louis matthys ackermann

    Very good expose of Meyer’s heresy.

  • Tracey

    To those who say Joyce meant “God’s eyes” when she says “All seeing eye”..you are deceived. But you are deceived because you have no knowledge of where the term comes from. I started a deep study of the New World order a number of years back. This term belongs to lucifer. Wake up before it is too late. Just recently I started wondering if they had also infiltrated the Church and I am heartbroken to say “yes”. I feel like I am in mourning. .Cognitive Dissonance all over again? Probably..I went through this when I first started studying on the NWO. The truth set me free but it has hurt quite a bit. .just being honest..thank you for having this site up..it has been refreshing to me..

  • MarieJacklyn

    Kelli wrote:

    Careful!!! NOT TO JUDGE GOD HAS ANNOINTED!!!

    She is NOT God’s anointed.

  • Diane

    Kelli wrote:

    Careful!!! NOT TO JUDGE GOD HAS ANNOINTED!!!

    You are taking a scripture about King Saul out of context. It says ‘touch not my anointed.’ He was God’s anointed King of Israel.
    1st. Joyce is not the King appointed by God. 2nd. It’s yet to be known whether or not JM is anointed of God or not. 3rd. The Word tells us to judge people’s fruits. We are not to judge hearts but fruit.

    Please know the Word prior to quoting. Accuracy is key.

  • Diane wrote:

    Careful!!! NOT TO JUDGE GOD HAS ANNOINTED!!!”

    The Bible does not say we are not to judge God’s anointed. It says “Touch not (don’t harm) mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” (1 Ch 16:22). God’s anointed spoken of here are not kings but the nation of Israel as a whole and especially his prophets. In fact, the previous verse clearly says that God reproved kings for Israel’s and the prophets’ sake.

    There are two kinds of judgments – a wrong way and a wright way. The wrong way is to sit in judgment over people and say they are going to hell. Because the most heinous sinners can and sometimes do repent and receive forgiveness for his sins, we cannot say they are going to hell.

    The right way has to do with discernment and discipline. An example of the latter is 1 Cor 5:12,13 “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without (the church? do not ye judge them that are within (the church)? But them that are without (the church) God judgeth.” (1 Co 5:12-13)

    If you fail to judge you are not a spiritual Christian.

    “But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him]. (1 Cor 2:15).

    We are commanded to judge the words (teachings) of every person who claims to be a teacher (including Joyce Meyer).

  • It ought to be plain to those who love Scripture that Joyce Meyer is NOT God’s annointed.
    She obviously rejects 1 Cor 14:34 & 2 Tim 2:12.
    There is a big difference from women who write for the Lord and teach on-line and the like. That is not going against those Scriptures. Actually, many women teachers stick like glue to the Scriptures. Debs is a good example of that. Joyce Meyer, on the other hand, does go against them–and a lot of other Scriptures!
    It doesn’t matter what kind of authority a person has in a church. They must be resisted and even rebuked if they contradict Scripture. Not to do so is to put those so-called teachers before God. Those who do that have gods as their God! That is idolatry and strictly forbidden by Scripture.
    We must bear in mind Prov 3:4-5, 1 Thess 5:21 and 1 John 4:1. (As they are in the imperative verbs that means they are orders, not suggestions.) Then we will not fall into any kind of idolatry. We should also bear in mind 2 Peter 1:20–which, if people kept those first three Scriptures of this paragraph in the forefronts of their minds–they would know that Joyce Meyer totally ignores or rejects 2 Peter 1:20.
    People who fall for Joyce Meyer’s claims and those of others who wrest Scripture (which the Bible says they do to their OWN destruction–2 Pet 3:16) are the ones who are skating on thin ice. That’s because they are likely not heeding those above Scriptures.
    It is interesting that they make statements like “Do not touch the Lord’s annointed” when it should be obvious who is and who is not annointed to any Bible literate. They ought to study and find out what the Bible term “annointed” actually means. They ought also to find out what “touch” means (in Psalm 105:15). It has nothing to do with mere words. The Hebrew word in that Scripture is “naga” and it means to touch a person violently or strike physically.
    So those who use that Scripture to silence objective criticism are either deliberately being deceitful or they are arguing from ignorance. Either way, it disqualifies them from teaching Scripture.
    (Where in the world would a secular teacher be allowed to work if they argued from ignorance!?) There are only two kinds of criticism: fair, therefore true, and unfair, therefore false. Anything else is just waffle.
    Ironically, often people who have discernment are accused by those who have none of being judgmental. Those who call discening people judgmental do so because they do not understand the context of “Judge not lest thou be judged” [Matt 7:1; Luke 6:37]. The same Jesus Who made that statement castigated those who did not judge with righteous judgment [John 7:24].
    The Apostle Paul reminds us [1 Cor 6:1-5] how we should judge. He says it was to the shame of those Corinthians that there wasn’t one wise enough to judge between the brethren [verse 5].
    If a person tells another, “Judge not lest though be judged” they themselves had better know the difference between judging and passing unrighteous judgment. If not they will be doing the exact thing of which they have accused another! Doing what we accuse others of doing is Jesus’ Own definition of hypocrisy [Matt 7:5; Luke 6:42].
    That’s why we need to take the Scriptures seriously. 2 Peter 1:10 needs to be thought out seriously. If we heed it, meditate and even pray on it, it will mean we can be truly objective. We will become exegetes and not eisegetes, the likes of those who pray on the spiritually gullible.

  • Michael R. Baggett

    I agree with the writer above about her rejection of the passages that forbids women preachers. Everything else is irrelevant since she is setting herself in the place of a man.

    She is to be silent when the preaching is done, and that by men. See 1st Corinthians 14:33-40. Furthermore, she is forbidden to teach or to have authority over the man in a religious worship (1st Timothy 2:11,12). This law of God is forever set in concrete because it is based in the creation and the fact that woman lead man into sin in Garden of Eden (1st Timothy 2:13,14). Paul the apostle also states the same reason, order of creation, as the reason the woman must cover her head in worship (1st Cor. 11:7-10). Joyce Meyer also violates the passage that teaches that women should have longer hair in comparison to the man. Her long hair is her natural covering and her glory. Joyce Meyer throws off what shows her distinction and submission to man (1st Cor. 11:14,15). These teaching are the commandments of Christ (1st Cor. 14:37). The only way around this is to simply not believe it. So there you have it, the last word in the Bible on the matter of New Testament worship and the role of women.

  • Jean

    I’m reading these comments because a relative admires Joyce Meyers – so I thought I should be informed about her teachings.

    Interesting posts. There seems to be a lot of hair-splitting here about doctrines of all kinds.

    Suggestion: Just read the Bible. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. A red letter bible would be good. (All of Jesus’ quotes printed in red ink.)

    Just follow Jesus’ teachings.

  • Jean wrote,

    Interesting posts. There seems to be a lot of hair-splitting here about doctrines of all kinds.

    When it comes to doctrines hairsplitting is very good.

    “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (2 John 1:9)

    You can’t be saved if your doctrine of salvation is wrong.

  • The True Church

    Hey Martin Horan,

    if you truly followed scripture you would not have left the Catholic Church. You would know that Christ himself founded the Church and had Peter be the leader of the church. The church you belong to cannot claim to have been founded by Christ himself.

    Your form of Christianity did not exist until a few centuries ago. The Catholic Church has existed since the first century AD, and history proves it.

  • The True Church

    Catholics usually refer to the apostolic succession to prove that the RCC is the only true church. Here’s the truth and I’m quoting from Dave Hunt’s book “A Woman Rides the Beast.”

    As we have noted, heresy brings automatic excommunication. Even one papal heretic, if he were not restored by repenting of his heresy, would break the line of alleged apostolic succession back to Peter. As we have shown, there were many popes who were accused of heresy by other popes and by the councils, and a number were formally excommunicated.

    Pope Adrian VI (1522-3), who personally pronounced Pope Celestine III (1191-8) a heretic, declared that John XXII was only one in a long line of papal heretics.

    Among the earliest known heretics to sit on Peter’s alleged throne was Liberius (352-66). Forced into exile because of a quarrel with the emperor, Liberius was offered repatriation if he would denounce Athanasius, who had led the fight against the Arian heresy. No stickler for doctrine, Liberius obliged the emperor and thereby sided with those who said that the Son was less than the Father-an opinion which the Church has consistently denounced as heresy of the worst sort.

    Heretical popes came along quite regularly. Innocent I (401-17) and Gelasius I (492-6) proclaimed that babies went straight to hell (not Purgatory) if they died, though baptized, before receiving communion. After all, if one takes John 6:53 literally-”Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”-as Catholicism teaches, then these popes were correct. That view was condemned as heresy by the Council of Trent.

    During the last two years of his pontificate, Sixtus V (158590) rewrote the entire Latin Bible, adding phrases and sentences at whim, leaving out entire verses, changing the titles of the Psalms, and inventing his own system of chapters and verses. In a Papal Bull Aeternus Ille (an allegedly infallible declaration on faith and morals to the entire Church), he declared by “the fullness of Apostolical power” that this new “translation” of the Bible must be “received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations.” Anyone who disobeyed was to be excommunicated. Of course, when the clergy saw the pope’s astonishing handiwork, which instantly had made obsolete the Council of Trent’s approved Latin Bible and all textbooks based upon it, they were horrified. Fortunately, Sixtus died a few months later and a cover-up was devised by Bellarmine. As de Rosa explains: “A Bible had been imposed with the plenitude of papal power, complete with the trimmings of excommunication, on the whole church-and it was riddled with errors. The academic world was in turmoil; Protestants were deriving enormous pleasure and amusement from the predicament of the Roman church. On 11 November 1590, Bellarmine returned to Rome…. Personally relieved that Sixtus, who had wanted him on the Index [of forbidden books and authors], was dead, he feared for the prestige of the papacy…. Bellarmine advised the [new] pope to lie. Some of his admirers have disputed this. Their task is formidable. The options were plain: admit publicly that a pope had erred on a critical matter of the Bible or engage in a cover-up whose outcome was unpredictable. Bellarmine proposed the latter.”

    Bellarmine and a group of dedicated scholars sworn to secrecy went to work and in about six months corrected the past pope’s errors. A new edition of the “Sixtus Bible” was published as though it were merely another printing of the same, and a massive effort was made to recover the original copies of the heretical publication, which were then destroyed. As one would suspect, a few copies escaped the search and have been preserved (one in the Bodleian Library in Oxford). These “Bibles” constitute one more proof that popes are not infallible and that to maintain this lie the Church is willing to tell other lies as well.

    This my friend, is your 2000 years of history and billions of people that share your Faith. It is fraught with lies, deceit, inconsistencies, and anti-biblical and anti-God declarations. This is what really happened to your more than 2000 years of pristine tradition in your church. Again, I am quoting from “A Woman Rides the Beast.”

    For centuries the citizens of Rome considered it their right to elect the Bishop of Rome. This custom is proof that the Bishop of Rome had jurisdiction only over that territory, for if he had had jurisdiction over the whole Church, then all of the Church would have been involved in choosing him, as it is today. When at times the right to elect their own Bishop was denied them, the citizens of Rome revolted and forced their will upon the local civil and religious authorities. How could such pressure by mob violence be called apostolic succession by the direction of the Holy Spirit?

    Feuds were carried on between powerful families (Colonna, Orsini, Annibaldi, Conti, Caetani, et al), who fought wars for the papacy for centuries. For example, Boniface VIII, a Caetani, had to battle the Colonna to remain in power. At the height of his success he had all of Western Christendom coming to Rome for the great Jubilee in 1300. But in 1303 he was seized by emissaries of Philip the Fair of France, and Rome fell into French possession. As a consequence, the papacy was moved to France, and from 1309-77 the popes were French and resided at Avignon. Such political maneuverings could hardly constitute apostolic succession!

    Popes were both installed and deposed by imperial armies or Roman mobs. Some were murdered. More than one pope was executed by a jealous husband who found him in bed with his wife – hardly apostolic succession. Money and/or violence most often determined who would be “Peter’s successor.” No wonder that in the Concordat of Worms (between Pope Calixtus II and the Emperor Henry V, September 23, 1122) the pope was made to swear that the election of bishops and abbots would take place “without simony and without any violence,”3 which all too often decided Church affairs.

    At times there were several rivals each claiming to have been legally voted in by a legitimate council. One of the earliest examples of multiple popes was created by the simultaneous election by rival factions of Popes Ursinus and Damasus. The former’s followers managed, after much violence, to install him as pope. Later, after a bloody three-day battle, Damasus, with the backing of the emperor, emerged the victor and continued as vicar of Christ for 18 years. So “apostolic succession” by an “unbroken line from Peter” operated by armed force? Really?

    Ironically, Damasus was the first who, in 382, used the phrase “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church” to claim supreme spiritual authority. Bloody, wealthy, powerful, and exceedingly corrupt, Damasus surrounded himself with luxuries that would have made an emperor blush. There is no way to justify any connection between him and Christ, yet he remains one link in that chain of alleged unbroken succession back to Peter.

    Stephen VII (896-7), who exhumed Pope Formosus and condemned the corpse for heresy at a mock trial, was soon thereafter strangled by zealots who opposed him. His party promptly elected a Cardinal Sergius to be pope, but he was chased out of Rome by a rival faction which had elected Romanus as its “vicar of Christ.” Of the strange manner in which popes followed one another in an “unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter,” one historian writes:

    Over the next twelve months four more popes scrambled onto the bloodstained [papal] throne, maintained themselves precariously for a few weeks-or even days-before being hurled themselves into their graves.

    Seven popes and an anti-pope had appeared in a little over six years when … Cardinal Sergius reappeared after seven years’ exile, backed now by the swords of a feudal lord who saw a means thereby of gaining entry into Rome. The reigning pope [Leo V, 903] found his grave, the slaughters in the city reached a climax, and then Cardinal Sergius emerged as Pope Sergius [III, 904-11 ], sole survivor of the claimants and now supreme pontiff.

    Attempting to establish stability in selecting popes, in 1059 Nicholas 11(1059-61) “defined the role of the cardinals in the [papal] electoral process. During the Third Lateran Council in 1179, Alexander III (1159-8 1) restricted papal elections to the cardinals.”5 It was hardly an improvement. As one nineteenth century historian pointed out, “Few papal elections, if any, have been other than simoniacal [bought off for money]…. The invention of the Sacred College [of cardinals] has been, on the whole, perhaps the most fertile source of corruption in the Church. Many cardinals went to Rome for the conclave with their bankers.”

    Also read this.

  • The True Church wrote:

    Hey Martin Horan,

    if you truly followed scripture you would not have left the Catholic Church. You would know that Christ himself founded the Church and had Peter be the leader of the church. The church you belong to cannot claim to have been founded by Christ himself.

    Your form of Christianity did not exist until a few centuries ago. The Catholic Church has existed since the first century AD, and history proves it.

    Your so-called true church has a bloody history of inquisitions, holocausts under Hitler and Mussolini and many other modern-day atrocities.

    Read here.

    Do you believe the following from the Code of Canon Law?

    If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass…wherein that life-giving victim by which we are reconciled to the Father is daily immolated on the altar by priests…is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one…offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema

    Given these indisputable facts, no evangelical could call Roman Catholics born-again Christians.

    I suggest that you leave your so-called one true church as soon as you can. Run from it as you’ve never ran before. They are leading you straight to hell.

  • True Church

    Ha. Dave Hunt is an unreliable source. Just read what he believed and went through:

    Dave Hunt is an excellent example of the incoherence of the anti-Catholic fundamentalist position: He damns the Catholic Church but doesn’t realize that his own spirituality is ultimately of Catholic derivation through William Law, the 18th-century high-church Anglican mystic and spiritual writer whom Hunt deeply admires. If we are to witness effectively to fundamentalists like Hunt, we must point out the incongruity of their position. And in order to do that, we must take a look at the historical and personal origins of Hunt’s opinions.

    Hunt is a “dispensationalist,” a follower of John Nelson Darby (who founded the Plymouth Brethren, the denomination in which Hunt was raised). Darby was an Anglican clergyman in Ireland. Ordained in 1826, the parson of a poor country parish in County Wicklow, he grew increasingly dissatisfied with Anglican formality and externalism, as well as with the socio-political position of Irish Anglicanism. Though a militant anti-Catholic Protestant, Darby (to his credit) was appalled by the Protestants’ treatment of the Catholic peasants whom he was seeking to evangelize. Intent on converting Irish Catholics to his understanding of true Christianity, Darby came to see the established Anglican church as fatally compromised by the world.

    But disillusion with the established church was having quite other effects, notably in the Oxford Movement. The leaders of this movement (John Henry Newman, John Keble, and others) found the Establishment’s accommodations to the times driving them in a more Catholic direction, while Darby in Ireland went the other way, toward a radically sectarian and otherworldly Protestantism. Darby concluded that “Christendom, ..was really the world and could not be considered as ‘the church.’”

    For Newman, Rome became the solution to the Anglican puzzle. For Darby, Rome was the cause of it: The Church of England shared in Rome’s apostasy by retaining too much from the Catholic past — particularly its privileged status in affairs of state. True Christianity, as envisaged by Darby, would be practiced by small fellowships, who worshiped in simplicity, with no ordained clergy and no fine church buildings. Since the Devil is the prince and god of this world, said Darby, the large and powerful churches were not only apostate but were positively in the service of the Antichrist who was to come.

    The exegetical system worked out by Darby is known as dispensationalism. The central idea is that God has offered salvation to mankind on a different basis in each successive era or “dispensation” of human history. These are Innocence (in Paradise), Conscience (after the Fall), Government (in which men were subject to rulers), Promise (Abraham and the patriarchs), Law (Moses at Sinai), the Church (ever since the Resurrection), and the Kingdom (a millennium during which Christ will reign in Jerusalem).

    Catholics and Reformed Christians acknowledge that some of these represent stages in salvation history, but to call them unique “dispensations” is to break up the story. The unity of God’s saving plan — culminating in Christ, the Savior of both the Old and the New Testaments — is thereby undermined or rejected outright by Darbyites.

    Dispensationalists like Hunt deny the Catholic and Reformed belief that the Church is the Kingdom already mysteriously present in the world. They define authentic Christianity as radically otherworldly and discarnate — to a degree that far exceeds the attitude of the original Protestant Reformers themselves. The rapture doctrine — the dispensational teaching that true Christians will be assumed into heaven before the final tribulation and the reign of the Antichrist — is part and parcel of such a radically otherworldly understanding of Christianity.

    The rapture doctrine is much more for Hunt than an opinion: It is inextricably tied up with the entire Darbyite system of biblical interpretation and with the church’s relation to the world. If true Christians are to be raptured out of the world — removed from the fray — in the end times, there is little reason to be concerned about social and political responsibilities, or about building up Christian culture and institutions: The time is short, and we won’t be around anyway. Evangelism matters, but everything else, says Hunt, distracts from the Gospel message and leads evangelicals toward Catholicism or its offshoots in the rest of apostate Christendom.

    Hunt is aware of Calvinist and Lutheran opposition to Darbyism, but he regards his Protestant opponents as dupes of Rome. The Catholic Church, by claiming to be the visible People of God, is self-evidently for Hunt the enemy of authentic Christianity. Hunt recognizes that, if the Church in the present age is the People of God, then by analogy the Old Testament worship, law, and polity have valid analogues in the life of the Church today. That is what Catholics and Reformed Christians have always maintained. But the entire dispensational system is premised upon the denial that this is even possible.

    The dispensationalists claim that the messianic prophecies of Daniel and Ezekiel concerning the restoration of Israel must be fulfilled literally for the Jews as a people. According to the Darbyites, all things pertaining to the visible People of God belong only to the Jews. The Church of the gentiles is merely a parenthesis in God’s plan for human history; therefore, the Catholic claim to be the People of God marks the Roman Church as apostate. Of course, by such a standard, the Reformed and Lutheran churches are no less apostate; but the Catholic Church is always the real enemy.

    In A Woman Rides the Beast, Hunt attributes the Catholic Church’s historic pre-eminence to political factors. He fails to comprehend that both John Darby and John Henry Newman were dismayed by the Church of England’s politico-religious compromises, and that Darby’s descent into radically sectarian, anti-Catholic reaction may have been less logical and less inspired than Newman’s ascent to Rome. Because most American fundamentalists are Darbyite dispensationalists, the mentality of Darby still keeps them from following Newman’s path into the Catholic Church — even when their spirituality actually points Romeward.

    Rome is ever at the center of Hunt’s thoughts. According to Hunt, the Catholic Church will play a crucially villainous role in uniting all the world’s religions in the service of the anti-Jewish and totalitarian Antichrist. By that time, the true Christians will have been raptured into heaven; the Jews in Israel will then return to the center of the historical stage. The Antichrist will turn against the Whore of Babylon (the Catholic Church and her allies) and destroy her. Then the Jews will recognize Christ at last, and Christ will come on the clouds to establish His millennial Kingdom in Jerusalem. Such are the end times, according to Dave Hunt.

    Strangely, Hunt is zealous in defending the Protestant Reformation but does not realize that his own emphasis on “deciding for Christ” inescapably implies the possibility of co-operating with the grace of justification — a possibility the Reformers constantly condemned but upon which the Catholic Church insists. Also, dispensationalism’s radical distinction between Law and Grace, and its choice for the latter over the former, is implicitly an invitation to a lawless or antinomian spirit among Christians. Some dispensationalists even say that the Ten Commandments are not meant for gentile Christians in the present age. For this the dispensationalists are condemned as heretics by real Calvinists such as the late John Gerstner, who called dispensationalism “spurious Calvinism and dubious evangelicalism.” Gerstner saw that the Church-Israel dichotomy caused dispensationalists to “retreat into a hyper-spiritual Gnosticism which spurns the structures of the visible church which God has graciously given His people.”

    The crucial role of the Jews in the last dispensation leads, understandably in the aftermath of Nazism, to the question of the Jews’ survival as a people. Another of Hunt’s charges against the Catholic Church is that her claim to be the People of God is the source of ideological anti-Semitism:

    Roman Catholics were taught they had replaced the Jews as God’s chosen people. The land of Israel, promised by God to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, now belonged to “Christian” Rome. She became the “new Zion,” the “Eternal City,” and “The Holy City,” titles which God had given to Jerusalem alone (A Woman Rides the Beast, p. 335).

    The Catholic claims, says Hunt, put the Church “in direct conflict with God’s promises concerning the true City of David.” In Hunt’s Darbyite scheme, Rome and Jerusalem are eternal enemies and rivals for spiritual supremacy in the world. Catholics respond that anti-Jewish hostility has no necessary link to Catholic doctrine and that pre-Christian pagans and post-Christian Nazis were anti-Semitic. This response doesn’t faze Hunt because he sees Catholicism as the paganization of Christianity. Hunt blames Catholic doctrine and ecclesiology for the Holocaust — at least in the sense of preparing the way for it.

    Oddly enough, in making this accusation, Hunt agrees with anti-Catholic secular liberals and with radical neo-Modernist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether. In her 1977 book Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roofs of Anti-Semitism, Ruether maintained that anti-Semitism is the “left hand” of New Testament Christology and of the Pauline and patristic doctrine of the Church as the New Israel. Predictably enough, Ruether proposes that the New Testament itself be subjected to a hermeneutic of suspicion — i.e., to ideological cleansing — and that Christian doctrine concerning the Messiahship and incarnate divinity of Christ be radically revised to suit the post-Holocaust era. Ruether acknowledges that modern racial anti-Semitism is the by-product of the secularization of the Christian world, but she nevertheless sees anti-Semitism’s remote origins in the New Testament and the Fathers.

    The very idea of Dave Hunt and Rosemary Ruether agreeing about anything is astonishing. Anti-Catholicism makes strange bedfellows! But upon closer inspection, dispensationalism is, in certain ways, akin to neo-Modernist theology. Let us recall that the early liberal Protestants and the Catholic Modernist Alfred Loisy asserted that Jesus preached the Kingdom of God — but we got the Church instead.

    Dispensationalists say much the same thing: Jesus offered Israel an earthly kingdom but was rejected and crucified and then rose and ascended to Heaven. The Church of the gentiles is not heir to the prophecies of the Old Testament. Loraine Boettner — no friend of Catholicism — makes the following pointed observation:

    Dispensationalism contains a strong element of Modernism, even to the extent of asserting that in the Kingdom age salvation is possible apart from the work of Christ on the Cross. That man can be saved apart from the suffering of Christ is in fact the very heart of the Modernistic heresy, and there is no doctrine of Scripture that the Modernists would more gladly be rid of than that of blood atonement (The Millennium, 1957).

    Ruether, seeing Scripture through her radical humanist-feminist lens, and Hunt, reading the Bible through the lens of dispensationalism, don’t seem to realize how much of the Scriptures they have tacitly rejected.

    As for anti-Semitism and the Church, one notes that anti-Catholic writers like Hunt condemn the Church for her involvements in politics but also condemn the Church for not doing enough about the Holocaust. Question: How can Hunt demand that Catholics be political and apolitical simultaneously?

    It puzzles me that while Catholics readily recognize writings such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as incitements to anti-Semitic prejudice and hatred, and vociferously condemn them, Catholics have said little about Dave Hunts anti-Catholic writings, writings which are, ironically enough, very much like anti-Semitic propaganda: They demonize an entire group of people and, in apocalyptic fashion, trace every evil in 2,000 years of history back to the international conspiracy called Catholicism. It is time for Catholics to respond.

    And to whom are we responding? A brief look at Dave Hunt’s personal spiritual journey may help us understand him and his concerns. (The facts come from a 1992 study by William DeArteaga entitled Quenching the Spirit.) Hunt was raised in a devout Plymouth Brethren home which looked askance at the enthusiasms of the Pentecostals, and Hunt continued to share these sentiments through his college years and marriage. He majored in mathematics, served in the Army, and eventually became a certified public accountant. He hoped to become a prosecuting attorney but had to change plans when, as general manager of a financially troubled lumber and real estate company, he became legally responsible for the company’s debts.

    In this desperate situation, he prayed to God for help and received assurance that all would be well. According to DeArteaga, “that began several years of living on a financial precipice, where one miracle after another saved the business from folding.” This experience, followed by a physical healing in answer to prayer, convinced Hunt that the Plymouth Brethren’s cessationism (i.e., the view that miracles ceased after the apostolic age) was a dead faith: “Would I be left with the emptiness of an orthodox ‘faith’ that contents itself with beautiful prayers and songs about a God who hides far away in heaven and waits to free men after death, but who plays no real part in their here and now?”

    Hunt’s new opinions about the gifts of the Holy Spirit put him on a collision course with his Brethren congregation. When the elders at Hunt’s church found out about his attendance at a charismatic home group, they charged him with heresy and excommunicated him. But soon Hunt began to see some of the dangers of enthusiasm in his charismatic prayer group: the lack of spiritual discernment, the “easy believism” without discipleship or commitment, and the lack of both love and unity.

    Hunt began to look for a via media between the charismatics and the more conventional (cessationist) evangelicals. He read the writings of the South African evangelist Andrew Murray, whose teaching on the Holy Spirit derived from the writings of the Anglican mystic William Law, whom Hunt began to study assiduously. In 1971 Hunt produced an edition of Law’s book An Humble, Earnest and Affectionate Address to the Clergy, under the title The Power of the Spirit. Hunt saw Law’s teaching as the golden mean between cessationism and the charismatic renewal. In his introduction to this work. Hunt wrote:

    He [Law] would rebuke, ..both camps…. To the mainline denominational adherent he would press home the necessity of the sovereignty and power of the Holy Spirit for today; and upon the Pentecostal he would impress the fact that the power of the Spirit is bestowed primarily to witness and to live a holy life.

    Without realizing it. Hunt was groping toward the Catholic position on faith, grace, and the special charisms in the life of the Church. If only Hunt were not prejudiced by Darby’s dispensationalism, he might see this and recognize the substantial Catholicity of Law’s spiritual teaching.

    The missteps of the Protestant Reformation have created the problematic situation Hunt has, in part, correctly recognized. He even sees part of the answer in the spirituality of William Law. The Catholic tradition that Hunt excoriates is itself simply the Holy Spirit—guided elucidation of the revealed Word. Like the Virgin Mary, the Church is filled with the Holy Spirit and treasures the Word in her heart, that it may remain in all its purity for all generations. Hunt’s identification of Catholic tradition with “mere traditions of men” is wide of the mark. It could be more aptly applied to the eccentric doctrinal system of dispensationalism, the very system Hunt unquestioningly accepts.

    By 1985 Hunt came practically full circle to near-cessationism, almost to where he had begun. In alarm at the advance of New Age ideas, Hunt began to oppose the enthusiasm of the charismatic renewal, which he saw as influenced by occultic and Gnostic assumptions (putting faith in faith rather than in Christ, and such). Hunt still sees practically all political involvements as participation in the establishment of the New Age—dominated reign of the Antichrist — with the help of Catholicism and Christian Reconstruction, no doubt.

    There is a final irony in Dave Hunt’s story. He remains a follower and admirer of William Law, the high-church Anglican mystic who refused to swear allegiance to the House of Hanover. As a nonjuror, Law lost his career in the Church of England but remained a faithful Anglican of basically Catholic sympathies: His writings reflect the influence of Thomas a Kempis, Ruysbroeck, and other medievals. Law also commended the religious life of consecrated celibacy and poverty as found among monks and nuns, and he emphasized the indwelling of Christ in the soul of the Christian. William Law’s spiritual teaching is essentially Catholic. It is therefore not surprising that Law’s writings profoundly influenced John Henry Newman and other members of the Oxford Movement in their attitude toward both the spiritual life and the Establishment. Though Law, as a nonjuror, was disqualified from church office, he disapproved of schism and dissent.

    The problem with men like Darby and Hunt — the burden they bear and the burden they impose onus—is that they are perpetually looking for some pristine Christian purity and constantly accusing others of falling prey to pagan influences. And yet, at some point in their ever-renewed protest against Catholicism, they arbitrarily assert that one or more parts of Catholic Christianity has remained incorrupt — it may be the authorizing of the canon of Scripture, the gifts of the Spirit, the mystical tradition, or the reality of miracles.

    A.W. Tozer, the great evangelical pastor, is another figure whom Hunt deeply respects and commends as a model of spiritual discernment. But Hunt conveniently ignores the fact that Tozer gratefully acknowledged his spiritual debt to St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and Brother Lawrence. Is it likely that such a godly evangelical was deceived by false Catholic mystics? If Catholicism is truly apostate, as Hunt shouts from the rooftops, then how can the Catholic mystics be reliable guides in the spiritual life?

    We must say to Dave Hunt, as to all anti-Catholic Protestants: If the springs of Catholic tradition are as poisoned as you say, why do you drink from them when you need to slake your spiritual thirst?

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=875

  • True Church

    Protestants like yourself have had over 30000 sects and theologies since the 16th century; how can you say your form of Christianity is the same one Jesus and the apostles taught?

    The Catholic Church is just ONE. More and more protestants are going back to the Church Jesus founded. I know many former evangelicals who just converted to Catholicism.

  • True Church

    I need to congratulate you on your lengthy comment on history which for the most part is untrue. For instance, you said:

    Dispensationalism contains a strong element of Modernism, even to the extent of asserting that in the Kingdom age salvation is possible apart from the work of Christ on the Cross. That man can be saved apart from the suffering of Christ is in fact the very heart of the Modernistic heresy, and there is no doctrine of Scripture that the Modernists would more gladly be rid of than that of blood atonement (The Millennium, 1957).

    Hunt never believed that salvation is possible apart from the work of Christ on the cross during the Kingdom age. The irony is that the RCC believes that salvation is not possible without Christ PLUS baptism, indulgences, prayers to and worship of Mary, purgatory, the Mass etc. etc. etc. I asked you a question which you conveniently ignored.

    Do you believe the following from the Code of Canon Law?

    If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass…wherein that life-giving victim by which we are reconciled to the Father is daily immolated on the altar by priests…is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one…offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.

    Please answer the question. Moreover, your statement “Without realizing it. Hunt was groping toward the Catholic position on faith, grace, and the special charisms in the life of the Church. If only Hunt were not prejudiced by Darby’s dispensationalism, he might see this and recognize the substantial Catholicity of Law’s spiritual teaching,” with regard to “the fact that the power of the Spirit is bestowed primarily to witness and to live a holy life” is equally biased and ironical. The Internet and other newspapers and magazines are replete with articles on the rampant paedophilia among priests and clergy, not to mention the unholy lifestyles of many previous popes. Vicars of Christ??? You must be kidding me.

  • True Church wrote:

    Protestants like yourself have had over 30000 sects and theologies since the 16th century; how can you say your form of Christianity is the same one Jesus and the apostles taught?

    You’re telling us that Jesus and his apostles and Paul taught the following? Really??? Yes, another Jesus – a Jesus that cannot save – taught this heresy.

    If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass . . . wherein that life-giving victim by which we are reconciled to the Father is daily immolated on the altar by priests . . . is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory . . . offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.

    You say ” I know many former evangelicals who just converted to Catholicism.” What does that prove? I’ll tell you what it proves. It proves that the Bible is truly the infallible Word of God that predicted many centuries ago the apostasy which you love to emulate.

    Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Ti 4:1-3)

    This is a perfect description of the so-called true church you belong to.

  • True Church

    “The Internet and other newspapers and magazines are replete with articles on the rampant paedophilia among priests and clergy, not to mention the unholy lifestyles of many previous popes. Vicars of Christ??? You must be kidding me.”

    So have many Rabbis, Imams, gurus, and yes, protestant pastors. The only thing it proves is that there are bad people in all religions.

    Just answer the following:

    Where did the Bible as you know it came from?

    What makes you sure you and Hunt follow the right form of Christianity, rather than one of many heresies?

    Why is there no historical evidence of evangelical, dispensationalist Christianity before the 16th century, if that is the Christianity that Jesus and the apostles taught?

  • Protestant pastors do not pretend to be infallible and the Vicars of Christ on earth.

    The Bible definitely did not come from the Roman Catholic Church.

    Read here, if you will.

    Here are the facts about dispensationalism. Read here.

    Please answer my question.

    Do you believe the following from the Code of Canon Law?

    If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass…wherein that life-giving victim by which we are reconciled to the Father is daily immolated on the altar by priests…is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one…offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.

  • True Church

    But protestant pastors claim to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

    And you keep using the same unreliable source.

    If the Church Fathers believed in the dispensation as you do, the Catholic Church would no doubt believe in it.

    As for your question… http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/06/03/let-him-be-anathema-not-what-many-protestants-think-it-means/

  • True Church wrote:

    But protestant pastors claim to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

    And you keep using the same unreliable source.

    If the Church Fathers believed in the dispensation as you do, the Catholic Church would no doubt believe in it.

    As for your question… http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/06/03/let-him-be-anathema-not-what-many-protestants-think-it-means/

    Dave Hunt wrote:

    Question: I’ve heard a number of Catholic apologists say that Dave has misrepresented Anathema, that it doesn’t mean eternal damnation in hell as he says, but simply excommunication. This Rock for July 1992 made that same charge. Who is right?

    Response: As for my interpretation of anathema, This Rock is playing a semantic game with its readers. Of course anathema means excommunication. But excommunication means “eternal damnation,” for outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is, according to official teaching, no salvation.

    They make anathema sound a bit nicer than it is by suggesting that Rome doesn’t anathematize anyone, but heretics do it to themselves. The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t excommunicate anyone, but the person does it to himself “by adopting wrong theological positions.” Who decides that a theological position is wrong? Certainly the heretics don’t pronounce that decree against themselves. It is the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which alone can interpret the Bible, which decides that a belief is heretical. It is they who pronounce the anathema upon all those who disagree with them, which includes you, too, if you are an evangelical.

    The article ends with another slur on my integrity, this time accusing me of mangling the position of New Agers along with that of Roman Catholics. No documentation is offered, not one quote, to support this assertion—just another ad hominem broadside to discredit me as one who is “pursuing a higher calling than the truth.”

    Your source tries to corroborate its view of anathema with that of the Bible (Paul). According to the Bible anathema means to be accursed. Barnes describes the word as follows:

    Let him be anathema – On the meaning of the word anathema, see the note at 1 Co 12:3. The word properly means accursed, or devoted to destruction; and the idea here is, that he who did not believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him, would be, and ought to be, devoted to destruction, or accursed of God. It expresses what ought to be done; it expresses a truth in regard to God’s dealings, not the desire of the apostle. No matter what any man’s endowments might be; no matter what might be his wealth, his standing, or his talent; no matter if he were regarded as a ruler in the church, or at the head of a party; yet if he had not true love to the Lord Jesus, he could not be saved. This sentiment is in accordance with the declaration of the Scripture everywhere.

    Greg Durel writes:

    Catholicism and Lordship Salvation

    The topic of Lordship salvation is a source for long theological discussions in biblical circles. It is a topic that one would not expect to find within a religious institution that teaches salvation by works and sacraments, etc. But Romanism does teach Lordship salvation. The Lordship of the Roman pontiff! In other words, the Church of Rome teaches that one must be subject to the Pope and recognize him as Lord to be saved.
    Now at this point some may be screaming, “That is absurd. The Catholic Church teaches no such thing.” But the reality is that they do in fact teach that the Lordship of the Roman Catholic pope is necessary for salvation. Those who reject this catholic dogma cannot be saved. Let us prove this teaching from official catholic sources:

    1. “No man outside the Roman Catholic Church and outside obedience to the Pope of Rome can ultimately be saved…all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have gone down into eternal punishments of hell.” Pope Clement VI

    2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII

    3. “Where the necessity of salvation is concerned, all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” V Lateran Council

    4. “It is an absolute necessity to submit to the Head and Supreme Pastor… to whom it is absolutely necessary for salvation to remain subject.” Pope Leo XIII

    Three Popes and an ecumenical council. All of which are said to be infallible since they are teaching in matters of faith and morals. Some will deny this truth because these quotes are bigoted and certainly unbiblical. But nevertheless they clearly prove our point. Many more quotes from official Roman Catholic sources could be given but these four should suffice the person who is intellectually honest.

    It should be of no surprise to anyone who understands Romanism how these statements could be made. Remember this is the “church” that refers to the Pope as the Holy Father,” the “Vicar of Christ” and when he speaks “ex-cathedra” it is as if God the Holy Spirit was teaching. Imagine that Romanism has given to its visible human head the titles and attributes of every member of the trinity! A religious institution that teaches that a mere man is the Holy Father, when the Bible clearly teaches that only the Father in heaven is Holy. A religious Institution that teaches that a mere man is the Vicar of Christ, when the Bible clearly teaches that it is God the Holy Spirit who is the Vicar of Christ. A religious institution that teaches that a mere man is infallible, when the Bible clearly proclaims that only God is infallible. Imagine a religious institution that has proclaimed that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John are anathema. (Cf. Luke 26:44: I Cor. 1:17; I John 5:13). According to Jesuit Priest Mitch Pacwa, Phd., to be declared anathema is to be forbidden the sacraments. And to be forbidden the sacraments is to be denied what is necessary for attaining Heaven. When one considers the gravity of these statements it is not hard to see how the Roman Pope could be declared necessary for salvation. I challenge you to examine your faith in light of God’s word as well as the statements that have been made in this article. Reject feelings, opinions, traditions, etc., and let God’s word stand firm.

    There is only one Lord and His name is Jesus the Christ. He requires only faith in Him for your salvation. Anything that adds or detracts from that truth is another Gospel. The Apostle Paul instructs us in Galatians 1:8 what our response to Romanism should be. Will we have the courage to believe the Scripture and reject the religious nonsense of Popery or will we remain chained to a religious system for fear of peer pressure or concern for friends and love ones and their feelings? In Matthew chapter 10 the Lord tells us that faith in Him will divide families. Will you choose Him? He loves you and gave His life for you so that you could have eternal life. What will your response be? When one reads the Word of God and sees the startling contrasts between it and the Roman Catholic Religion the choice is not a difficult one at all.

    You are playing a very dangerous little semantic game with the word anathema. By the way you honed in on the word “anathema”.” That is not what I asked you about. I asked you whether you believe one must be saved by Jesus PLUS the sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead. YOu still haven’t asked me OR do I misunderstand the meaning of the living and the dead as well?

  • True Church

    So what? You play games of semantics with anything to suit your rapture/dispensation beliefs, whether they’re in the Bible or not.

    Still, we Catholics have something you lack: almost 2000 years of history. Your heretical beliefs only go back 200 years; they are even considered fringe among most protestants.

    No matter what nonsense you show me from dubious anti-Catholic sources, we’re the original AND true church.

  • No! You are wrong. You don’t have 2000 years of history. You have more or less 6000 years of history. Your church started in the time of Babylon with Nimrod and Semiramis who established the abominable mother and child worship.

    Are you still going to base your salvation on the assumption that your church has a more pristine history and tradition than the Protestant churches? No one is so blind as those who will not see.

  • True Church wrote,

    No matter what nonsense you show me from dubious anti-Catholic sources, we’re the original AND true church.

    What is the matter with you? I quoted to you what some of your own popes had said in the past. Are they also dubious anti-Catholic sources?

  • True Church

    There’s dirt to be found in every single Christian movement. Just because some did wrong doesn’t mean the whole institution is false or corrupt.

    And LOL at your conspiracy theories. Babylonian? I’ve heard that one a thousand times before; disproven even by non-Catholic scholars.

    If the Catholic Church is wrong, ALL of Christianity is wrong. We’re the original church, like it or not.

  • True Church,

    You still don’t get it, do you? It is not about the dirt of individuals in a religious movement. It is about getting the Gospel wrong. If you get it wrong you cannot claim to be saved. Let me ask you again.

    Do you believe the following from the Code of Canon Law?

    “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass. . . wherein that life-giving victim by which we are reconciled to the Father is daily immolated on the altar by priests . . . is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one . . . offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.”

    This is NOT the Gospel. It is another Gospel. It cannot save. You can have millions of years of history and tradition. It won’t benefit you one little bit if you get the Gospel wrong.

  • True Church

    Newsflash: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WROTE THE GOSPEL, not Luther, or Calvin, or Darby, or anyone in the last five centuries. The Vatican established Christianity’s most important doctrines: the Virgin Birth, Original Sin, the Trinity, the current NT canon, etc. Things like the pre-trib rapture, sola scriptura, salvation by faith only, and other evangelical doctrines have more in common with heretical sects than what the Church Fathers believed.

  • True Church,

    Thanks, you have now shown your true colors when you said “Things like . . . salvation by faith only . . . have more in common with heretical sects than what the Church Fathers believed.” Rubbish! Paul of Tarsus said precisely just that -

    “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9)

    Paul did not say “But without faith AND WORKS it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is AND DO GOOD WORKS, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him AND DO GOOD WORKS. (Heb 11:6).

    As I said before, your gospel is another gospel which is no gospel at all.

    Read here.

    THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WROTE THE GOSPEL????? Really???? I thought the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles and Paul wrote the New Testament. I’m sure you are going to say they all belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. Now that would truly be an historical event you would need to research more diligently, won’t you?

    Thank God, it wasn’t Luther, Calvin or Darby who wrote the lies that Mary had an immaculate birth and that she had no original sin. That’s blasphemy because it denies one of the fundamental truths of the Gospel, that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

  • True Church

    I suggest you read the following passages:

    Matthew 5:20 Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

    Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

    Matthew 19:17 If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

    Matthew 25:41-46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    Luke 10:26-28 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

    John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

    Romans 2:6, 13 Who will render to each one according to his deeds. … For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.

    2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

    2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

    Philippians 2:12 Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

    James 1:22 Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves

    James 2:14, 17, 21-25 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? (v.14)
    Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (v.17)
    Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (vv.21-25)

    1 Peter 1:17 The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work.

    Revelation 2:23 I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

    Revelation 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

    Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.

    As the Bible says, BOTH faith and works are required for salvation, even St. Paul said so.

    Fun fact: Martin Luther tried to remove James from the NT because it contradicted his “faith only” doctrine.

  • True Church,

    I suggest that you understand the following passages exegetically correctly.

    Matthew 5:20 Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    Jesus Christ was referring to His own righteousness which we need in order to be saved and NOT our own good works that should exceed those of the scribes and Pharisees as your church suggests. Only Christ’s righteousness imputed to believers through faith alone exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees.

    “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.”(1 Co 1:30)

    If you do not have his righteousness which is imputed to you by faith alone in his finished work on the cross and which is much greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the Kingdom of God.

    And by the way, our best works (own righteousness) are but like filthy rags (menstrual rags).

    But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isa 64:6)

    Did you see that? ALL YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESSES are as filthy rags. ALL OF IT, my friend.

    Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

    Look at the context. The context is given in verse 32 “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Mat 12:32).

    A divine Person living among men would naturally not be fully appreciated. Allowances were made for speaking out against his humanity (the Son of Man). The power of his miracles evidenced that He is more than a mere man. When the Pharisees attributed his miracle to Satan while it evidenced his divinity, they not only spoke out against His divine nature but also the work of the Holy Spirit who performed the miracles through Him. That is the unforgiveable sin. The verse does not refer to good works but the things you say about Jesus’ divinity. A good example is the following.

    If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass . . . wherein that life-giving victim by which we are reconciled to the Father is daily immolated on the altar by priests . . . is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory . . . offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.

    This is a classic example of how speaking out against the divinity of Jesus Christ blasphemes Him. It denies the sufficiency of his divine work on the cross when the Mass is elevated to a level of propitiatory value.

    Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

    He was not speaking about works you need to do in order to be saved. He was speaking about the works that follow salvation. The rewards spoken of here is not eternal life but the rewards saints will receive when they loyally do the works He prepared for them to walk in before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 2:10). The main work for a saint to do is to believe.

    Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. (Joh 6:29)

    Matthew 19:17 If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

    You conveniently omitted the first part of the verse “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God” If God alone is good then He alone is/was capable of keeping all the commandments 100% every moment throughout his life. That’s why He said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” As God He was the only one who could keep all the commandments 100%. Jesus was leading the man to a knowledge of his deity but when that did not help, He advised him to keep the commandments himself, suggesting that He should either acknowledge that He alone was able to keep the commandments on his behalf and thus be saved, or keep them himself. This too did not help because the man boasted that he had kept all the commandments since childhood. It was then that Jesus said to him “One thing thou lackest.” (Mark 10:21). You can boast as much as you like. You cannot possibly keep all of God’s commandments because if you break one you have broken them all. There will always be something you lack in doing the commandments of God. Indeed, the Commandments was not given to enter into life but to lead you to Christ. (Gal 3:24).

    Matthew 25:41-46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    The reason why you cannot understand this passage in its proper context is because you shun dispensationalism and in particular the Rapture, the seven years tribulation period and the future Kingdom of God on earth. The Bible Knowledge Commentary explains it as follows:

    25:34-40 The King “on the throne” (v. 31) will extend an invitation to those on His right hand, the sheep, to enter the kingdom God had prepared . . . since the Creation of the world. The basis of their entrance is seen in their actions, for they provided food, drink, clothing, and care for the King (vv. 35-36). The King’s statement will prompt the sheep to respond that they do not recall ever having ministered directly to the King (w. 37-39). The King will answer that they performed these services for the least of these brothers of Mine, and by so doing were ministering to the King| v. 40).

    The expression “these brothers” must refer to a third group that is neither sheep nor goats. The only possible group would be Jews, physical brothers of the Lord, In view of the distress in the Tribulation period, it is clear that any believing Jew will have a difficult time surviving (cf. 24:15-21). The forces of the world dictator will be doing every thing possible to exterminate all Jews (cf. Rev.12:17). A Gentile going out of his way toi assist a Jew in the Tribulation will mean that Gentile has become a believer in Jesus Christ during the Tribulation. By such a stand and action, a believing Gentile will put his life in jeopardy. His works will not save him; but his works will reveal that he is redeemed.

    25:41-46. To the goats on His left hand (cf. v. 33) the King will pronounce judgment. They will be told, Depart . . . into the eternal fire prepared not for men but for the devil and his angels (cf. “the kingdom prepared,” v. 34). The basis of their judgment will be their failure to extend mercy to the remnant of Jewish believers during the Tribulation. Their lack of righteous works will evidence their unconcern (w. 42-44; cf. w. 35-36).Such individuals will sympathize with the world dictator and support his cause. They will be removed from the earth and will be cast into “eternal fire” (v. 41) to undergo eternal punishment (v. 46). With all wickedness removed in the various judgments at the Second Advent, the kingdom will begin on earth with only saved individuals in physical bodies constituting the earthly kingdom as the King’s subjects. Glorified saints from Old Testament times and the church, the bride of Christ, will also be present to share in the reign of the King of kings.

    Luke 10:26-28 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

    You should really learn to read Scripture in its proper context. The expert in the Law who came to Jesus and asked “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” was not sincere. He merely wanted to test Jesus to see whether He was a real Rabbi who was well-schooled in the Law. This man only wanted to justify himself (Luke 10:29) in the very same way you are trying to justify yourself. Jesus answered his question with two other questions, forcing the Law expert to go back to the Old Testament. The Law expert answered correctly when he quoted to Him Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18. Jesus affirmed that he would live IF the man did all this. Did the man do all this? If he truly loved God, he would have acknowledged that Jesus was the One of whom Moses prophesied when he said “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deut. 18:18). Instead of being convicted of his feigned love for God in supposedly keeping the essence of the Law and to ask “How can I do this? I am not able to. I desperately need help,” he tried to move the focus from his own self-righteousness by asking “And who is my neighbour?” That’s what happens when you try to justify yourself.

    John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

    The verse cannot possibly mean that salvation can be earned by doing good deeds. If it had, it would have contradicted verses such as John 3:17-21 and 6:28-29. It simply means that those who are saved by grace through faith alone in the finished work of Christ on the cross will obey him in doing his will whilst the unbelievers can only continue to do evil.

    Romans 2:6, 13 Who will render to each one according to his deeds. … For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.

    Once again, the notion that good deeds attribute to one’s salvation contradicts many other passages in Scripture. Your habitual conduct, whether good or evil, reveals the condition of your heart. Eternal life is not rewarded for good living; that would contradict, as I said, many other Scriptures which clearly state that salvation is not by works, but is all of God’s grace to those who believe (Rom. 6:23; 10:9-10; 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5). A person who continually does evil and REJECTS THE TRUTH shows that he is unregenerate and therefore will be an object of God’s wrath. Good works do not lead to salvation; salvation leads to good works.

    2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

    Once again, you do not understand the true meaning of this verse because you shun with contempt dispensationalism, especially the Rapture and the things that are going to transpire in heaven after the Rapture. The first thing which is going to take place after the Rapture is the Bema Throne judgment in heaven. This judgment is for believers only and has nothing to do with salvation. Those who are going to appear before Christ’s judgment seat are raptured believers and the purpose thereof is to decide who will receive rewards and crowns.

    According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Co 3:10-15)

    2 Corinthians 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

    Of course false prophets will be condemned for their works. What are their works? They reject the true Gospel and supplant it with another one based on works and not faith alone.

    Philippians 2:12 Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.v

    I really wish you would take the context into consideration when quoting verses. First of all, Paul’s letter was addressed to believers. They were already saved. Therefore he could not have told them to work for their salvation, or to work good deeds in order to be saved. He said “WORK OUT” your own personal salvation because God has already endowed you with the means and power to work OUT your salvation. He simply said that they should put into practice OUTWARDLY what God had already put into them INWARDLY when He saved them. It’s as simple as that.

    James 1:22 Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves

    The key word here is “obedience.” It simply means that those who are truly saved will not only listen to the Word of God but also do it (practice it). James then continues to give an example. In verse 26 he says that a man who does not control is tongue to speak according to the oracles of God, his religion is vain and means nothing. Barnes says it thus-

    He who speaks not according to the oracles of God, whatever pretences he makes to religion, only shows, by his want of scriptural knowledge, that his religion is false, ματαιος, or empty of solid truth, profit to others, and good to himself. Such a person should bridle his tongue, put the bit in his mouth; and particularly if he be a professed teacher of religion; ho matter where he has studied, or what else he has learned, if he have not learned religion, he can never teach it. And religion is of such a nature that no man can learn it but by experience; he who does not feel the doctrine of God to be the power of God to the salvation of his soul, can neither teach religion, nor act according to its dictates, because he is an unconverted, unrenewed man. If he be old, let him retire to the desert, and pray to God for light; if he be in the prime of life, let him turn his attention to some honest calling; if he be young, let him tarry at Jericho till his beard grows.

    James 2:14, 17, 21-25 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? (v.14)
    Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (v.17)
    Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (vv.21-25)

    James is merely saying that true faith is evidenced by works. He is not saying that good works are necessary for salvation. Again, this would contradict many other passages in Scripture that clearly say that faith alone in Christ’s finished work on the cross saves repentant sinners. He offers two examples of true faith – Abraham and Rahab.

    Abraham’s salvation by faith alone (Gen. 15:6) prior to circumcision (Gen. 17:11; Rom 4:9) proves that he had been redeemed by faith alone in God. However, the proof of his salvation (which, by the way, was what James was arguing for in contrast to Paul who was arguing for the priority of faith), was revealed when he sacrificed his only son, Isaac. Indeed, he was not saved because he sacrificed his son; he was saved because he acknowledged through the sacrifice of his son that God would provide his own Son, Jesus Christ, for our salvation. Abraham’s own sacrifice of his son proved that his faith alone in Christ and his sacrifice on the cross was sufficient for his own and our salvation. Works serve as the barometer of justification, while faith is the sole basis for justification. Similarly Rahab’s faith in God was evidenced by her actions when she hid the Israeli spies. To gain spiritual maturity a believer must be what God wants him to be and to do what God want him to do. Jesus words in Luke 6: “Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. (Luk 6:47-49). Acting upon the word of God is the evidence of one’s salvation through faith alone in the finished work of Christ on the cross. You cannot say you need to observe the Mass, indulgences, prayers to Mary and the likes in order to be saved because it contradicts Christ’s Word.

    If, as you believe, good works are necessary for salvation and not only faith, then Abraham’s killing of his son was a good work. The goodness of the work lies in the fact that Abraham obeyed God even to the point of believing that He had the ability to raise him from the dead (Hebrews 11:71-19). Where did this faith come from? Did his faith unto justification and righteousness become a reality when he sacrificed his son or was his salvific faith already a reality unto justification and righteousness when it was imputed to him the moment he believed? Verse 23 provides the answer: “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (Jas 2:23). This verse does not refer back to verse 21 but to Genesis 15:6 before Isaac was born.

    1 Peter 1:17 The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work.

    Peter does not teach that works (as you understand it in the RCC) lead to salvation. In fact, he does not teach what you ought to do; he teaches what you ought not to do to please God. Verse 16 explains it perfectly: “Be ye holy, for I am holy” Holiness means to be separated unto God and his will for your life. In turns it means to separate yourself from everything that displeases Him.

    Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (2 Co 6:14-18)

    Considering the ecumenical thrust of the RCC (John Paul II even went so far and kissed the Qur’an), one may ask whether the RCC is obeying Christ? I don’t think so. Indeed, it is a faith without the works of Christ in doing his will and his will alone.

    Revelation 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

    Once again I must reiterate that you do not understand this passage because you do not believe in a literal 1000 years of Christ’s reign on earth and that the unbelievers will be judged AFTER the 1000 years.

    And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. (Rev 20:4-5)

    Unbelievers are going to be judged at the White Throne judgement seat of God according to their works. Why according to their works? Because their works are the only things they will have to try and pacify God and revert his judgment. They never believed in Christ for their salvation as the means to justify entrance into the Kingdom of God and therefore they will of necessity rely on their works. Hence, God must of necessity judge them according to their works. He is going to say to them “OK, you relied on your works to justify yourself in my sight. Let’s look at them one by one because I had written them down one by one. I have recorded every single work you had done during your life on earth.” IN this way God is going to confront unbelievers with their own works and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that their works were always evil, even those whom they themselves regard as good (Gen. 6:5).

    Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.

    Revelation 7:14 makes the doing of his commandments in order to have access to the tree of life abundantly clear, “And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” , (Rev 7:13-14). The phrase “that do his commandments” is just another way of saying “they washed their robes in the blood of Christ (believed on Him for their salvation). (John 6:29).

    Faith alone is required for salvation. The works that evidence salvation follows it.

    Martin Luther misunderstood James.

  • dan

    if anything all of that proves that the bible can’t be trusted: full of contradictions, blatant errors, failed prophecies, the fact that it was written by different people years after the supposed events, etc. you can support any crazy theory depending on your interpretation, even if that wasn’t the original intention

  • dan,

    You make some wild allegations without proving a thing. Do you call that being honest?

  • The Bible teaches us that, before judging or criticizing others, you should talk to the person concerned. Has anyone on this forum who has judged Joyce Meyers, ever spoken to her personally? Have you found out first hand what she means by the All seeing eye? Joyce Meyers has been responsible for many lost people coming into the fullness of Christ. How many people have you lead to Christ?

  • Monica,

    Neither Jesus, nor the apostles, including Paul ever spoke to false teachers before they warned others about their heresies. It is impossible to first speak to every single false teacher before you warn others. Jude does not advise us to first speak to the false teachers before you warn others. He said: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

    I wouldn’t be too keen to say the Meyer has been responsible for many lost people coming into the fulness of Christ when her doctrine of salvation is diameterically opposed to that of the Bible. Like all the other Word of Faith preachers she believes that the atonement for sins was not accomplished on the cross but in hell. They say He was the firstborn, the first begotten, from the dead. He started the Church of the firstborn in the gates of hell…. He went down to the gates and started His Church there…. The Church started when Jesus was born again in the gates of hell.

    If you believe this blasphemy then you’d better repent and ask the Jesus of the Bilbe – not Meyer’s Jesus who is a false Jesus – to forgive you.

    You seem to like it when someone boasts about how many people they have lead to Christ. Boastfulness is also a sin which is rampant among the Word of Faith teachers because they are forever bragging about the many they have healed and lead to Christ. Maybe you would like to tell us how many lost souls you have lead to Christ. Careful now . . .!!!

  • Dear Thomas,
    I do not think it is my place to boast about how many people I have led to the Lord with the leading of Holy Spirit not has it ever been my intention to boast about that. That is between me and Jesus. I do believe that many many people have come to repentance through many “Faith Preachers”. I know many of those people who currently serve in mainstream churches. I do believe in exposing the false teachings but I do believe in doing it in love and rather than exposing them in a “judging manner”, try and talk to each one of them. I do believe with the help of modern technology each one of them can be reached!
    You say you can not speak to every false teacher. Can you tell be which false teacher you have been able to talk to?
    We must expose the lies BUT we may not judge the person unless they have refused your help!

  • Monica,

    You are doing precisely what you are accusing me of. You are judging me by purporting to say that I am judging false teachers. I have never judged the person/s per se; I have always evaluated what they say, believe and teach in the light of God’s Word. That’s our duty. I even quoted to you verbatim what Meyer believes and teaches and still you chose to judge me.

    Would you say Paul judged false teachers with a loving and compassionate smile when he said . . . “in love,” as you say . . . the following

    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

    Should you evaluate Paul’s anathema as an unloving one, then you should tear this passage out of your Bible.

    What about Jude, the brother of Jesus? He said:

    Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. (Jude 1:11-13)

    WOW!!! I can just imagine how you may want to tear the above out of your Bible because it is so unloving and “exposing them in a ‘judging manner.’” Nonetheless, we shouldn’t blame Paul and Jude for what they had written. We should blame the Holy Spirit for being so downright unloving and “exposing them in a ‘judging manner’” for the Bible says:

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

    You wrote:

    We must expose the lies BUT we may not judge the person unless they have refused your help!

    You are not allowed to judge them even if they do not listen to you. However, you must judge their teaching in the light of God’s Word.

    If you don’t want to boast about the souls you led to Christ, why do you ask me how many I have led to Christ? You refuse to tell us but you want me to tell you? Surely, that’s a thing between me and Jesus, as you said. And so is it also a thing between me and Jesus when and how many false teachers I have spoken to personally in an attempt to help them. It’s got nothing to do with you (said in love).

  • Yes, a Future Kingdom, but Not a Kingdom Now

    [...] Myfanwy Brown { BL who is Texe Marrs?? His name is vaguely familiar. When I was involved with WOF, I was introduced to… } – Jul 21, 5:03 PM [...]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>