Beth Moore’s Beliefs on Homosexuality Are Called into Question
In an open letter signed by Susan Heck, Debbie Lynne Kespert, Michelle Lesley, Martha Peace and Elizabeth Prata, the women ask Moore why she has not spoken out on the issue of homosexuality, despite being a loud voice against misogyny and racism.
The women noted how Moore speedily condemned the Covington Catholic School boys earlier this year whom the media falsely portrayed as racists and bigots, but how in regard to homosexuality, she has avoided making comments altogether. “It is this Johnny-on-the-spot readiness to engage issues related to misogyny and racism that makes your virtual silence on the issue of homosexuality so puzzling,” the letter notes.
The letter continues, focusing heavily on Moore’s seemingly close relationships with two progressive Christian authors, Jen Hatmaker and Jonathan Merritt, who have openly shown support for the LGBTQ community. Merritt has even expressed that he...
James Thomas wrote: Maybe it seems that way because you ask many questions. But I've talked to many here plenty so I don't think that to be the case. Perhaps the topics of late have not been things most are interested in commenting on at lenght or some just follow along silently.
Thank you James, I feel greatly relieved now. I'm also glad that I'm not the only one who keeps typing letters the wrong way round. It is so frustrating, having to correct that all the time.
John UK wrote: Thank you James, and I sure wish you well. One thing that puzzles me is, How is it that I am the only one who engages in conversation with you? Is there a reason for that? If so, I would like to know what it is.
Maybe it seems that way because you ask many questions. But I've talked to many here plenty so I don't think that to be the case. Perhaps the topics of late have not been things most are interested in commenting on at lenght or some just follow along silently.
James Thomas wrote: I understand your thoughts and have no problem you no seeing it that way. Few things to consider in addition to the picture I gave with the passage from Hosea. Gal 2:7 the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Zech 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Thank you James, and I sure wish you well.
One thing that puzzles me is, How is it that I am the only one who engages in conversation with you? Is there a reason for that? If so, I would like to know what it is.
John UK wrote: Cornelius was visited by an angel, and told to send to Joppa for Simon Peter. For what purpose? Simon Peter would bring him a message
I understand your thoughts and have no problem you no seeing it that way. Few things to consider in addition to the picture I gave with the passage from Hosea.
Gal 2:7 the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Zech 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
James Thomas wrote: Good question. Short answer is over time the prophets kept leading to him. While the centurion in Matt 27:54 is not named, there are not too many of these centurions to sort through who do get named either in Scripture. I know that is not enough to go on, but don't take my word for it either. ...
Thank you James, I knew there had to be an answer, and I appreciate your taking the time to provide it.
Th reason I have a problem with it is down to the following thoughts.
Cornelius was a centurion, and a centurion was present at the crucifixion. The centurion at the crucifixion became a believer there, he was quickened by the Spirit and enlightened as to the Person of Christ.
Cornelius was visited by an angel, and told to send to Joppa for Simon Peter. For what purpose? Simon Peter would bring him a message through which he and all his household would be saved. And that would indicate that Cornelius was not yet saved, not yet a believer.
If that is the case, I wonder if the centurion who was converted at the crucifixion would have witnessed to him, as seems most likely, preparing him for what lay ahead.
John UK wrote: James, what made you think the centurion of Matthew 27:54 was Cornelius?
Good question. Short answer is over time the prophets kept leading to him.
While the centurion in Matt 27:54 is not named, there are not too many of these centurions to sort through who do get named either in Scripture.
I know that is not enough to go on, but don't take my word for it either.
In Acts 10 where Cornelius is named and known, and where God is orchestrating the events and meeting involving Peter and Cornelius; the events that occur in Acts 10 are mentioned in the prophets and they are there for us to hear their counsel.
Hosea 2:18 (KJV) 18 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.
Acts 10:11-12 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
"A hypocrite is someone who spends their life pretending to be more righteous than they are. A Christian is someone who knows they have no righteousness of their own but whose righteousness is found in Jesus Christ alone" from Scott Price - https://www.facebook.com/pg/DamnableHeresy/posts/
A hypocrite preaches one thing, and does another. ... The word hypocrite is rooted in the Greek word hypokrites, which means “stage actor, pretender, dissembler.” So think of a hypocrite as a person who pretends to be a certain way, but really acts and believes the total opposite.
Just got back from a short trip with my wife. We were supposed to go for two days, but cut it short. But, I did get a front row seat (standing) for the 4th fireworks.
I read your comment to Chris. Are you truly saying that Pink was fallible. Rhetorical of course; hence no question mark.
Anyway brother, hang in there and I am still praying for you and "your ministry".
Hi Christopher, did you manage to read through the thread yet and come to any conclusions? I've no doubt you'll have something interesting to say, my friend. Either that or you'll sit on the fence still, waving and blowing kisses at both sides of the debate. Well that's okay, bro. Getting sound doctrine doesn't take five minutes of reading, or listening to Pink through headphones while you're fast asleep, a sort of direct injection theology course called Pinker's Emporium. There is another one called Calvinium Emporium, and it is said that within a few days of studying while fast asleep, one day you wake up with the whole Institutes in your mind, and amazingly you will have grown a pointy beard and moustache and speak Rhode Island American with a French accent like Madame Guyon. This modern technology is amazing. The latest one apparently is the Billy Graham Emporium, and it will only take one night of headphone study while fast asleep to be able to do that, "The Bahble says, the Bahble says...." I don't know how he does that. Is it a particular accent? Anyway, I prefer Billy Graham's accent to the Queen's English any day.
This past Sunday at my Baptist Church the sermon given by Pastor Steve was titled "The God Who Sees Me" from Genesis 16:1-16 about Sarah, Abram and Hagar. I am growing spiritually at my Baptist Church.
Acts 13:46-52 KJV (46) Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. (47) For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. (48) And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (49) And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. (50) But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts. (51) But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium. (52) And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost. ____________________________
James, what made you think the centurion of Matthew 27:54 was Cornelius?
"I haven't followed this thread at all, but glancing at a couple of posts it does look like there is the normal dissent, judgment and legalism. As you know, I used to and still do get deeply involved with the BG controversy. Some are making it a litmus test of salvation? Anyway, I have been saved for 39 years and for the first 30 I was a BG fan. Now some would say that meant I wasn't saved during that time?"from the 'beth moore's beliefs on homosexuality' thread 6/28/19 1:24 pm. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From the 'unearthed in Rome's new subway' thread, 1/1/18 1:12 pm thread response, "I like Observer go a long way back with JohnUK. For years we exchanged thoughts like true brothers in Christ. I used to defend him when he was falsely attacked and he did likewise. He and I addressed each other as fellow pilgrims and I truly believed we were on the same page.
Now of course, that relationship is for all practical aspects null and void. I cannot fellowship with anyone who promotes the Grahams and especially someone who gives credence to a female mystic. Everyone draws lines in the sand and he has crossed my lines."
It went from being a huge deal to no big deal...many love the praises of men more than the Lord of glory.
Mike wrote: Hi John, which "saved" might we suppose Cornelius experienced per Acts 11:14-17?
Hi Mike, IMHO it is this sort of saved:---
Saved by the blood of the Crucified One! Now ransomed from sin and a new work begun, Sing praise to the Father and praise to the Son, Saved by the blood of the Crucified One!
Refrain: Saved! saved! My sins are all pardoned, my guilt is all gone! Saved! saved! I am saved by the blood of the Crucified One!
Saved by the blood of the Crucified One! The angels rejoicing because it is done; A child of the Father, joint-heir with the Son, Saved by the blood of the Crucified One!
Saved by the blood of the Crucified One! The Father, He spake, and His will, it was done; Great price of my pardon, His own precious Son; Saved by the blood of the Crucified One!
Saved by the blood of the Crucified One! All hail to the Father, all hail to the Son, All hail to the Spirit, the great Three in One! Saved by the blood of the Crucified One!
Saved, Saved, Saved, Saved, Saved!!
Nothing compares to getting saved!
Isaiah 45:22 KJV (22) Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
Since the word "saved" is not used in the OT in the sense of spiritual salvation except as an expectation (e.g. Isaiah 45:17, Isaiah 45:22 etc.), does that mean that OT believers weren't "saved"?
Christopher000 wrote: 1. Thanks for the input, everyone...appreciate it. 2. I'll be reading through everything a second time. 3. Sure is amazing how some topics are viewed so differently.
1. You're welcome, Christopher.
2. Good plan.
3. It is amazing, and the reason is because some people have got their doctrine upside down.
Hey Chris, In the case of Cornelius, he was not a Jew. He was not of any of the 12 tribes. So He was outside the house of Jacob. So that in essence would make him and his group strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.
Interestingly enough, Back when Moses left Egypt, some "strangers" came along in addition to the Hebrews out of Egypt which God said to Love and not to oppress them.
Deut. 1:16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
And God loved them and instructed the Hebrews to do just the same.
Deut 10:18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Thanks for providing the short version stranger. stranger
Christopher000 wrote: James Wrote: "I've read through most of the posts but I haven't seen anyone mention that Cornelius possibly was a "stranger"?" Hi James, I don't understand...a stranger in the land? A stranger to those who were with him?
A stranger to the commonwealth of Israel. Not of the seed of Jacob.
Christopher000 wrote: When I said, "Sure is amazing...", it was because the same exact Bible is used to arrive at those differing views.
It is always important to read passages in their immediate and wider contexts, to compare scripture with scripture, to let the plain explain the obscure, to let the NT inform our reading of the OT, to not build doctrine on vague types and parables, and to keep with the analogy of faith viz. appreciate that the bible does not contradict itself and therefore if two passages appear contradictory or a passage appears to contradict a doctrine that is plainly taught elsewhere then the fault is in our understanding, not in the bible etc.
Sadly most Christians, whether they accept the accusation or not, read the bible begrudgingly as a duty and therefore they read it hurriedly, patchily, and superficially. They park their brains for short cut devotional lessons and proof texts. They grow up reading it like that and never get out of the habit.
On forums like this the above becomes very evident, and for the casual reader that can be very confusing.
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
stranger
