(Originally posted on June 5, 2008)
What I loved from Robert Morey's " A Few Thoughts On Apostasy"
I read this blog entry today and was struck at how right on Robert Morey is. MAN, I'm loving this guy's boldness! He sees what I see and he's a straight shooter like me. BRING IT ON brother!!!
What I loved from Robert Morey's "A Few Thoughts on Apostasy" My only hurdle is to choose which parts to post...they're all really GOOD. I suggest you just go read the whole thing. Its short, but loaded with truth and boldness. And we can all use that more as the days grow dark. I've added just a couple of comments in brackets and italics. ~Denise
Quote:
The question of whether we should question the salvation experience of those who teach false doctrine is an important question that is increasingly an issue today. The moment you question the salvation of anyone, you are attacked on every hand as being mean. Yet, those who condemn us for doing so have never dealt with the following questions.
1. Did Jesus question the salvation of the religious leaders and teachers of his day?
2. Did he call them names and heap ridicule on them?
3. Was He right or wrong to do so?
4. Was He mean and unloving?
5. Should we follow his example and walk as he walked?
6. Did Jesus tell us to judge some people to be false prophets, dogs, and pigs?
7. Did Paul follow the example of Jesus and cast doubt on the salvation of people in the church who claimed to be “brothers?”
8. Did he call them names and heap ridicule on them?
9. Did Paul call some professing Christians “false brethren?”
10. Did he tell us to follow him as he followed Christ?
11. Did John, the Apostle of Love, tell us to question the profession of salvation made people?
12. Did Peter cast doubt on the conversion of professing Christians in his day?
13. What did he say to Simon in Acts 8?
These questions help us to frame the issue of whether we should, at this time, in the light of their recent teachings, question the salvation of J. P. Moreland, William Craig, and their disciples. Given what they are now teaching, we must put a huge question mark over their head. Frank Beckwith is a good example. He was not thrilled when I cast doubt on his salvation. But now that I have been 100% vindicated by his apostasy to popery, my doubts and warnings were right on target.
When I was Chairman of the membership committee of the ETS, I often doubted the salvation of such men as Gundry, Pinnock, etc. who denied the inerrancy of Scripture. They were offended when I told them that I did NOT accept them as fellow Christians. I have always been open and honest about such things. I told Frankie Schaeffer on a radio program several years ago that he was apostate and on his way to hell. He got all offended that I refused to accept him as a Christian. But now that he openly rejects the gospel and has joined the Orthodox cult, I have been vindicated 100%.
The main problem is that many religious leaders today say one thing and teach another. If you ask Gregory Boyd or the other “Open View of God” heretics if they believe in the “omniscience” of God, they will say, “Yes.” Dumb Christians are satisfied at this point and go their merry way deceived and hoodwinked. But if you force them to define the term “omniscience,” they end up denying that God knows all things! They claim that God does not and cannot know the future.
Just because someone says, “I believe in sola scriptura,” does not mean he really believes in it. If he elsewhere says that the Bible is not the final authority in faith and practice, he has denied in substance what he supposedly affirmed as a slogan. Heretics have always done this. What they affirm with the right hand is what they deny with the left hand. It does not matter what doctrine is at stake.
a. In the early 1980s, those who denied the inerrancy of Scripture did not begin by openly denying it. They redefined it until the term “inerrancy” meant errors! [Sounds like Reclaiming The Mind's Michael Patton to me]
b. Those who deny the ontological deity of Christ try to deceive people at first by pretending they do believe in the deity of Christ. It is only upon careful questioning that the truth comes out. [I've been called an Inquistionist for questioning someone who's sounding very strange in doctrine and gives me red flags all over the place.]They only accept a functional meaning of the deity of Christ in that he functioned as a revelation of God, just as the heavens do. But they deny that Jesus was ontologically GOD as well as man.
c. Those who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ often pretend to believe in it by tricky words and double talk. Believe me; I have heard some slick theologians in my day! [No kidding! I have too...by Matt Slick. His twist is that if a person just doesn't know about the resurrection, then they are still saved, but if the person rejects the resurrection then they are not saved. This is word play and he's been caught red-handed by many people online. He still holds to this view, after all he didn't know Jesus was "physically resurrected for two years after he was saved" Scroll down to Surphing # 3 paragraph C for one instance.]
Apostasy in Scripture is of two kinds: doctrinal and moral.
A heretic can be a good person who is very moral. Yet, he can also be an anti-Christ. The monk Pelagius was according to all a good man, morally speaking. Thus when I point out some teacher as a heretic, evanjellyfish usually respond, “But he is sooo nice! He is a good man. How dare you attack him!”
They assume that heretics are always mean and vile. A nice heretic who says that right phrases and theological clichés cannot be a heretic in their mind.The problem with heretics who are “nice” is that we tend to let them get away with the most outrageous teaching because they seem to be so nice...
I hope these words are not twisted to mean I think I can judge their hearts. That is something only God can do.
But I am bound by the Word of God to judge their theology.
I can do no other.
Robert Morey
End Quote.
Upon reading about the defection of Evangelical Theological Society's president, Dr. Frank Beckwith to Rome, his resume screamed WARNING! Did anyone see this besides Morey?
Reclaiming The Mind's "Converse With A Scholar" ministry (founder is Michael Patton), offered Beckwith on their program online on February 28, 2008. I wonder if this is why Patton was all over the map on the RCC, basically defending it in his unsure, "irenic" yet unbiblical way, in his interview with James White on The Dividing Line:
James White: An RCer rejecting sola fide, as Rome has not only denied but taught works, does that person have eternal life?
Patton: I would say yes they do, but they have a much harder, like the Corinthians. They were polytheist Christians (hear it at time marker 1:15:40). They need the full gospel. They can, though. I'm not saying anybody does.
Unquote.
It has long been my view that those who turn the Narrow Road into the Broad Road do so because they have a loved one or a friend who's lost and they rather have him or her on the way to heaven, so they make the road broader than what Scripture says it is. Indeed, this may be the case here.
I've also realized that those who are huge readers of men's books and are at the higher levels of academia are some of the most liberal-infested minds around, including the Reformed schools. It is because they are exposed to error so much, just to be "fair and balance" that they end up swallowing the lies. Look at the authors Frank Beckwith has cozied up with: W.L. Craig = Open Theist; JP Moreland says some Evangelicals are "over committed to Scripture"; Koukl says Scripture isn't sufficient, we need other things like the wisdom of Pagans and psychology. These men are attacking Scripture.
Let's not forget it was the Evangelical Theological Society that aided and abetted Open Theists Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders. So WISE were the scholars of the ETS that they never could get enough votes to throw them out of their affluent little group. I have NO patience for such garbage as ETS. It needs to be destroyed, never to be heard of again. Truly.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
2Co 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 2Co 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 2Co 10:6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
11. Did John, the Apostle of Love, tell us to question the profession of salvation made people?
12. Did Peter cast doubt on the conversion of professing Christians in his day?
13. What did he say to Simon in Acts 8?
These questions help us to frame the issue of whether we should, at this time, in the light of their recent teachings, question the salvation of J. P. Moreland, William Craig, and their disciples. Given what they are now teaching, we must put a huge question mark over their head. Frank Beckwith is a good example. He was not thrilled when I cast doubt on his salvation. But now that I have been 100% vindicated by his apostasy to popery, my doubts and warnings were right on target.
When I was Chairman of the membership committee of the ETS, I often doubted the salvation of such men as Gundry, Pinnock, etc. who denied the inerrancy of Scripture. They were offended when I told them that I did NOT accept them as fellow Christians. I have always been open and honest about such things. I told Frankie Schaeffer on a radio program several years ago that he was apostate and on his way to hell. He got all offended that I refused to accept him as a Christian. But now that he openly rejects the gospel and has joined the Orthodox cult, I have been vindicated 100%.
The main problem is that many religious leaders today say one thing and teach another. If you ask Gregory Boyd or the other “Open View of God” heretics if they believe in the “omniscience” of God, they will say, “Yes.” Dumb Christians are satisfied at this point and go their merry way deceived and hoodwinked. But if you force them to define the term “omniscience,” they end up denying that God knows all things! They claim that God does not and cannot know the future.
Just because someone says, “I believe in sola scriptura,” does not mean he really believes in it. If he elsewhere says that the Bible is not the final authority in faith and practice, he has denied in substance what he supposedly affirmed as a slogan. Heretics have always done this. What they affirm with the right hand is what they deny with the left hand. It does not matter what doctrine is at stake.
a. In the early 1980s, those who denied the inerrancy of Scripture did not begin by openly denying it. They redefined it until the term “inerrancy” meant errors! [Sounds like Reclaiming The Mind's Michael Patton to me]
b. Those who deny the ontological deity of Christ try to deceive people at first by pretending they do believe in the deity of Christ. It is only upon careful questioning that the truth comes out. [I've been called an Inquistionist for questioning someone who's sounding very strange in doctrine and gives me red flags all over the place.]They only accept a functional meaning of the deity of Christ in that he functioned as a revelation of God, just as the heavens do. But they deny that Jesus was ontologically GOD as well as man.
c. Those who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ often pretend to believe in it by tricky words and double talk. Believe me; I have heard some slick theologians in my day! [No kidding! I have too...by Matt Slick. His twist is that if a person just doesn't know about the resurrection, then they are still saved, but if the person rejects the resurrection then they are not saved. This is word play and he's been caught red-handed by many people online. He still holds to this view, after all he didn't know Jesus was "physically resurrected for two years after he was saved" Scroll down to Surphing # 3 paragraph C for one instance.]
Apostasy in Scripture is of two kinds: doctrinal and moral.
A heretic can be a good person who is very moral. Yet, he can also be an anti-Christ. The monk Pelagius was according to all a good man, morally speaking. Thus when I point out some teacher as a heretic, evanjellyfish usually respond, “But he is sooo nice! He is a good man. How dare you attack him!”
They assume that heretics are always mean and vile. A nice heretic who says that right phrases and theological clichés cannot be a heretic in their mind.The problem with heretics who are “nice” is that we tend to let them get away with the most outrageous teaching because they seem to be so nice...
I hope these words are not twisted to mean I think I can judge their hearts. That is something only God can do.
But I am bound by the Word of God to judge their theology.
I can do no other.
Robert Morey
End Quote.
Upon reading about the defection of Evangelical Theological Society's president, Dr. Frank Beckwith to Rome, his resume screamed WARNING! Did anyone see this besides Morey?
Reclaiming The Mind's "Converse With A Scholar" ministry (founder is Michael Patton), offered Beckwith on their program online on February 28, 2008. I wonder if this is why Patton was all over the map on the RCC, basically defending it in his unsure, "irenic" yet unbiblical way, in his interview with James White on The Dividing Line:
James White: An RCer rejecting sola fide, as Rome has not only denied but taught works, does that person have eternal life?
Patton: I would say yes they do, but they have a much harder, like the Corinthians. They were polytheist Christians (hear it at time marker 1:15:40). They need the full gospel. They can, though. I'm not saying anybody does.
Unquote.
It has long been my view that those who turn the Narrow Road into the Broad Road do so because they have a loved one or a friend who's lost and they rather have him or her on the way to heaven, so they make the road broader than what Scripture says it is. Indeed, this may be the case here.
I've also realized that those who are huge readers of men's books and are at the higher levels of academia are some of the most liberal-infested minds around, including the Reformed schools. It is because they are exposed to error so much, just to be "fair and balance" that they end up swallowing the lies. Look at the authors Frank Beckwith has cozied up with: W.L. Craig = Open Theist; JP Moreland says some Evangelicals are "over committed to Scripture"; Koukl says Scripture isn't sufficient, we need other things like the wisdom of Pagans and psychology. These men are attacking Scripture.
Let's not forget it was the Evangelical Theological Society that aided and abetted Open Theists Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders. So WISE were the scholars of the ETS that they never could get enough votes to throw them out of their affluent little group. I have NO patience for such garbage as ETS. It needs to be destroyed, never to be heard of again. Truly.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
2Co 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 2Co 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 2Co 10:6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
6 comments:
"A heretic can be a good person who is very moral. Yet, he can also be an anti-Christ. The monk Pelagius was according to all a good man, morally speaking. Thus when I point out some teacher as a heretic, evanjellyfish usually respond, “But he is sooo nice! He is a good man. How dare you attack him!”"
Here is where you have pulled what the kids call an epic fail.
Pelagius wasn't some nice guy. He was a moralist. He wanted to convince Christians in the belly of the beast (Rome) to stop being adultering scumbags like Augustine and his ilk and to live right according to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And so the bottom feeders (Jerome and Augustine) opposed him because he opposed their degenerate lifestyle.
Today, we have nice guys who want to kiss up to the perverts and homosexuals, to say "Lets not judge" and all this. That Pelagius was not. In fact, Augustine and Jerome were of that sort...although they weren't nice.
James,
That was Dr. Robert Morey's comments. I think you missed his point: you can be a "good" person and yet still be a heretic, since heretics can seem good but their doctrines are those of demons. Morey's point is just that: a a false teacher can be a moralist but is lost b/c he has no saving faith in Jesus Christ.
James,
You might be interested in this from Faith Defenders (Morey's website):
"Roman Catholic moralism is nothing new. They have been at it for a long time. So swift is the Romanist transition from “good morality” being the result of the gospel to “good morality” being the gospel, that one hardly notices that the gospel was ever anything else. Equally as swift is the transition from “the gospel” being the message of the Church, to the Roman Catholic religion being “the gospel.” Kreeft is facile, fluent, slick and smooth; but he is not Christian."
~ http://www.faithdefenders.com/book-reviews/ecumenical-jihad-zins.html
So you can see he knows about moralism--and so when he says Pelagius was "according to all a good man", that's the same as saying he was a mere moralist. The world calls such a one as "good" (well now all manner of evil is also called "good" now). I trust you see what I'm saying.
You don't understand at all what I'm saying. Pelagius taught that belief in Christ and baptism are necessary for salvation, and that grace begins at baptism (before this, everything was merely by freewill) when the Holy Spirit is received. But once someone believed in Christ and was baptized, he moved on to teaching Christians to live right, unlike so many who just at the spot wallowing in sin and praising the power of sin as the most powerful thing in the universe. The modern Protestant 'gospel' is that sin is allpowerful and can never be overcome, so they just wallow in it. They don't know the passage "I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me" like Pelagius did, and therefore in reality, they are the heretics, which is why they can't live right to save their souls.
As for sin being "all powerful", you miss the teaching of Scripture that states:
We deal with our sin until we are no longer in this body. 1John 1-2, Rom. 6-7 clearly teach this.
The reality of sin in our lives is why Jesus Christ is our Advocate before the Father. 1John 2.
The reality of our sin keeps us humble before God b/c we realize and mourn over our sin, even in "little" areas and are grieved over them and we must then humbly confess them to God. (Matt. 5, 1JOhn 1-2)
The New Testament clearly commands Christians how to deal with their sin because sin remains a reality until we go to be with the Lord.(Gal. 6, 1John, Eph. 4-5 etc.--too numerous to list here).
You misunderstand grace, too. Grace doesn't ignore sin; it recognizes sin and therefore causes a believer to be humbled before the thrice Holy God when He reveals their sin to them; having been paid for fully by Jesus at the cross. Grace is never an excuse for sin: it's given because of our sin. True grace is humbling. And grace is given precisely because we ARE sinners.
You are clearly mixing up Justification with Sanctification.
Justification is when God declares a sinner to be righteous by applying the holiness of Christ to their account as if they were sinless, because Jesus took all the sin of that person and died for them once for all time on the Cross. It's the Great Exchange.
Sanctification is the process by which God works in the believer to make them more and more Christlike. Phil. 2:12-13, 2Peter 3:18. Sanctification by nature reconizes the sin nature in a believer that needs to be dealt with continually. That's why there are commands throughout the NT to the believer on how to deal with sin. Church discipline also is a function of dealing with the unrepentant sin of a church member (see Matt. 18).
Sinless perfectionism is one of the most heinous doctrines of demons around. It does nothing but promote pride and redefine sin so that a person can claim they have "overcome sin" when the reality is that they are steeped in it. That's exactly what the Pharisees did.
Pelagius was the heretic b/c he held to a works "gospel" which could not save. He was full of pride and error.
Scripture clearly states that all men are sinners and have nothing good in us. We are unable to match the holiness of God, which is necessary to get into Heaven. We need the righteousness of Another: God Himself. When we trust in the Person and work of the risen Lord Jesus Christ, His righteousness is imputed to us, just as our unrighteousness was imputed to Him on the cross. The Great Exchange. That's why Jesus had to take on flesh, in order to shed His blood, once for all time, for all whom He died for.
Baptism never saved a soul. Scripture proclaims a believer's baptism--its not done in order to get saved but as the result of being saved and serving a New Master and obeying His Command.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
The Holy Spirit seals a person when they believe and trust fully in the Jesus of the Bible:
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Baptism has nothing to do with this at all. In fact there were people in Acts who were saved yet had not been baptized.
I suggest you spend time in Is. 6, Romans, Proverbs, and Hebrews.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
You should mourn over your sin--from evil, impure thoughts, to wrong attitudes, to not loving God with ALL of your heart,mind, soul, and strength, to idols of the the heart (and in worship if you are RCC), to holding on to your deeds as if they save you. Scripture will cut your heart like a knife by showing you the sin still in you.
Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
Post a Comment