Thursday, June 05, 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 "A Few Thoughts on Apostasy" by Robert Morey

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? “He that says, “I know him” but ….”
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.

AMEN!

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.

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.

No comments: